31:
893:
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
497:
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
152:
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
439:
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.
105:
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?
686:!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
728:
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!
753:
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.
307:
926:
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.
144:
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
160:
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
228:. 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.
502:
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!
297:
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
303:
476:
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).
1038:
843:
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
140:
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
163:
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.
55:
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
826:
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
1000:
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.
703:? 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
844:
581:
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
682:
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
125:
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.
750:
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.
72:
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.
907:
I can make some specific criticisms of the early one. I would add a link to the specific guideline that says the ambiguous title
815:
236:
330:
Thanks, that gives the reader some background. Although you've linked to another relevant part of the same page, I think
653:, this is just a gentle reminder of the 4th bullet point under "When participating, please consider the following:" at
994:
827:
631:
I can argue it both ways, but on balance I think it's better. As I said in reply, discussion really belongs in the
193:
I may add something similar when the discussion goes live, but I think it's better left out of the proposal itself.
336:
The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term.
779:
740:
668:
242:
555:
proposed move, and seek consensus on that, not predicting either way how the foreshadowed second RM will go.
860:
678:
That's a good point. I want to give others the option of co-nominating. And the instruction on not !voting
41:
872:
835:
771:
732:
660:
257:
224:
That's certainly brief and to the point. I like the emphasis on providing the best destination for
537:
As I said in reply there, I think that this is the most important single issue in framing this RM.
864:
37:
334:
is also worth adding. That has the clearest statement I've seen in an established policy that
1046:
1023:
1005:
980:
955:
932:
916:
876:
856:
819:
759:
716:
640:
609:
567:
508:
445:
373:
331:
315:
210:
168:
111:
77:
17:
950:
the RfC, and removing the bullet points. I don't think it's an improvement. Other comments?
868:
848:
590:
414:
347:
265:
831:
246:
725:
Yes, I'm not all that big on nominator exclusion either – just wanted you to be prepared.
1050:
1027:
1009:
984:
959:
936:
920:
783:
763:
744:
720:
672:
644:
613:
594:
571:
512:
449:
418:
377:
351:
319:
269:
214:
172:
115:
81:
852:
540:
I think the balance is about right here already. Interested in other views of course.
91:
This page was only intended as a braindump to help me to comment on the proposal that
823:
56:
1042:
1019:
1001:
976:
951:
928:
912:
886:
755:
712:
654:
650:
636:
605:
563:
504:
441:
369:
364:
But is that applicable to this move? We are not basing our argument on there being
311:
206:
164:
107:
73:
900:
Both of these points could be incorporated into my draft, but interested to see
625:
586:
582:
410:
343:
308:
Knowledge:List of New York City and New York State move discussion page sections
276:
261:
201:
I'm of two minds on this but think on balance it should be part of the proposal.
63:
as proposers. Existing signatures would be removed and replaced by fresh ones.
822:
cannot be the primary topic for the term "New York", due to the prominence of
394:
Fair enough. Personally I'm neutral on whether NYC is PT. I don't think I'd
198:
The section foreshadowing a further RM on PT has been moved to the rationale.
975:
suggestion yet that I haven't adopted into the current version of the draft.
59:, and as many as are willing (and who agree 100% with the rationale) sign to
499:
901:
92:
66:
657:. A nominator is asked to refrain from a bulleted "Support" rationale.
859:
as a destination title. The change will ease navigation and search for
155:
refers to the first. It is more logical for it to therefore follow it.
182:
On reflection I have removed all content from the discussion section.
135:
comes before the second because the second refers back to the first.
95:
is preparing when it emerges... part of my homework while waiting.
69:, does this help? Does it look at all like what you have in mind?
304:
Category:New York City and New York State move discussion pages
25:
1039:
User talk:Andrewa/Things to discuss during the NYRM July 2017
142:
comes first because readers are our bottom line. The second
968:
was an improvement, but not the bullet point removal IMO.
401:
the subtlety that one can advocate a dab in preference to
995:
Talk:New York/Proposed move#Another reason to think about
534:
and the discussion that led to it are very relevant IMO.
863:, and will bring consistency with similar cases such as
260:
handy as a cheat sheet for when the opposition arrives.
1015:
965:
943:
896:
804:
700:
629:
601:
531:
473:
289:
280:
199:
191:
187:
99:
368:, because if we do, we lose some significant support.
128:
The main section is of course the rationale itself.
904:'s latest draft before doing any more work on mine.
547:the claim that NYC is the PT. This RM should claim
302:arguments. That's most of the reason I created
543:My conviction is that we as nominators should
799:Bullet points and explicit mention of the RfC
635:section, but realistically this is unlikely.
8:
971:The removal of the bullet points is now the
845:July 2016 discussion on preferred qualifiers
1037:I've started a personal cheatsheet, see
911:. I'd also tidy up some of the grammar.
624:I have added these on the suggestion of
409:without necessarily opposing NYC as PT.
147:is about editors, not readers directly.
807:(unfortunately a redlink in the post):
842:
813:
335:
40:, where sanity finally prevailed, and
150:As stated above, the second argument
7:
655:WP:RM#Commenting in a requested move
138:Within this, the first bullet point
847:has shown overwhelming support for
551:that Knowledge will be improved by
102:turned out exceptionally well IMO.
699:What do you (and others) think of
288:The second may be also covered by
24:
1033:Things to discuss during the NYRM
838:and a bunch of eponymous cities.
29:
283:the first exactly as suggested.
366:no primary topic for that term
254:Refutation of counterarguments
133:1. Improved reader experience.
44:. Kept for historical reasons.
1:
990:Another reason to think about
190:has been removed completely.
707:section. I think that's as
620:Support and Oppose sections
1066:
997:makes an excellent point.
828:New York metropolitan area
545:neither support nor oppose
290:wikilinks I've been adding
252:We can manage without the
241:Brief quote or summary of
572:23:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
378:09:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
352:08:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
320:00:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
270:00:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
231:I would consider adding:
220:Things to consider adding
215:18:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
116:18:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
82:01:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
1051:21:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1028:21:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1010:21:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
985:22:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
960:21:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
937:23:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
921:17:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
784:18:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
764:13:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
745:10:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
721:05:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
673:13:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
645:02:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
614:02:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
595:00:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
513:16:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
450:03:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
419:00:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
292:. What do you think now?
173:04:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
818:has concluded that the
256:section but I'll keep
178:The discussion section
121:Order of the arguments
527:Focus, balance and PT
42:User:Andrewa/NYRM2018
873:Georgia (U.S. state)
836:Province of New York
768:Ditto, definitely.
558:And I think this is
340:Foo (disambiguation)
188:section on Condorcet
1014:Couldn't resist...
964:On reflection, the
131:The first argument
865:Washington (state)
711:as I can make it.
275:Both good points,
158:The final section
877:Georgia (country)
857:State of New York
834:, the historical
820:State of New York
786:
781:
747:
742:
675:
670:
243:WP:Disambiguation
48:
47:
18:User talk:Andrewa
1057:
869:Washington, D.C.
849:New York (state)
782:
778:
774:
743:
739:
735:
671:
667:
663:
323:
322:
33:
32:
26:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1035:
992:
894:the key points!
832:New York County
816:August 2016 RfC
801:
773:Paine Ellsworth
772:
734:Paine Ellsworth
733:
690:bad assumption.
662:Paine Ellsworth
661:
622:
579:
529:
222:
180:
123:
89:
53:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1063:
1061:
1034:
1031:
991:
988:
940:
939:
909:cannot be used
884:
883:
882:
881:
853:New York State
840:
800:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
751:
726:
694:
693:
692:
691:
684:support as nom
680:support as nom
621:
618:
617:
616:
578:
575:
528:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
357:
356:
355:
354:
325:
324:
294:
293:
285:
284:
250:
249:
239:
221:
218:
203:
202:
195:
194:
179:
176:
122:
119:
88:
85:
52:
49:
46:
45:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1062:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1032:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1003:
998:
996:
989:
987:
986:
982:
978:
974:
969:
967:
962:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
938:
934:
930:
925:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
910:
905:
903:
898:
897:
895:
890:
888:
880:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
841:
839:
837:
833:
829:
825:
824:New York City
821:
817:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
806:
803:Referring to
798:
785:
780:
777:
776:
775:
767:
766:
765:
761:
757:
752:
749:
748:
746:
741:
738:
737:
736:
727:
724:
723:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
695:
689:
685:
681:
677:
676:
674:
669:
666:
665:
664:
656:
652:
649:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
627:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
584:
576:
574:
573:
569:
565:
561:
556:
554:
550:
546:
541:
538:
535:
533:
526:
514:
510:
506:
501:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
475:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
451:
447:
443:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:New York City
404:
400:
397:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
328:
327:
326:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
296:
295:
291:
287:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
248:
244:
240:
238:
234:
233:
232:
229:
227:
219:
217:
216:
212:
208:
200:
197:
196:
192:
189:
185:
184:
183:
177:
175:
174:
170:
166:
162:
156:
154:
148:
146:
141:
136:
134:
129:
126:
120:
118:
117:
113:
109:
103:
101:
96:
94:
86:
84:
83:
79:
75:
70:
68:
64:
62:
58:
57:talk:New York
50:
43:
39:
36:Obsoleted by
35:
28:
27:
19:
1036:
1013:
999:
993:
972:
970:
963:
947:
941:
908:
906:
899:
892:
891:
885:
802:
770:
769:
731:
730:
708:
704:
701:this version
687:
683:
679:
659:
658:
632:
623:
600:Good point.
580:
559:
557:
552:
548:
544:
542:
539:
536:
530:
406:
402:
398:
395:
365:
339:
299:
253:
251:
230:
225:
223:
204:
181:
159:
157:
151:
149:
145:encyclopedia
143:
139:
137:
132:
130:
127:
124:
104:
100:this section
97:
90:
71:
65:
60:
54:
51:Where to now
966:RfC mention
562:important.
472:Agree that
399:appreciated
342:qualifier.
805:this draft
705:Discussion
633:Discussion
583:neverendum
577:Moratorium
396:appreciate
338:, i.e. no
332:WP:DABNAME
258:my attempt
205:Comments?
889:observed
532:This edit
500:Condorcet
474:this edit
279:. I have
87:Rationale
1016:added it
944:had a go
403:New York
281:actioned
247:WP:ATDAB
235:Link to
226:New York
38:NYRM2017
1043:Andrewa
1020:Andrewa
1002:Andrewa
977:Andrewa
952:Andrewa
946:at not
942:I have
929:Andrewa
913:Andrewa
887:Amakuru
861:readers
756:Andrewa
713:Andrewa
709:vanilla
651:Andrewa
637:Andrewa
606:Andrewa
564:Andrewa
505:Andrewa
442:Andrewa
370:Andrewa
312:Andrewa
207:Andrewa
165:Andrewa
153:above.)
108:Andrewa
74:Andrewa
61:support
948:hiding
626:BD2412
587:Certes
411:Certes
344:Certes
300:oppose
277:Certes
262:Certes
237:PT RFC
161:issue
16:<
1047:talk
1024:talk
1006:talk
981:talk
973:only
956:talk
933:talk
917:talk
871:and
760:talk
717:talk
688:very
641:talk
610:talk
602:Done
591:talk
568:talk
560:very
553:this
549:only
509:talk
446:talk
415:talk
374:talk
348:talk
316:talk
306:and
266:talk
245:and
211:talk
186:The
169:talk
112:talk
98:But
78:talk
902:JFG
875:vs
867:vs
855:or
851:vs
814:An
93:JFG
67:JFG
1049:)
1041:.
1026:)
1018:.
1008:)
983:)
958:)
935:)
919:)
830:,
762:)
719:)
643:)
628:.
612:)
604:.
593:)
585:.
570:)
511:)
448:)
417:)
405:→
376:)
350:)
318:)
310:.
268:)
213:)
171:)
114:)
80:)
1045:(
1022:(
1004:(
979:(
954:(
931:(
915:(
879:.
758:(
715:(
639:(
608:(
589:(
566:(
507:(
444:(
413:(
372:(
346:(
314:(
264:(
209:(
167:(
110:(
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.