2502:" And you did it on this page at a time when I told you I was going to be offline for a while, thinking it would be a longer while and that you could do this unnoticed. Did you really think that I and others wouldn't catch this? What you've effectively done, I strongly believe, is to engage in corruption and conspiracy. User:JFG is complicit in this. I cannot believe that you both would actually try to stop an argument from being rendered and presented to other editors to be adjudicated on its own merits. I've lost respect for you as an administrator, and now even respect for the position itself. Admins are supposed to set exemplary role models for behavior on Knowledge, at least I thought as much. I believe that you should resign your position as an administrator immediately or have it forcibly stripped from you. I don't know if JFG is also an admin, but if so, he should endure the same sanction.
2696:, is there consensus for this deprecation flag to remain up on the essay page? I'm trying to avoid an edit war here. It was put up there without consensus in the first place. The discussion toward the bottom of this page suggests that various editors support elements of this evolving page with an evolving discussion, at the very least. (Several other editors expressed support for the concept on the "New York" move-related discussion pages as well.) How by definition can this page be deprecated then, especially when an editor placed the flag up without consensus in the first place (and I believe, successfully unnoticed by many (including myself))?
2310:"), not using this term per se, and that nothing stops one from trying to use it as a plausible factor toward building consensus. It's up to other editors to accept such reasoning or not, but one can't simply ban the use of an argument in trying to build consensus – that's ridiculous, and I would never abide by a dictatorially abusive (and silly) rule like that. The deprecation flag needs to come off, as it's already clear that this is an essay and not (yet) consensused policy.
1894:
primary objection, then they shouldn't have any problem at all with a policy that optionally acknowledges the reasonability of NYS being the primary topic for "New York" (and again, read the actual policy proposal on this essay page as written - "may be regarded" - it's actually very softly stated) – while at the same time exerting absolutely no effect on whether Sao Paulo city or state is primary, for example. Again, I want to emphasize the optionality of the concept.
2562:. It's up to other readers who may happen to see this to decide how to interpret these statements. I'm not interested in the least in policing your behavior as an admin. That's for you to maintain the proper integrity to do yourself. And obviously there's nothing to withdraw here, as this page is centrally connected to the matter. Asking me to withdraw such content amounts to a cover-up and subterfuge on its own, which I will not engage in.
22:
687:. Consensus has never favoured those or other moves predicated on HLJC, which means it's basically an invalid criterion and I oppose any move to make it one, partiucularly as this appears to be an attempt to influence a specific move request at New York that was recently closed. Pages for PTOPIC should be assessed on common usage, long term significance, and plausible search target only. Thanks —
81:
53:
145:
1757:
as a completely viable option? It appears that there is indeed significant support for HLJC, but that those who oppose it (and support a move) don't want it forced upon them. In other words, we could exercise the option of not mandating it, but making it a legitimate option. This would avoid exerting unintended domino effects upon other articles. I can't see a problem with this.
67:
2892:" without providing any further context as to whether the city or the state is meant. Quite often, such an assertion is unsourced, which is an issue all its own. However, I believe that as a matter of principle - this principle - if it is impossible to determine from the context whether the city is specifically intended, then it is permissible to link to the
2949:, for example, I'd consider it far more likely that the city was meant than the state, even if that is not obviously stated. (In those three cases the city resides at the primary topic, so they are somewhat different from New York). I agree with tagging the links though, and trying to get some clarity on what was meant. —
2675:
Time the essay was under construction, not marked: from 3 July to 13 August = 1 month and 10 days. Time between my deprecation notice and your first revert: from 13 August to 24 September = a month and 11 days. Looks pretty even. If you felt so strongly against the deprecation, you had plenty of time
2297:
has attempted discussion so far. I've left valid edit summaries and I've been offline for some time. JFG's initial deprecation flag was placed in August. Much has happened (and evolved) since then, rendering such deprecation (even further) invalid at this time. Everyone already knows that an essay is
934:
This criterion is highly supported by precedent on the township/village level. Where there are numerous townships that contain a tiny "village of" by the same name, it is impractical to disambiguate between people being "from" the township, or "from" the village contained therein. Usually there is no
1756:
The underlying, irreconciliable dilemma as I see it here seems to be culturally rooted and has schisms simply too wide and deep to bridge or eliminate. Therefore, just as
British English and American English co-exist peacefully in Knowledge, why not entertain the viable solution of adopting the HLJC
716:
seem to refuse to acknowledge the point that
Washington, D.C. is mutually exclusive of Washington State and that the nation of Georgia is mutually exclusive of the U.S. state of Georgia, almost as if this was never pointed out to you. If you read the premise of the article carefully, it specifically
2879:
We have been discussing this as a principle for article titles, but I would like to take a moment to discuss it as a principle for individual links. As you all know, I and other editors have been engaged in a weeks-long project to pipe all the links to "New York" through "New York (state)" in order
2611:
if you have not already done so. Following the indenting convention is quite simple really and very helpful, and most people do it without even needing to read the help page, as it reflects the standard threading convention used on most of the rest of the
Internet and comes naturally to most of us.
787:
I am indeed talking only about geopolitical subentities, which by definition will have less area of geography and less population than the inclusive whole. So this throws out previous discussions, which did not consider the premise of this feature being a critical component. HLJC (when defined this
1418:
etc. etc. etc. The "all things being equal" clause in the proposal does not help much – first, it is generally not easy to determine whether the common name of a "province de Foo" is "Foo", "Foo province" or "Province of Foo" in
English, as the usage depends on the context; second, what metrics of
601:
I'm skeptical that we will get consensus for it, but I think this should be tested... and the first step to that is getting a clear statement of what the principle really is, IMO. Nor am I convinced that it's any improvement on the existing criteria. But if we do get consensus that it's important
3054:
This also misses the point, see my reply to
Amaruku above. This application is to links, not to page names. The essay as it stands is purely about disambiguating page names. If we were to rewrite it as a more general principle, then it might be possible to gain some support for it. But unless I
1893:
consensus is what in fact inspired me to give this another, fresh look. People supporting a move of "New York" cite as their main reason that the longstanding status quo somehow violates
Knowledge policy of primary topic. (I disagree, but that's not the point here.) Well, if that's really their
3039:
If something applies "but only on an optional and individualized basis" then it's not much of a policy, is it. We already consider cases on their own merits across the Wiki, so we don't need a special essay to tell us to do that. And whether or not we apply it to the small number of ambiguous
394:
I would suggest that the primary rationale for HLJC is that the HLJ is not "wrong". If I say "Joe is from New York", and it happens that Joe is from New York City, then it is not wrong to say that Joe is from the state of New York, and not likely to cause confusion as to where Joe is from.
1442:
life of their own, they now supersede the contained cities within them and have taken over primary topic status at this point – for the simple reason that the larger administrative regions contain other geographic and humanly impacting attributes – as well as those aforementioned cities.
2030:
But I commend your desire to build consensus. My suggestion would be, rather than this rather vague and confusing proposal, see what the successful arguments were for the small towns and villages in the archived discussions linked to above. Then propose something along those lines.
2463:
An edit summary is no substitute for discussion. As I said, you haven't broken the bright line rule, but on the second revert it would be good to start a discussion on the talk page as JFG has done. The rest of that post could be summarised "I don't like it". We all know that.
1967:
As has been pointed out above by Diego, this proposal doesn't add anything helpful. The option of building consensus for following the HLJC in a particular case is already allowed, and it has been attempted in the case of New York, by yourself and a (very) few others, with no
1348:
topic of the two. The situation usually emerges when a traditional historical city, a regional center for hundreds of years, becomes a center of an new, eponymous administrative division carved out of the larger area surrounding it. Examples are not too difficult to find:
750:
I mention those cases because HLJ has been suggested several times as a motive for changing the status quo, or (in the case of
Washington) for retaining the previous status quo. Perhaps you are using the term only to refer to entities within another entity, but a look at
1465:
to pick words from a dictionary to write these posts (there are some computer programs that do this, developed for serious linguistic research but also fun to play with... and there have been some scandals of poetry written using them winning prizes, essays getting HDs,
2660:
No, the notice never had consensus in the first place. Somehow it slipped through the cracks unnoticed for a brief matter of weeks. I'm sure you as the creator of this essay didn't intend upon creating a essay just to be deprecated shortly thereafter, would you have?
2880:
to fix links intended to point to "New York City" (and, much less frequently, to a handful of other targets). So far we have fixed over 12,000 links that were clearly intended to point to the city, including links in text that literally said things like "the city of
860:, but in any case where it applies, the PTOPIC situation will also be obvious anyway. HLJC just makes no sense to me as a blanket policy that ignores the reality of what people are likely to be searching for (which is the ultimate goal of PTOPIC anyway). —
1204:
While I think we may be able to improve the exact wording, this seems to me to be a fairly clear test... the sort of clarity I have been seeking here and in the essay. It's a far easier test to apply than either of the existing primary topic tests of
3142:
at all despite the edit summary. It now reads as if this criterion had some explicit mention in the guidelines. The opposite is of course the case, so the essay is now quite misleading on this very important point. Not quite sure how to fix it.
3040:
incoming New York links, I remain opposed to any attempt to use this essay as a reason why we should or shouldn't move any pages connected with New York, Sao Paulo, or anywhere else. It remains very much a minority viewpoint essay. Thanks —
847:
by most research done on the subject, the largest city and largest metro area in the whole of the United States, seat of the United
Nations, etc. etc. but you reckon it's simply a sub-article of the state it resides in, and ranking alongside
2260:
I think that the notice is helpful and reasonable. Something like it is a very good idea, in view of the lack of support the HLJC has received and the strength of the past appeals to it. There is a significant risk of further such appeals.
717:
mandates that one entity must be a geopolitical subentity of another. HLJC indeed supports long-term significance by adding a level of timelessness to the equation, versus mere usage criteria which carries inherent volatility. And yes, we
2742:
There is a view that it's useful in very restricted circumstances, and even some evidence that it is already followed in these circumstances. This is real progress! But these circumstances are not yet described in the essay. They should
306:
547:
And to clarify my earlier statement on this Talk page, I believe that HLJC carries a higher level of significance than usage alone, as it carries an element of timelessness versus the element of volatility embodied by usage.
655:; and I'm sure other places as well are all "subentities" of "higher level jurisdictions" of the same names, but take primary topic because the urban centre is what people understand by the name. In other cases, such as
808:
among other legitimate criteria in determining primary status. That's what this discussion is about, not to cede HLJC supreme importance. I think that any reasonable person would agree with this common sense statement.
2490:". You were attempting to commit this act of subterfuge specifically to undermine the "New York" move-oppose side's resurrection of this after the end of the impending moratorium on the RM discussion for the base name
2351:". I'm actually flabbergasted that you (or anyone) would resort to anything nearly as reprehensible as this in specifically trying to undermine the move-oppose side's argument at the discussion regarding the base name
2328:
has offered some support for this above on this talk page, under the
Rationale section? And you want to deprecate this? That's beyond absurd. Really, that deprecation flag is destructive and needs to come down pronto.
638:
As I've said at the New York RM a couple of times, "Higher-Level
Jurisdiction" has been frequently used there and in other places, and in general over the years has been rejected as a valid criterion. In particular,
1197:
I believe that a true parent/progeny article relationship has been established when the parent articles forks off the progeny article as a main article in section, while the inverse would not make logical sense to
911:
As in ordinary speech, the term "New York" is ambiguous and needs disambiguation where context does not already accomplish this. There is absolutely no primacy of usage here; both meanings are extremely frequent.
2733:
I certainly didn't intend for it to be deprecated, but I think at this stage the notice we have is far better than nothing. There is AFAIK no consensus anywhere that it should be cited in move discussions.
190:
Other things being equal, where two geographical, political or judicial subject areas have the same name, and one is a subset of the other, the larger subject area should be regarded as the primary topic.
2896:, because it is still technically correct. Once the clearly unambiguous cases are addressed, I intend to pipe these ambiguous cases to the state, possibly with a tag requesting clarity and a source.
843:
Well I guess that I must not be a reasonable person then, because I don't agree with you :) As I see it, New York City is far more than just a region of New York state. It is the world's number one
1654:, including Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, etc. All of these would have to be changed to point to the county in which they are embedded were this standard to be accepted.
1312:
This shouldn't really need saying, but the population, economy, and culture of New York State is rather larger even than New York City, because the city is of course a subset of the state.
792:
all about population and human impact. Going further, if, as in the case of New York, the subentity is Wikipedically defined to be a progeny of the larger geopolitical jurisdiction, as
788:
way) also provides organizational structure. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, so geography also counts, even if much of it may be rural, mountainous, forested, or whatever else; it's
3073:
I think that this is a reasonable principle in some cases to apply to article titles, and in some cases to apply to links in articles. Of course, it needs some refinement to this end.
2415:
My opinion is that there are circumstances where a rule like this is useful, particularly where both jurisdictions are small and obscure. That is not an absolute restriction, however.
158:
2937:, and for New York it is more likely to be appropriate due to the fact that a lot of American Wikipedians probably would write "New York" for the state. For some other cases though,
2752:
There is also a possibility that we might rescope the essay to be about content instead of or as well as titles, but as it stands, it's purely about disambiguation of article titles.
3226:
980:
Should the HLJC page mention this concept? It seems very closely related and is not mentioned anywhere else in the project namespace as far as I can see. Exactly what is meant by a
125:
671:
there have been various attempts over the years to assert that due to "higher level jurisdiction" of a country compared to a US state, and also a US state compared to a city, that
2963:
I think this misses the point. This application of the principle is to links, not to page names. If for example a similar situation were to arise of an unreferenced link to
418:
The HLJC is valid for the above reason quoted by editor bd2412, again with the caveat that one geopolitical jurisdiction is a direct subset of another. But in the case of
3021:. It's obvious at the least here, however, from the discussion in this section and above, that there is no consensus (nor was there ever consensus) for this essay to be
800:, then my personal opinion is that HLJC really should trump all other factors, including the volatile metric of usage. The bigger point though here, Amakuru, is that
1889:
You seem to be very afraid of allowing this to even be an option. Why is that? (Especially when you were the one who started this essay article, lol!) My desire to
1497:
Please analyze your own remarks for intelligibility before castigating others' comments, Andrewa. And I'll request you once more, please stick to the topic at hand.
1784:
Nope, it would simply create an additional legitimate option. Nobody would be forced to use it in any given article, but the option becomes officially viable.
2495:
594:
There's something to be said for it, certainly. It makes sense. But it's not what we've agreed to do in the past. Maybe it's been done anyway, our practice
299:...this principle is widely used at the town/village level. In New York, for example, there are dozens of towns that contain a "village" of the same name...
3236:
2676:
to argue against the notice then, and/or to actually work with your fellow editors to improve the essay, which to this day remains unclear and unusable. —
1830:
And you don't think that would complicate things? Especially as one of our panel in the most recent New York RM has already speculated that we may have a
1557:
But that at least is against a background of many staff training days using this terminology (which have now also been renamed to avoid the acronym
3025:. That tag was apparently put up in August without consensus, but I only noticed it much more recently. I am going to remove that tag, therefore.
1549:
135:
2214:
in the long-winded debates about the meaning of "New York". As the discussion of this proposal petered out into impracticality (both here and at
1321:, this seems both another rationale for, and an application of, the HLJC, just in different language. Should it be mentioned on this page? How?
1098:
Yes, I believe that a true parent/progeny article relationship has been established when the parent articles forks off the progeny article as a
3200:
1730:
It's hard to see how this would improve things. It's likely to make consensus harder to achieve... Oh, I see. That's the whole idea, isn't it?
88:
935:
source providing a useful distinction. In every such case, a person "from" the village is also "from" the township encompassing the village.
1561:- no I'm not kidding). I've found some of the terminology in your posts so obscure that I have seriously wondered whether you were using a
1282:
797:
431:
434:
series, which in fact calls for the HLJC criterion to be actively invoked as to entitling the New York State article as "New York". Best,
419:
261:
804:, HLJC (again, defined to be present only when one geopolitical jurisdiction is a direct subentity of another) should be considered as
3231:
756:
97:
2765:, that section is highly misleading. Suggest you simply remove it. That would enhance the credibility of this essay a great deal!
1153:
bear a smilar relationship; note that the state, which may be less "famous" than the city subjectively, nevertheless contains the
2482:. You were actually trying to wipe out an entire argument (from Knowledge!) which you knew was gaining some powerful traction – "
1434:
In fact, you just gave it a new, full, long, prosperous life! You see, now that the larger geopolitical entities have taken on a
1154:
752:
1419:"all things equal" are editors supposed to apply when deciding on a title? Sorry, but I think that the proposal is a dead end.
1254:
602:
enough to outrank usage (even in certain restricted cases, say) then I'll certainly go along with this new naming convention.
1612:
1412:
3165:
rescope what is already a rather messy essay, and one that I think may be of historical interest, I've started a new one at
3123:
I have clarified it as such on the essay page. If you want to refine that clarification further, then feel free, of course.
2077:" Now it will be quoted as a nod toward a reasonable guideline usable toward building consensus in arguments going forward.
2516:
I request that you either pursue this allegation of my improper behaviour through the appropriate channels, or withdraw it.
1110:
article in this manner, but it would make no logical sense for the inverse to occur, and in fact, it does not do so. Best,
2853:
266:
66:
3017:. In fact, what Amakuru and BD2412 have stated here is precisely why HLJC should be moved beyond essay to policy status,
1216:
So, should it be added to the essay? How exactly? I may have a go when I get time, but other attempts welcome of course.
58:
33:
2888:
to Buffalo". Of the 15,000 remaining unaddressed links, many are ambiguous, stating that a person was born or died "in
1802:. That would imply convincing your fellow editors that such arrangement is an improvement to the encyclopedia, though.
3173:. This will I hope in time obsolete WP:HLJC, and may even become a guideline, which doesn't seem likely for the HLJC.
2811:
page gets enough support, could we instead tag this page as obsolete and of historical interest only? Two comments at
1935:
2228:
removed it and I reverted him. Happy to discuss whether this essay has indeed any chance of being adopted as a valid
759:
shows that some believe states are always primary over cities, and that countries are always primary over states. —
1651:
1799:
1475:
But parts of that post are quite unintelligible to me, as have been many others. Have any others had this feeling?
1158:
1608:
1340:
I think that the criterion is misguided, and therefore not useful at all in article title discussions. There are
101:
3212:
3182:
3152:
3118:
3088:
3068:
3049:
3034:
3007:
2958:
2929:
2911:
2869:
2846:
2824:
2792:
2774:
2718:
2705:
2680:
2670:
2654:
2629:
2589:
2571:
2549:
2511:
2473:
2452:
2430:
2410:
2390:
2364:
2338:
2319:
2285:
2240:
2195:
2176:
2136:
2086:
2040:
1903:
1868:
1811:
1793:
1771:
1739:
1724:
1690:
1672:
1645:
1595:
1506:
1484:
1452:
1428:
1330:
1294:
1242:
1225:
1170:
1119:
1081:
1030:
997:
950:
921:
902:
869:
818:
768:
730:
696:
611:
557:
518:
490:
465:
443:
410:
384:
367:
342:
318:
281:
248:
216:
2639:
The question still is, should we have a deprecation notice, and what should it say? The notice as it currently
2554:
Back online here. I think you are missing the point here. I am not "alleging" your conduct here. I am actually
1715:
it, but make it a legitimate option. This would avoid exerting unintended domino effects upon other articles.
1044:
2642:
stands applies to the essay, not to the wider application of the principle (which the essay does not cover).
1626:
2182:
It has broad support, if not consensus, so it is a valid point to discuss, support, and use in any argument
1462:
154:
852:
in importance and prestige, since both are regions of New York. The HLJC may apply for some cases, such as
185:
for just one example). This essay is the place to develop that. This talk page is the place to discuss it.
1424:
2343:
In fact, Andrewa, I cannot fathom that someone would resort to using underhanded tactics as the above, "
1636:
But at least now we know more clearly what the proposal is, and can discuss it rationally... sort of...
255:
39:
2167:
is just one recent example. It doesn't link to this page, perhaps for obvious reasons, but it should.
2780:
2613:
2370:
1807:
1703:
I think that one viable solution to put this discussion to rest for the future would be to adopt the
1366:
668:
330:
2710:
The problem with asserting that the notice was preserved because nobody noticed (hah!) is a case of
1625:
there is no way the electoral district would be the primary topic. Probably more people know of the
3128:
3030:
2788:
2701:
2666:
2567:
2507:
2488:
The option of building consensus for following the HLJC in a particular case is already allowed,...
2360:
2349:
The option of building consensus for following the HLJC in a particular case is already allowed,...
2334:
2315:
2257:
policy there is still some wiggle-room. I also note that only JFG has attempted discussion so far.
2191:
2082:
2075:
The option of building consensus for following the HLJC in a particular case is already allowed,...
1899:
1789:
1720:
1583:
1502:
1448:
1394:
1376:
1272:
1166:
1115:
1026:
814:
726:
553:
514:
439:
232:
228:
3170:
2812:
2711:
1544:
was the term I found puzzling in the last post. I've seen such phrasing in official documents...
917:
680:
660:
2484:
and the strength of the past appeals to it. There is a significant risk of further such appeals
2345:
and the strength of the past appeals to it. There is a significant risk of further such appeals
1281:
The suggestion hasn't been well received so far! It has however been included in the new RM at
3208:
3178:
3148:
3114:
3064:
3045:
3003:
2954:
2925:
2865:
2842:
2820:
2770:
2650:
2625:
2585:
2545:
2469:
2448:
2406:
2386:
2281:
2172:
2132:
2036:
1864:
1831:
1767:
1735:
1686:
1641:
1591:
1480:
1420:
1345:
1326:
1290:
1238:
1221:
1077:
1010:
993:
898:
865:
764:
709:
692:
672:
664:
648:
607:
486:
461:
380:
363:
338:
314:
277:
244:
212:
204:
2302:, you have yourself acknowledged on this page that HLJC has been used in certain instances ("
2163:
It astonishes me, but people are still appealing to the HLJC as if it had consensus support.
1271:
discussions that perhaps a useful compromise would be to have a broad concept article at the
3083:
2906:
2608:
2425:
1562:
1385:
1357:
945:
656:
405:
93:
2186:
consensus. It's a broad concept. Maybe you should create a broad-concept article for this!
889:, I'd be very interested in any previous discussions in which the HLJC has been explicitly
2714:: it may well be that everybody noticed and silently agreed, or even that nobody cares. —
1803:
1655:
1161:, and other notable geographical and metropolitan features – in addition to Sydney. Best,
1150:
595:
96:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
893:. But I agree with you completely, and thank you for the examples... very relevant, IMO.
1102:
in section, while the inverse would not make logical sense to occur. In this case, the
3124:
3026:
2784:
2697:
2662:
2617:
2563:
2503:
2436:
2356:
2330:
2311:
2250:
2225:
2211:
2187:
2078:
1895:
1785:
1716:
1704:
1498:
1444:
1162:
1111:
1061:
1022:
985:
810:
745:
722:
549:
510:
435:
372:
236:
2986:
it was not more appropriate to simply remove the unreferenced material (and those two
2783:
to gain support. The deprecation notice is inappropriate and misleading, if anything.
2540:
is not an admin, but has been granted some of the tools. Again, you only had to look.
2165:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:New_York&diff=prev&oldid=737070582
375:, you have appealed to the HLJC at some length. Your input here would be appreciated.
3220:
3166:
2979:
2971:
2857:
2808:
2645:
It seems entirely appropriate if a bit wordy! There is no consensus for its removal.
2577:
2378:
2254:
2215:
1749:
1107:
1069:
913:
793:
423:
200:
181:
It has been suggested that we need an expression of exactly what this criterion is (
3204:
3174:
3144:
3110:
3098:
3060:
3041:
2999:
2950:
2921:
2861:
2838:
2816:
2766:
2646:
2621:
2581:
2541:
2479:
2465:
2444:
2402:
2382:
2299:
2277:
2269:
2265:
2229:
2207:
2168:
2128:
2032:
1860:
1763:
1731:
1682:
1637:
1630:
1619:
means the electorate, but even if these were the only two contenders for the title
1607:
There are many other examples that show how unhelpful the proposed criterion is...
1587:
1476:
1322:
1305:
1286:
1234:
1217:
1073:
1006:
989:
894:
886:
861:
849:
760:
705:
688:
603:
482:
457:
376:
359:
348:
334:
310:
273:
240:
208:
1652:
Here is a page full of examples of cities located within counties of the same name
1582:
This is of course against the background of previous discussion, most recently at
1362:
329:
This section is in the interests of transparency, and to avoid any appearance or
3074:
3056:
2975:
2897:
2693:
2416:
2398:
2325:
1408:
1403:
1318:
936:
857:
844:
396:
188:
I'd particularly like comments here as to whether the phrasing in the nutshell (
684:
144:
80:
52:
2920:
both this action and principle. A very interesting and relevant observation.
307:
Knowledge talk:Disambiguation pages with links/New York villages within towns
3109:
allowed on a case by case basis. This should be clarified in the essay IMO.
2942:
1798:
The option is officially viable today, you just need everybody to agree to
1372:
3105:
says that these two are only examples of useful criteria, so the HLJC is
2889:
2885:
2881:
2715:
2677:
2537:
2294:
2246:
2237:
1621:
1353:
1103:
644:
427:
676:
2620:'s talk page several times now but fear it is a lost cause there. TIA
1390:
1381:
1146:
853:
1307:
Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Usage by New Yorkers, NYS : -->
1523:
I'm sorry you find my comments unintelligible, can you be specific?
796:(as seen underneath its own infobox!!) is classified as one of the
2946:
2224:
on August 13, which remained unchallenged for over a month. Today
652:
640:
353:
A more precise definition of this criterion needs to be hashed out
3097:
explicitly refers to adding this to the two explicit criteria at
2305:
1998:
267:
Knowledge talk:Disambiguation#higher-level jurisdiction criterion
2964:
2938:
2500:
And I certainly intend to lay groundwork for a possible next RM.
1629:
then are even aware that the electoral district exists (despite
1399:
988:
possibly best qualified to respond, but all ideas are welcome.)
3203:
for some ideas sparked by this essay and the above discussion.
92:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
1759:
Isn't having more legitimate options better than having fewer?
1558:
192:) can be improved, and I'd like others to write a rationale.
15:
2123:
I'm a bit disappointed that you think this is something I've
1344:
counterexamples where the subset political unit is the clear
2435:
Thank you! Yes, I do recall you saying exactly that before.
1762:(my emphasis) Only if you wish to avoid building consensus.
358:
Contributions here and to the essay welcome to that effect!
143:
507:
I think you did a great job. I've made a small adjustment:
456:
Not sure I understand what this means... can you rephrase?
969:
has been mentioned several times in related discussions,
295:
been adopted in some areas, although not by that name...
2970:
manually examining the content left doubt as to whether
3135:
3059:
above, this is not support for the essay as it stands.
2834:
2830:
2640:
2374:
2276:
a factor to be considered in article name discussions.
2220:
2164:
1753:
1314:
1306:
_NYC" title="Talk:New York/July 2016 move request": -->
1261:
1232:
1200:
974:
970:
508:
479:
356:
301:
182:
2304:
In other cases it has been successfully followed, see
2272:
specifically noting that the HLJC by whatever name is
1997:
In other cases it has been successfully followed, see
1253:
This topic seems closely related to the concept of a
239:
are more explicit and will remain useful for longer.
2073:
Oh, good. Glad that you now newly acknowledge that "
1191:
A test of "progeny" and possibly of HLJC application
420:
Knowledge:Move review/Log/2016 June#New York (state)
262:
Knowledge:Move review/Log/2016 June#New York (state)
1855:, but the rest of the post seems to me to indicate
2253:have each reverted twice as I write, so under the
721:to create precedent to fill a vacuum that exists.
2206:The so-called "HLJC criterion" was an attempt by
1043:OK... so we now need to nail down exactly what a
3019:but only on an optional and individualized basis
757:Talk:Washington_(state)/Archive_2#Requested_move
256:Talk:New York (state)#Requested move 9 June 2016
227:Please link here to other relevant discussions.
2478:Stop diverting from the act you've committed,
2264:It might even be worth including something in
1260:There a sense in which it treats all affected
3227:Low-impact WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
2306:#Established use for small towns and villages
2236:, I say "not a snowball's chance in Hell". —
2232:criterion. Based on numerous discussions and
1999:#Established use for small towns and villages
1267:This is why I suggested in connection to the
753:Talk:Georgia_(country)/Archive_7#Move_request
478:I've had a go at putting this into the essay
8:
2875:An application of this principle to New York
2496:Talk:New York/July 2016 move request closure
634:This criterion is not supported by precedent
426:article is actually a direct progeny of the
287:Established use for small towns and villages
2761:And as there was no support at all for the
2616:even if unintentional. I've raised this on
1542:geographic and humanly impacting attributes
430:article as it is classified as part of the
305:and this was discussed at some length, see
161:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
2998:this principle could be useful there too.
1934:. But it is true that I am opposed to the
1546:modelling the desired behavioural outcomes
47:
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
2803:An alternative to the depracation notice
1461:I'm beginning to suspect that you use a
3093:Possibly also renaming? To me the term
1550:New South Wales Department of Education
49:
1584:User talk:Castncoot#Further disruption
1013:) - basically the direct inverse of a
2401:. Interested in his opinion on that.
2373:'s view of that post, in view of his
1586:. I'm glad it's unintentional. Best.
7:
2578:WP:ANI#Allegations by User:Castncoot
2233:
1283:Talk:New York/July 2016 move request
1264:articles as broad-concept articles.
21:
19:
2580:as advised on your user talk page.
2127:. Glad you think it worth quoting.
258:and subsequent talk page discussion
38:It is of interest to the following
3237:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
116:WikiProject Knowledge essays pages
100:. For a listing of essays see the
14:
2982:or Lima the city was the intent,
86:This page is within the scope of
2612:Conversely, failing to do so is
2576:Welcome back. Please respond at
2494:. This is what you meant on the
2486:", especially so after saying, "
2397:I think you are misrepresenting
2347:", especially so after saying, "
79:
65:
51:
20:
3201:wp:Principle of topic inclusion
2607:All other editors, please read
1552:now calls what we used to call
971:here is just the latest example
3119:16:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
3089:16:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
3069:15:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
3050:12:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
3035:12:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
3008:15:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
2959:09:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
2930:21:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
2912:14:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
2655:16:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
2630:06:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
2590:15:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
2572:12:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
2550:18:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
2512:12:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
2474:06:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
2453:18:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
2431:12:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
2411:06:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
2391:06:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
2365:03:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
2339:02:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
2320:02:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
2286:21:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
2241:16:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
2137:09:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
2087:16:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
2041:06:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
1904:04:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
1613:Electoral district of Tamworth
1413:Los Angeles County, California
1017:article, with all entailed by
598:follow our formal conventions!
319:04:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
2221:inserted a deprecation notice
2177:03:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
1869:06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
1812:06:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
1794:03:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
1772:03:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
1740:13:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
891:rejected as a valid criterion
309:for the archived discussion.
975:this is perhaps a better one
130:This page has been rated as
110:Knowledge:WikiProject Essays
89:WikiProject Knowledge essays
3213:20:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
3183:00:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
3153:18:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
2870:01:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
2847:01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
2825:01:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
2793:00:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
2775:17:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
2719:22:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
2706:15:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
2681:15:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
2671:13:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
2439:, is that what you mean by
2210:to find common ground with
2196:13:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
1725:02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
1369:(courtesy of Amakuru, IIRC)
951:19:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
113:Template:WikiProject Essays
3253:
2293:That's not true that only
1304:There's a related post at
3232:NA-Class Knowledge essays
2815:so far, both favourable.
2381:in a related discussion.
1691:01:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
1673:12:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
1646:19:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
1609:Tamworth, New South Wales
1596:02:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
1507:14:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
1485:19:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
1453:17:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
1429:13:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
1331:01:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
1243:21:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
1226:09:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
1171:16:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
1120:01:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
151:
129:
74:
46:
3161:Rather than both rename
2884:" or "he travelled from
2558:you what you've done on
2298:not the same as policy.
1611:is contained within the
1295:17:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
1082:17:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
1031:03:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
998:06:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
922:00:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
903:05:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
870:12:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
819:16:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
769:14:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
731:14:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
697:13:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
612:12:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
558:12:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
519:12:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
491:03:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
466:03:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
444:03:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
411:01:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
385:00:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
368:00:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
343:00:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
282:00:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
249:23:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
217:00:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
3101:. WP:PT of course also
1707:as a completely viable
1627:Tamworth Music Festival
1615:, and in some contexts
1463:random number generator
1106:article spawns off the
291:It seems that the HLJC
3195:Principle of inclusion
2854:WP:The onion principle
1711:. In other words, not
1554:setting a good example
1249:Broad-concept articles
155:automatically assessed
148:
136:project's impact scale
2498:page when you said, "
2441:some support for this
1255:broad-concept article
481:... How have I done?
153:The above rating was
147:
2371:User:Alanscottwalker
669:Georgia (U.S. state)
222:Relevant discussions
2831:One since retracted
1800:WP:Ignore all rules
1699:The "option" option
1681:Wow, awesome link!
1395:Community of Madrid
1310:that reads in part
1231:I've now had a go.
1021:designation. Best,
798:Regions of New York
432:Regions of New York
231:are acceptable but
2369:I'm interested in
2202:Deprecation notice
2125:newly acknowledged
1938:you are proposing.
961:"Progeny" articles
681:Washington (state)
661:Washington (state)
149:
34:content assessment
2990:add two very big
2712:Warnock's dilemma
2635:Back to the issue
2324:Did you see that
1936:instruction creep
1832:Condorcet paradox
1565:to help write it.
1367:São Paulo (state)
1072:, is that right?
802:at the very least
673:Georgia (country)
665:Georgia (country)
649:Carlisle, Cumbria
174:
173:
170:
169:
166:
165:
162:
3244:
3081:
2904:
2423:
2234:counter-examples
2223:
1670:
1667:
1664:
1661:
1658:
1563:parody generator
1386:Canton of Geneva
1377:Canton of Zürich
1358:Salzburg (state)
1300:Bigger is better
1195:From the above:
943:
749:
657:Washington, D.C.
403:
351:, you suggested
272:More to follow.
203:to the project.
152:
118:
117:
114:
111:
108:
94:Knowledge essays
83:
76:
75:
70:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
3252:
3251:
3247:
3246:
3245:
3243:
3242:
3241:
3217:
3216:
3197:
3075:
2898:
2877:
2805:
2637:
2417:
2219:
2218:and friends) I
2204:
2184:toward building
2161:
2159:Recent mentions
1701:
1668:
1665:
1662:
1659:
1656:
1338:
1336:Counterexamples
1302:
1251:
1193:
1151:New South Wales
963:
937:
743:
636:
397:
392:
326:
289:
224:
179:
115:
112:
109:
106:
105:
102:essay directory
64:
61:
12:
11:
5:
3250:
3248:
3240:
3239:
3234:
3229:
3219:
3218:
3196:
3193:
3192:
3191:
3190:
3189:
3188:
3187:
3186:
3185:
3159:
3158:
3157:
3156:
3155:
3055:misunderstand
3052:
3012:
3011:
3010:
2932:
2876:
2873:
2850:
2849:
2804:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2753:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2636:
2633:
2618:user:Castncoot
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2597:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2560:this very page
2526:
2525:
2524:
2523:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2517:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2437:User:Castncoot
2395:
2394:
2393:
2251:User:Castncoot
2203:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2160:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1743:
1742:
1700:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1676:
1675:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1456:
1455:
1416:
1415:
1406:
1397:
1388:
1379:
1370:
1360:
1337:
1334:
1301:
1298:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1155:Blue Mountains
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1066:parent article
1062:New York State
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1045:parent article
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
986:User:Castncoot
962:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
927:
926:
925:
924:
906:
905:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
736:
735:
734:
733:
635:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
599:
596:doesn't always
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
496:
495:
494:
493:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
449:
448:
447:
446:
391:
388:
373:User:Castncoot
325:
322:
288:
285:
270:
269:
264:
259:
223:
220:
195:But of course
178:
175:
172:
171:
168:
167:
164:
163:
150:
140:
139:
128:
122:
121:
119:
84:
72:
71:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3249:
3238:
3235:
3233:
3230:
3228:
3225:
3224:
3222:
3215:
3214:
3210:
3206:
3202:
3194:
3184:
3180:
3176:
3172:
3168:
3164:
3160:
3154:
3150:
3146:
3141:
3137:
3134:As it stands
3133:
3132:
3130:
3126:
3122:
3121:
3120:
3116:
3112:
3108:
3104:
3100:
3096:
3092:
3091:
3090:
3087:
3086:
3082:
3080:
3079:
3072:
3071:
3070:
3066:
3062:
3058:
3053:
3051:
3047:
3043:
3038:
3037:
3036:
3032:
3028:
3024:
3020:
3016:
3013:
3009:
3005:
3001:
2997:
2993:
2989:
2985:
2981:
2980:Lima District
2977:
2973:
2972:Lima Province
2969:
2966:
2962:
2961:
2960:
2956:
2952:
2948:
2944:
2940:
2936:
2933:
2931:
2927:
2923:
2919:
2916:
2915:
2914:
2913:
2910:
2909:
2905:
2903:
2902:
2895:
2891:
2887:
2883:
2874:
2872:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2859:
2855:
2848:
2844:
2840:
2836:
2835:Working on it
2832:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2826:
2822:
2818:
2814:
2810:
2802:
2794:
2790:
2786:
2782:
2781:WP:NODEADLINE
2778:
2777:
2776:
2772:
2768:
2764:
2763:option option
2760:
2759:
2758:
2757:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2748:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2729:
2720:
2717:
2713:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2695:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2682:
2679:
2674:
2673:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2659:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2652:
2648:
2643:
2641:
2634:
2632:
2631:
2627:
2623:
2619:
2615:
2610:
2591:
2587:
2583:
2579:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2515:
2514:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2493:
2489:
2485:
2481:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2462:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2442:
2438:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2429:
2428:
2424:
2422:
2421:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2408:
2404:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2327:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2309:
2307:
2301:
2296:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2262:
2258:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2243:
2242:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2227:
2222:
2217:
2216:Talk:New York
2213:
2209:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2185:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2158:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2000:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1892:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1833:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1760:
1754:
1751:
1750:Talk:New York
1748:And now from
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1698:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1674:
1671:
1653:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1634:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1623:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1564:
1560:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1540:For my part,
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1405:
1401:
1398:
1396:
1392:
1389:
1387:
1383:
1380:
1378:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1364:
1361:
1359:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1347:
1343:
1335:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1299:
1297:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1279:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1265:
1263:
1258:
1256:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1214:
1212:
1208:
1202:
1201:
1199:
1190:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:New York City
1067:
1063:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
978:
976:
972:
968:
960:
952:
949:
948:
944:
942:
941:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
923:
919:
915:
910:
909:
908:
907:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
885:
884:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
846:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
820:
816:
812:
807:
803:
799:
795:
794:New York City
791:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
747:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
732:
728:
724:
720:
715:
711:
707:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
633:
613:
609:
605:
600:
597:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
559:
555:
551:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
520:
516:
512:
509:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
492:
488:
484:
480:
477:
476:
475:
474:
467:
463:
459:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
424:New York City
421:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
409:
408:
404:
402:
401:
389:
387:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
350:
346:
345:
344:
340:
336:
332:
323:
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
303:
302:
300:
296:
294:
286:
284:
283:
279:
275:
268:
265:
263:
260:
257:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
221:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
193:
191:
186:
184:
177:Why this page
176:
160:
156:
146:
142:
141:
137:
133:
127:
124:
123:
120:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:
85:
82:
78:
77:
73:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
3198:
3162:
3139:
3106:
3102:
3094:
3084:
3077:
3076:
3022:
3018:
3014:
2995:
2991:
2987:
2983:
2967:
2934:
2917:
2907:
2900:
2899:
2893:
2878:
2851:
2806:
2762:
2644:
2638:
2606:
2559:
2555:
2499:
2491:
2487:
2483:
2440:
2426:
2419:
2418:
2352:
2348:
2344:
2303:
2273:
2263:
2259:
2245:I note that
2244:
2205:
2183:
2162:
2124:
2074:
1931:
1890:
1856:
1852:
1758:
1755:
1712:
1708:
1702:
1635:
1631:Tony Windsor
1620:
1616:
1606:
1553:
1548:is what the
1545:
1541:
1439:
1435:
1421:No such user
1417:
1341:
1339:
1317:
1311:
1303:
1280:
1275:
1268:
1266:
1259:
1252:
1215:
1210:
1207:significance
1206:
1203:
1196:
1194:
1100:main article
1099:
1065:
1018:
1014:
981:
979:
966:
964:
946:
939:
938:
890:
887:User:Amakuru
850:Finger Lakes
805:
801:
789:
718:
713:
637:
406:
399:
398:
393:
371:
352:
349:User:wbm1058
347:
328:
327:
304:
298:
297:
292:
290:
271:
226:
225:
196:
194:
189:
187:
180:
131:
87:
40:WikiProjects
30:project page
29:
3057:User:BD2412
2976:Lima Region
2852:Renamed as
2399:User:BD2412
1932:very afraid
1409:Los Angeles
1404:Kiev Oblast
1319:User:Pharos
858:Belize City
845:global city
3221:Categories
3103:explicitly
3023:deprecated
2614:disruptive
1834:situation?
1556:. (;-: -->
1346:WP:PRIMARY
984:article? (
714:repeatedly
685:Washington
683:should be
675:should be
331:canvassing
233:permalinks
132:Low-impact
98:discussion
62:Low‑impact
3136:this edit
3125:Castncoot
3095:criterion
3027:Castncoot
2943:Sao Paulo
2785:Castncoot
2779:There is
2698:Castncoot
2663:Castncoot
2609:wp:string
2564:Castncoot
2504:Castncoot
2357:Castncoot
2331:Castncoot
2312:Castncoot
2226:Castncoot
2212:Castncoot
2188:Castncoot
2079:Castncoot
1896:Castncoot
1786:Castncoot
1717:Castncoot
1499:Castncoot
1445:Castncoot
1363:São Paulo
1273:base name
1163:Castncoot
1159:Newcastle
1112:Castncoot
1023:Castncoot
965:The term
811:Castncoot
746:Castncoot
723:Castncoot
550:Castncoot
511:Castncoot
436:Castncoot
390:Rationale
324:Heads ups
229:Wikilinks
3138:doesn't
2890:New York
2886:New York
2882:New York
2538:User:JFG
2492:New York
2375:comments
2353:New York
2247:User:JFG
1968:success.
1930:No, not
1851:You say
1622:Tamworth
1617:Tamworth
1436:singular
1354:Salzburg
1342:numerous
1276:New York
1269:New York
1060:You see
914:HGilbert
645:Honolulu
428:New York
3205:Andrewa
3175:Andrewa
3145:Andrewa
3140:clarify
3111:Andrewa
3107:already
3061:Andrewa
3042:Amakuru
3015:Support
3000:Andrewa
2951:Amakuru
2935:Perhaps
2922:Andrewa
2918:Support
2862:Andrewa
2839:Andrewa
2817:Andrewa
2807:If the
2767:Andrewa
2647:Andrewa
2622:Andrewa
2582:Andrewa
2556:telling
2542:Andrewa
2480:Andrewa
2466:Andrewa
2445:Andrewa
2403:Andrewa
2383:Andrewa
2300:Andrewa
2278:Andrewa
2268:and/or
2208:Andrewa
2169:Andrewa
2129:Andrewa
2033:Andrewa
1861:Andrewa
1764:Andrewa
1732:Andrewa
1713:mandate
1683:Andrewa
1638:Andrewa
1588:Andrewa
1477:Andrewa
1323:Andrewa
1287:Andrewa
1235:Andrewa
1218:Andrewa
1074:Andrewa
1064:as the
1007:Andrewa
990:Andrewa
982:progeny
967:progeny
895:Andrewa
862:Amakuru
761:Amakuru
712:), you
706:Amakuru
704:Again,
689:Amakuru
677:Georgia
604:Andrewa
483:Andrewa
458:Andrewa
377:Andrewa
360:Andrewa
335:Andrewa
311:Andrewa
274:Andrewa
241:Andrewa
209:Andrewa
205:Be bold
134:on the
3171:WT:PTI
3169:, see
3167:WP:PTI
3078:bd2412
2901:bd2412
2858:WP:TOP
2813:WT:PTI
2694:BD2412
2420:bd2412
2379:WP:NPA
2326:BD2412
2001:above.
1709:option
1466:etc.).
1391:Madrid
1382:Geneva
1373:Zürich
1262:parent
1198:occur.
1147:Sydney
1015:parent
940:bd2412
854:Belize
422:, the
400:bd2412
201:belong
199:pages
157:using
107:Essays
59:Essays
36:scale.
3099:WP:PT
2947:Lagos
2894:state
2308:above
2270:WP:PT
2266:WP:AT
2230:WP:PT
1891:build
1804:Diego
1440:legal
1211:usage
1104:State
653:Lhasa
641:Leeds
237:diffs
28:This
3209:talk
3199:See
3179:talk
3149:talk
3129:talk
3115:talk
3065:talk
3046:talk
3031:talk
3004:talk
2996:then
2988:ands
2965:Lima
2955:talk
2945:and
2939:Lima
2926:talk
2866:talk
2843:talk
2821:talk
2789:talk
2771:talk
2702:talk
2667:talk
2651:talk
2626:talk
2586:talk
2568:talk
2546:talk
2508:talk
2470:talk
2449:talk
2407:talk
2387:talk
2361:talk
2335:talk
2316:talk
2282:talk
2249:and
2192:talk
2173:talk
2133:talk
2083:talk
2037:talk
1900:talk
1865:talk
1853:nope
1808:talk
1790:talk
1768:talk
1736:talk
1721:talk
1705:HLJC
1687:talk
1642:talk
1592:talk
1503:talk
1481:talk
1449:talk
1425:talk
1400:Kiev
1327:talk
1291:talk
1239:talk
1222:talk
1209:and
1167:talk
1149:and
1116:talk
1108:City
1078:talk
1027:talk
1019:that
1011:talk
994:talk
918:talk
899:talk
866:talk
815:talk
765:talk
755:and
727:talk
719:need
710:talk
693:talk
679:and
663:and
608:talk
554:talk
515:talk
487:talk
462:talk
440:talk
381:talk
364:talk
339:talk
315:talk
278:talk
245:talk
235:and
213:talk
183:here
159:data
3163:and
2994:),
2992:ifs
2984:and
2978:or
2974:or
2968:and
2856:or
2809:PTI
2743:be.
2716:JFG
2678:JFG
2377:on
2295:JFG
2274:not
2255:3RR
2238:JFG
1857:yep
1633:).
1559:STD
1308:NYC
1278:.
1068:of
1047:is.
1005:Hi
856:vs
806:one
790:not
293:has
197:all
126:Low
3223::
3211:)
3181:)
3151:)
3131:)
3117:)
3067:)
3048:)
3033:)
3006:)
2957:)
2941:,
2928:)
2868:)
2860:.
2845:)
2837:.
2833:.
2823:)
2791:)
2773:)
2704:)
2669:)
2653:)
2628:)
2588:)
2570:)
2548:)
2510:)
2472:)
2451:)
2443:?
2409:)
2389:)
2363:)
2355:.
2337:)
2318:)
2284:)
2194:)
2175:)
2135:)
2085:)
2039:)
1902:)
1867:)
1859:.
1810:)
1792:)
1770:)
1752::
1738:)
1723:)
1689:)
1669:py
1666:Co
1663:n
1660:ea
1657:Cl
1644:)
1594:)
1505:)
1483:)
1451:)
1438:,
1427:)
1411:⊂
1402:⊂
1393:⊂
1384:⊂
1375:⊂
1365:⊂
1356:⊂
1329:)
1293:)
1285:.
1257:.
1241:)
1224:)
1213:.
1169:)
1157:,
1118:)
1080:)
1029:)
996:)
977:.
973:,
920:)
901:)
868:)
817:)
767:)
729:)
695:)
651:;
647:;
643:;
610:)
556:)
517:)
489:)
464:)
442:)
383:)
366:)
355:.
341:)
333:.
317:)
280:)
247:)
215:)
207:.
3207:(
3177:(
3147:(
3127:(
3113:(
3085:T
3063:(
3044:(
3029:(
3002:(
2953:(
2924:(
2908:T
2864:(
2841:(
2819:(
2787:(
2769:(
2700:(
2665:(
2649:(
2624:(
2584:(
2566:(
2544:(
2506:(
2468:(
2447:(
2427:T
2405:(
2385:(
2359:(
2333:(
2314:(
2280:(
2190:(
2171:(
2131:(
2081:(
2035:(
1898:(
1863:(
1806:(
1788:(
1766:(
1734:(
1719:(
1685:(
1640:(
1590:(
1501:(
1479:(
1447:(
1423:(
1325:(
1289:(
1237:(
1220:(
1165:(
1114:(
1076:(
1025:(
1009:(
992:(
947:T
916:(
897:(
864:(
813:(
763:(
748::
744:@
725:(
708:(
691:(
667:/
659:/
606:(
552:(
513:(
485:(
460:(
438:(
407:T
379:(
362:(
337:(
313:(
276:(
243:(
211:(
138:.
104:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
