![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
African Americans were not singly the largest ethnic group but together with West Indian blacks make that figure. per census italians are largest single group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.113.91 ( talk) 18:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
{{Edit semi-protected}}
Under 'Government', the ny.gov/governor/ link shown has been moved to www.governor.ny.gov
75.202.133.18 (
talk)
07:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Just busy updating governor stats; new york is special, paterson left office at midnight, checking all reference, glad to help. 75.202.133.18 ( talk) 07:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
United States Bill of Rights and Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution mention a peace treaty between New York and Vermont without explaining why a peace treaty was necessary or what this even means - and neither do the articles on these states nor even History of New York or History of Vermont. Very strange. -- Espoo ( talk) 22:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In the entry for New York State I noticed that the first sentence under the "Geography" heading indicates that "New York covers 49,576 squre miles (128,400 km2)" but in the table at the top of the website (under the map showing where New York is located within the United States) it records the Area of New York as 54,556 square miles (128,400 km2). I thought, since 13.3% of New York lies over water, perhaps the smaller figure is the land area? That doesn't work either, 49,576 inflated by 13.3% equals 56,146 rather than the higher number quoted on the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.29.6.2 ( talk) 20:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Under Economy, New York is listed as the third-largest grape-producing state after California. According to Wine America - The National Association of American Wineries, "The nation’s top grape producing states are (in volume of production order): California, Washington, New York, and Pennsylvania." This coincides with New York's ranking as number three, but it should read "after Washington". Please see: http://www.aswawines.org/documents/news/2009-Wine-and-Grape-Policy-Conference-Facts.pdf -- Gille86 ( talk) 11:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
– Both the city and state are called "New York". Although sometimes "State" or "City" are part of an official name (e.g., Michigan State University, Kansas City), that is not the case for either the city or state of New York. — Quantling ( talk | contribs) 14:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
—shnyusasl 18:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is the area of New York in 27th place? it should be third.It is at LEAST the 18th biggest state in the US. 166.82.187.246 ( talk) 22:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The area is correct, New York is the 27th largest state. Maps deceive the eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.79.126 ( talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm removing the semi-protection on New York, which was applied in April 2009 in response to a lot of vandalism, especially by non-registered and new users. For those that actively watch this page, please keep an eye on it and let me know if you see an uptick in vandalism. The page will remain sysop-only move protected, considering the name has been debated very frequently (see above). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
English is not the official language of New York! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.79.126 ( talk) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:New York State current license plate from 2001.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
Post removed by original poster. Citation listed under "Area" refers to the differing area values for the state, which obviously include water area (the larger figure) or don't include water area (the smaller figure). TheKurgan ( talk) 15:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
200.2.179.174 ( talk) 15:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 21 maart 2012 200.2.179.174 ( talk) 15:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) inhabitant of Suriname
The British didn't annex New York. In the Dutch-British war Suriname, a very rich plantation of the Dutch in the Guiana's was captured by the British. The dutch changed the name to New Amsterdam. When the war was over the Dutch agreed to trade the two territories, since at that time NY was a simple Indian trading post and Suriname a thriving plantation economy.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschiedenis_van_New_York_City http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suriname
The following coordinate fixes are needed for:
Region is IN, should be US.
NOTE: Region is incorrect on Turkish page only:
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york
- Bernie
Right! this is the English-language article, not Turkish Incaking below ( talk) 20:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
You can't edit this at all, it is really annoying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.45.17 ( talk) 00:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I've never edited this page and don't intend to now, but to me it seems appropriate that some mention should be made of Indian reservations in NYS. I've heard that there's one on Long Island, and I know Gov. Cuomo had to negotiate with some to allow gambling in Catskill area, and I assume there are more further north. -- kosboot ( talk) 16:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The article currently claims there are 22 national parks within New York. This is, of course, patently untrue, as there are only 50-some national parks in the entire country; the actual number is a big fat zero. (See List of national parks of the United States.) Does the article mean that there are 22 areas protected by the United States National Park System? (See List of areas in the United States National Park System.) If so, the number seems a little low, and the phrasing is incredibly misleading. Powers T 15:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
It's been four and half years (in July 2008) since the name of this article was discussed in depth and nominated for moving (ie. renaming) or not, so I wonder if it could be revisited. 'New York' on its own, as a commonname, refers to both the city and state. 'New York City' is certainly a widely used common name for the city of New York, so I would say that article's name is fine; I'd like to see this page named New York (state), to reflect that the state of New York is quite commonly refered to as simply 'New York' but that disambiguation is needed, as the city of New York is also quite commonly refered to as simply 'New York'. Mayumashu ( talk) 05:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Our main history section here only covers through the 19th century (with mentions of immigration continuing hence). As a native of NY I can assure you, we continued to have history after 1900. Some of it quite spectacular. The sub-article on NY history includes some information. If someone were so inclined, I'd suggest a summary of the 20th century at least belongs here. NYC alone should provide fodder, let alone us poor upstaters. I am not a writer or historian, so I yield to the better part of valor here, but please believe me, NY continued to have history up until quite recently. 204.65.34.167 ( talk) 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following External link to the Tourism and recreation category:
This is a link to an Amateur Radio related website for a "Special Event" which commemorate an historical occasion or other special event ( Call sign - See Amateur Radio topic). Many special event stations provide a special QSL card or certificate. The state of New York, being one of the Original 13 Colonies, participates in this yearly event (the event organizer is a New York resident). Dzabawa ( talk) 14:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, place a link to the article "Treaty of Westminster (1674)" in the text "Treaty of Westminster" under the "17th century" topic.
Treaty of Westminster Morone ( talk) 14:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
He is the man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.219.161 ( talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This is by no means the only local pronunciation. There are several possibilities. (It's a pretty big state. Talking of "the" local pronunciation is almost as ridiculous as talking of the "local" pronunciation of the Chinese name for China.) ([nu ˈjɔrk]) would be used in much, if not most of the state. (It is quite common even in "non-rhotic" New York City.) Kostaki mou ( talk) 04:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the state flower and bird? 69.122.4.110 ( talk) 14:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of New York's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "MLA Data":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
On good merit, I believe (for the due expedience and non-hindrance of the Wikipedia user experience and heuristics) New York (the query itself) should redirect to the City of New York. São Paulo does not redirect to the state itself; Rio de Janeiro does not redirect to the state itself. It's a proper, and upstanding request -- please make changes swiftly and accordingly. All best.
I have calculated the July average high for NYC central Park using the NCDC Daily Summaries Daily Summaries Station Details: NEW YORK CENTRAL PARK OBS BELVEDERE TOWER, NY US, GHCND:USW00094728 | Climate Data Online (CDO) | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and the July average high is 84.88666667 therefore the July average is 84.9°F not 84.1°F , 84.1°F is dubious.
But the wikipedia NYC page moderator does not agree to change the dubious 84.1°F to real 84.9°F in New York climate.
NYC Central Park real Average high http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/398827moyennemaximaleanewyork.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:39AF:800:5153:3388:12FB:F2BC ( talk) 07:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Under geography of New York at the end of the third paragraph it states -People in New York have tiny micro penises. Big tits on the sexy abbes- Pretty sure this should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Te1085 ( talk • contribs)
To all of the readers, I would like to say that, as an editor, I appreciate your comments. There are many folks who have tried to update this article with additional information, but other editors revert and delete it, even though it is relevant and would improve the article. So, I just wanted to say that your comments have not gone unnoticed as there are editors involved in this page who revert and delete the positive and relevant contributions of others, without any discussion or follow-up regarding their reasons. I hear you, but also know that my own contributions have not been seriously considered or respected by certain other editors. Thank you! Daniellagreen ( talk) 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
New York has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Correct the broken link to the USDA Economic Research Service New York State Fact Sheet under External Links - "New York State Fact Sheet". The correct link is: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=36&StateName=New%20York#.U8A9GPldUeo
Correct the broken link to USDA Economic Research Service under reference number 49. The correct link is the same as above: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=36&StateName=New%20York#.U8A9GPldUeo
Parker ts ( talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This 2006-AUG-20 edit established the default date format for accessdates for this article per MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT & WP:DATERET.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimWae ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a typo at the beginning of the last sentence of the first paragraph.
Are there really anyone that would expect to find an article about the state of New York when they search for New York? OK, I am aware that there exists such a state, but surely anyone searching for New York would expect to find an article about the city. -- Oddeivind ( talk) 21:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The article contains a number of grammatical errors, mainly the use of semicolons where a comma is required or vice versa. General readability would also be improved through better sentence structure in certain places. These would be easily fixed if the article could be edited. 66.249.82.173 ( talk) 00:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I have gone through and updated a few grammatical errors Jacquelyntwiki ( talk) 16:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
New York has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change m² to m<sup>2</sup>
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
New York. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
New York. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
New York has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
People of New York would like to be known as Yorkens on the Wiki page. 70.251.175.250 ( talk) 20:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 21 June 2016. The result of the move review was Overturn and relist. |
SSTFlyer closed and re-closed (is there even such a thing?) this Move request on 18 June, 2016. Next, the outcome was controverted and listed at Move review, on June 21 (mentioned here, just above). Next, bd2412 closed that Move review as Overturn and relist (never clear whether "overturn" means full undo or just revert to undecided), on 7 July. (Update not mentioned here.) The new RfM was pre-listed for initial discussion at
Talk:New_York/July 2016 move request (instead of on this page), on 7 July. (Change was not mentioned here.) The "re-listing" (new Move request) will not be "filed" and real discussion begin (there, not here) until July 14 22:00 18 July 2016 (is there even such a thing as a deferred RfM? (They're actually deleting comments!)). (Only mentioned here NOW, 11:22, 18 July 2016.) -
A876 (
talk)
11:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
There are three possible ways to close this discussion, depending on how the discussion closer interprets the consensus.
This is not an easy decision. I originally closed this as “no consensus” according to option 1, but now I am modifying my closure to implement option 3 instead. Among policy-based arguments, there is rough consensus that the state is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should not be at the base title, thus option 1 (maintaining the status quo) is not optimal. On the other hand, I do not consider the consensus to move New York City to the base title to be strong enough. Therefore, I am closing this as move New York the state to New York (state) (suggestions to use WP:PARENDIS instead of WP:NATURALDIS were not opposed), and move New York (disambiguation) to New York. This is without prejudice against a new RM discussion at Talk:New York City to move the city to the base title. (closed by a page mover) SST flyer 05:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
New York →
New York State – According to the
AP Stylebook,
New York City is listed as New York, and is also the legal name of the city. The state and city use New York for a name. The state does not have primary usage of the name. Most people, when saying "New York", refer to the city and not the state. If people were referring to the state, they should say "New York State" or "State of New York" or "Upstate New York", etc. I propose having the state named New York State and having the city named New York City, with New York as a disambiguation page. Also, New York State instead of New York (state) is
WP:NATURAL. There is really no
WP:PRIMARY topic of "New York" - you could be referring to the state or the city. That is why I am proposing this new requested move. Another option, instead of New York as a disambiguation page, is to redirect it to New York City, although I am opposed to it.
✉cookiemonster✉
𝚨755𝛀
18:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.I note that in the titles New York, New York (So Good They Named It Twice), The Sidewalks of New York, An Englishman in New York, etc., the phrase New York refers to the city. That to me is evidence that the primary topic may be the city. At the very least, in the absence of evidence to the contrary (and the above discussion is long on opinions, short on evidence), it seems to count against any other primary meaning. Andrewa ( talk) 03:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Wbm1058 and Amakuru: before performing these page moves (which requires an administrator because this article is move-protected), existing pages that link to New York must be updated, because the disambiguation page is going to take its place. Normally I would do this using AWB, but with 73,972 articles having links to the state, it simply isn’t feasible for me to update all these links by hand. How should all these links be updated? Should a bot request be filed? SST flyer 06:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Speaking just from a technical standpoint now. Something of this magnitude cannot be done overnight. If you just move the page now, the good volunteers at WikiProject Disambiguation will be throwing darts at you. The Disambiguation pages with links machine will blow some gaskets.
There are nearly 400 templates linking to New York. I suppose the first step would be to manually disambiguate those templates. The next step would be to wait, likely a month or more, for the job queue to work through those. Then take another look at the remaining what-links-here results to evaluate methods for efficient disambiguation of the rest. There may be ways it could be tackled by AWB if specific usage patterns can be detected.
But any way you cut this, it's a major undertaking at this point in the Wikipedia project. I've gotta think that if such disambiguation was really necessary, it would have been done years ago. The bigger the encyclopedia gets, the harder this gets to implement. We should hold off on beginning implementation until after this is reviewed. wbm1058 ( talk) 12:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually you would move the page, but New York must redirect to New York (state) for an extended period of time. New York (disambiguation) should not be moved over the base title until the groundwork is done, and only a manageable number of pages needing disambiguation remain. wbm1058 ( talk) 12:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I've started the process of implementation - moving the
economy,
politics,
education,
flag and
government articles to the "(state)" title (cleaning up all the links after the move), and I've cleaned up the {{
United States topic}}
template where it is used so that it works properly. There's a long way to go, but moving the page to
New York (state) and leaving the leftover redirect alone for a bit would be helpful. It would allow us to change the target of all of the redirects that are going to point to the state article instead of the disambiguation page without having one of the double-redirect bots changing them back. -
Niceguyedc
Go Huskies!
13:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow, what a mess! This means that we're going to have to move a lot of articles with titles "List of x in New York" or "x in New York" to "List of x in New York (state)" or "x in New York (state)" (see Special:CategoryTree/New York). This is a move with really large consequences. This really needs move review. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium ( talk) 15:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I see some discussion has continued within the closed MR, but ideally that shouldn't be modified. And sorry, I do feel the need to give my opinion, even if it's too late (did it ever cross anyone's mind to notify any of the regional NY WikiProjects, all of which are heavily affected by this rushed decision?)
This entire thing seems to hinge on a Google search. Given the city's economic importance and tourism appeal, it is not surprising that it is well-represented online. That seems to be the sole evidence-based argument that the city is PRIMARYTOPIC; both support and oppose give unsourced assertions that the state is, or isn't, primary. (I strongly disagree that "Among policy-based arguments, there is rough consensus that the state is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC". "Rough" is way too generous.) Evidence pointing to the state perhaps being primary is plain in the section above this comment; I do not thing you will find that an excess of those incoming links were intended for the city. Every single municipality, park, building, person born, etc. outside of the metro area will have a link to the state page. I don't know if this is worth the massive effort "fixing" this problem will cause.
I don't see a strong argument demolishing WP:NATURAL here, by the way. It is natural for people to append "New York", meaning the state, when describing the location of anything outside the city. It is also natural for people to do the same within the city, but not at all uncommon to say "New York City" instead, a natural name that is plainly recognizable to people worldwide. There is no natural equivalent for referring to the state. Hence, the current setup makes sense, and is in no way confusing for visitors to this site, some of whom at worst may need to click on a hatnote link. (This new 'solution' forces everyone to make an extra click, how is this an improvement in usability?)
Sorry. Really wish I had known about this before its effects started blowing up my watchlist. I strongly feel this should be re-opened or reviewed. Antepenultimate ( talk) 14:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone ever considered Manhattan ( New York County, New York) as yet another place that may also be called "New York"? When people outside of the country think about "New York", it's usually about the city. When they think about the city, it's usually about Manhattan. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium ( talk) 01:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
That in a nutshell, shows where the fault lines lie here. The locals are mostly content with the status quo. Those from overseas favor the city. I haven't reviewed all the discussions about this, but, in terms of Policy, there is no single "right answer". The guideline says "When a widely accepted English name exists for a place, we should use it." Great. New York is a widely accepted name for both. New York City is another widely accepted name for the city. WP:USPLACE gives guidance for naming populated places, cities, counties, metropolitan areas, minor civil divisions and neighborhoods, but no specific guidance for naming one of the 50 states. WP:PLACEDAB says "When there are conventional means of disambiguation in standard English, use them, as in Red River of the North and Red River of the South, and in New York City (to distinguish from the state of New York)." But, I suppose if there are no conventional means of disambiguation for the state, then the generic parenthetical disambiguating tag (state) is acceptable. Primary topic determination is subjective, but the page view stats don't make a strong case for the state as PT, I must concede. Has anyone found evidence of a mislinking problem, i.e. editors saving [[New York]] when they meant to link to the city? If that's a significant problem, then making the title a {{ disambiguation}} page ensures these bad links will be corrected. I can guess though that if disambiguation is forced, there will be a lot of need to use NAVPOPS to change [[New York]] to [[New York (state)|New York]]. It might be worth it if there is a significant mislinking problem here. – wbm1058 ( talk) 21:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Ease of searching is only one of the reasons for identifying the primary meaning. Ease of linking is also important. In most parts of the world, editors will write [[New York]] and assume that the link will be to New York, the city. If the resulting link is to a DAB, they will be notified on their talk page, but if it's to the state, we'll get a mislinking that is hard to detect in any automated way. So if there's no consensus as to the primary topic, the DAB is a good choice for the undisambiguated name. Personally I think a case can be made that the city is the primary meaning, but even if that's the case then having the DAB at the undisambiguated name is not too bad, while having the state there is a far bigger problem. And similarly if the state is the primary meaning. Andrewa ( talk) 11:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This link shows how many backlinks to New York there are. We can use this to track progress.
|location=New York
or |place=New York
). So, if we exclude the citation links, we still have 65 pages out of 132 pointing the wrong way, i.e. 49%, confirming my measurement that about half of the internal links to
New York are meant for the city. —
JFG
talk
09:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
This link shows how many backlinks to New York (state) there are.
Side topic, but I had to respond to the comments above that "most of New York is currently blacked out" could only apply to the city as the entire state losing power would be "impossible". Ɱ, you don't remember the Northeast blackout of 2003, which happened on a perfectly nice summer day? (But hot enough to cause significant A/C use) Caused by a software glitch. Now that we know an infected thumb drive took down a nuclear facility in Iran, it seems just a matter of time before some hackers do something similar with the power grid. wbm1058 ( talk) 01:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The close above is in favour of Moving the state away from the base title, and moving the disambiguation page to the base title. There is no consensus for having either the city or the state to be the primary topic, and some participants think a primary topic does not exist.
Unless there is to be a move review, this should now happen. If there is to be a move review, I would recommend meantime moving only the article on the state, and redirecting New York to the DAB. This will at least stop the further leakage of mislinks. Andrewa ( talk) 02:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
. . .
Going back to the oldest discussions on this, as early as 2004 it was recognized that "Lots of the links to this article ought to be linked to New York City." However, as pointed out by Shereth in August 2008, the claim that more incoming links to [[New York]] are intended for the city is probably wrong. See User:Shereth/NYLinks. Past attempts to address this have failed because of poor implementation – generally they have attempted to do too much, too fast, which has triggered reversions. Clearly, and I believe there is consensus for this, there cannot be an article sitting on the [[New York]] page. This mislinking issue cannot be made to go away.
However, from that it does not follow that [[New York]] must be a disambiguation. Other options are (1) REDIRECT to New York (state) or (2) REDIRECT to New York City. The mislinking problem can be patrolled by bypassing all links to the [[New York]] redirect. The work to fix the mislinks should be done, and this work will not be wasted if [[New York]] remained a redirect to the nominal primary topic rather than moving the dab to the base name.
I note that when much of the previous discussion of this took place, the state of Washington was still at the base title. Washington moved to Washington (U.S. state) in May 2010 and then to Washington (state) in January 2011. I don't like the idea of telling the nice guys of that state that their state must be parenthetically disambiguated, while New York doesn't need to be. While the state's website does disambiguate with "NEW YORK STATE", as New York doesn't have a state university following the common naming convention as Oregon State, Montana State, Michigan State and Ohio State, Washington does and thus Washington State is a disambiguation. So I support using the parenthetical, rather than natural disambiguation.
Thus I endorse the decision to move New York → New York (state). If no objections are immediately forthcoming, I will do this shortly, or another admin is welcome execute this as well. Then the work of disambiguating and fixing the mislinks can begin. This process will take time. It will go faster if the nice guys who do this sort of work get some help. Once we get the rest of the templates changed, if we wait for the job queue bots to do their thing, we'll have a better idea of how much work is really needed. It seems daunting now, but might not be quite as bad as it looks.
Once that work has been completed we will have some new data, and be in a better position to assess the question of whether there's a nominal primary topic. I reserve the right to review that piece of this, and suggest editors show some patience here. I think past attempts to force this question have been at least partially responsible for keeping the more important need to avoid mislinks unaddressed until now. Yes, Schoharie, this is a hairy issue, but it need not turn into another Ireland. Maybe, as with Chihuahua eventually the disambiguation moves over the base name. Bow Wow! But, I'd rather not be a Speculator until we have better data as a result of the mislinks cleanup. Tricks such as using AWB to:
County]], [[New York]]
andCounty]], [[New York (state)|New York]]
and
|subdivision_name1 = [[New York]]
|subdivision_name1 = [[New York (state)|New York]]
should help. If we find more than a few hundred meeting that critria, yes a bot request could be used to fix them. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Does MR really have a snowball's? Have a Google on London, Paris, New York and ask seriously, in most of the English-speaking world, what does New York mean? A look at Paris (disambiguation), London (disambiguation) and Washington (disambiguation) might also help perspective. Finally a look at this excellent article might help cleanse the palate (whether you agree with it or not) or failing that try this.
There are T-shirts in Australia that read London, Paris, New York, Turramurra (or whatever your favourite suburb is in place of Turramurra) and I'm sure they exist in other countries as well (if not there are some business opportunities).
We have I think established that there is a dialect of English in which New York means New York State, and that there are some Wikipedians whose strong good faith belief is that this applies to all or at least most English speakers. But there is also a rough consensus that this is not the case.
The question of whether New York City is the primary meaning of New York is of relatively little importance, and has not been settled (and I wish those who want to spend time on it the best of luck). But the more important question has been well and truly discussed. There are several ways of prolonging this discussion further, but none of them stand any chance of improving Wikipedia, in my opinion.
IMO there is no prospect of overturning that hard-won consensus, and it should now be respected. Andrewa ( talk) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, the policy-based rationale for moving this is that New York fails the WP:precision criteria of the Wikipedia:Article titles policy because that title does not sufficiently distinguish from New York City. I agree that the "consensus" regarding primary topic is marginal at best; I encourage a new discussion on that when changing the New York redirect becomes feasible. Right now it's not, until the necessary preparation work is completed in the background. I have not changed, nor do I endorse a change in primary topic. The primary topic is still the state. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Noting how Britannica disambiguates this, though it seems they have a sort of subtitle means of disambiguation that the Wikipedia developers have yet to give us. Andrewa, I am quite aware of your position on this, and your continued filibustering is getting annoying. Somehow I've let myself wade into the kind of controversy that I generally avoid. It's not fun feeling heat from both sides. I get the sense that some don't care at all if we have hundreds of "New York" internal links that are not going to their intended targets. That makes our encyclopedia inaccurate, but my sense is you don't care about that. All you seem to care about is that the big bold title at the top is what your POV thinks it should be. If y'all insist on "all or nothing" I'll just revert my little concession to you, though I would like to see those internal links fixed that you don't seem to care about. Ɱ has a point, perhaps your "hard-won consensus" was won by not advertising this to our contingent of NY-based editors, who probably edit NY-related articles far more than the average European or Australian-based editor, and who just dismiss such discussions as "already decided" – until they are blindsided to find that they're not. wbm1058 ( talk) 23:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Why was this article moved with New York still re-directing here?? Did the user who made the move want New York to re-direct to New York City?? Georgia guy ( talk) 01:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The population of the New York metropolitan area is over 20 million people, but a lot of those live in New Jersey and Connecticut. The entire state of New York has less than 20 million residents. But, if you throw out the out-of-state "New Yorkers", and limit "the city" to just Yonkers / Westchester and the close-in Long Island suburbs, then roughly half the state does not live in "the city". To anyone who doesn't live in the city, "New York" generally means the state. Upstate is "Main Street" New York. Once the Empire State, proud factory to the world. A lot of those towns are shells of what they were at their peak. It won't surprise me if a lot of them vote for Trump, though Hillary is most likely winning the state as a whole.
It will take a while for some to get used to the idea that Wikipedia has a "worldwide" point-of-view. Yes, New York increasingly begins and ends with Wall Street. – wbm1058 ( talk) 12:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
And nobody bothered to inform me, either. Get over it. There is a move review happening right now. Chime in there. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 07:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm hoping that either the MR will endorse the close as moved to New York (State), or that the relisting will produce the same result. But there's a risk that the move will be reopened and then eventually closed as Not moved, no consensus.
In that event I think the following actions would be reasonable:
1. Have a discussion as to whether the higher-level jurisdiction criterion should, in this instance, be allowed to override the two criteria explicitly suggested in the guideline. I have started this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#higher-level jurisdiction criterion. Depending on the outcome:
2. Have a discussion on whether New York State is the primary meaning of New York. Depending on the outcome:
3. Initiate a new RM based on the consensus that New York State is not the primary meaning of New York.
I hope that's a reasonable approach.
Of course its success would depend on goodwill and focus. There have already been a number of off-topic posts at the discussion I initiated in step 1. Obviously these can derail the process, either accidentally or deliberately.
I foreshadow these moves in the hope that they won't be necessary. Long term I think the logic of having New York point to what most of the English-speaking world mean by New York, in conformity to our well-established naming conventions, will win out. But the RM and MR have both been heated and messy.
My personal view of course is that New York should be an article on NYC, that having it as a DAB is acceptable (and let's move on), but that having the state there makes a mockery of our guidelines. But that it's not worth busting a blood vessel over either, and should be decided logically and by consensus. Andrewa ( talk) 04:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
it seems they have a sort of subtitle means of disambiguation that the Wikipedia developers have yet to give us." Note that the New York City article has a subtitle "New York, United States" which indicates where New York City is. And the article about the state. which is at the Primary Topic title New York, has a subtitle "State, United States" which tells us what and where it is. This is a grey zone; observe that the URL does include "state" in lower case: www.britannica.com/place/New-York-state – Frankly Britannica handles this more elegantly than our current software allows us to. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Most of the above relates to step 2 (Is New York State the primary meaning of New York, or not?), which may not even occur.
To help with step 1, I've started an essay at wp:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion. See Wikipedia talk:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion. Andrewa ( talk) 21:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Castncoot, User:Coolcaesar, I don't think this is the place to support or oppose the move. If it's relisted, then is the time and place. (But please don't fix it now, that just makes it more confusing. If you like we can just hide both those votes and this comment... would that be agreeable to you both?) Andrewa ( talk) 06:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, we're going to have a new and hopefully neater RM discussion, see below. No surprise there, and we need to see how it goes. There is every possibility that the closers of that RM will make recommendations that affect my foreshadowed program.
But it, and particularly WP:HLJC and WT:HLJC, may well be referenced in the new RM. It would be good to keep discussion on the HLJC on those pages, IMO, rather than cluttering the new RM with side issues. Andrewa ( talk) 23:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I have closed the move review as overturn and relist. I have created a dedicated subpage at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request, for a new, complete, and well-advertised discussion on this topic to be initiated one week from today. I have relied on Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request for guidance in structuring this process. I strongly recommend enlisting a three-admin panel for closure of the discussion (or a panel of two admins and a non-admin volunteer who is well-versed in move discussions). Of course, this is just my judgment on the matter, and the conditions or structure of such a discussion are subject to community determinations that they should be carried out other than as I have proposed. Please make appropriate notices to any affected projects. bd2412 T 21:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I am concerned that despite widespread support for relisting, there has so far been no input at all at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Argument and evidence in opposition to moving the page, which has been open for some days but will shortly be closed and the new move opened for discussion.
I have posted three other heads-ups so far, here, here and here. Andrewa ( talk) 19:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– See Talk:New York/July 2016 move request Andrewa ( talk) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: The closure of this discussion will be conducted by a panel consisting of Future Perfect at Sunrise, Niceguyedc, and Newyorkbrad. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
African Americans were not singly the largest ethnic group but together with West Indian blacks make that figure. per census italians are largest single group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.113.91 ( talk) 18:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
{{Edit semi-protected}}
Under 'Government', the ny.gov/governor/ link shown has been moved to www.governor.ny.gov
75.202.133.18 (
talk)
07:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Just busy updating governor stats; new york is special, paterson left office at midnight, checking all reference, glad to help. 75.202.133.18 ( talk) 07:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
United States Bill of Rights and Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution mention a peace treaty between New York and Vermont without explaining why a peace treaty was necessary or what this even means - and neither do the articles on these states nor even History of New York or History of Vermont. Very strange. -- Espoo ( talk) 22:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In the entry for New York State I noticed that the first sentence under the "Geography" heading indicates that "New York covers 49,576 squre miles (128,400 km2)" but in the table at the top of the website (under the map showing where New York is located within the United States) it records the Area of New York as 54,556 square miles (128,400 km2). I thought, since 13.3% of New York lies over water, perhaps the smaller figure is the land area? That doesn't work either, 49,576 inflated by 13.3% equals 56,146 rather than the higher number quoted on the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.29.6.2 ( talk) 20:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Under Economy, New York is listed as the third-largest grape-producing state after California. According to Wine America - The National Association of American Wineries, "The nation’s top grape producing states are (in volume of production order): California, Washington, New York, and Pennsylvania." This coincides with New York's ranking as number three, but it should read "after Washington". Please see: http://www.aswawines.org/documents/news/2009-Wine-and-Grape-Policy-Conference-Facts.pdf -- Gille86 ( talk) 11:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
– Both the city and state are called "New York". Although sometimes "State" or "City" are part of an official name (e.g., Michigan State University, Kansas City), that is not the case for either the city or state of New York. — Quantling ( talk | contribs) 14:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
—shnyusasl 18:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is the area of New York in 27th place? it should be third.It is at LEAST the 18th biggest state in the US. 166.82.187.246 ( talk) 22:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The area is correct, New York is the 27th largest state. Maps deceive the eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.79.126 ( talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm removing the semi-protection on New York, which was applied in April 2009 in response to a lot of vandalism, especially by non-registered and new users. For those that actively watch this page, please keep an eye on it and let me know if you see an uptick in vandalism. The page will remain sysop-only move protected, considering the name has been debated very frequently (see above). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
English is not the official language of New York! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.79.126 ( talk) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:New York State current license plate from 2001.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 10:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
Post removed by original poster. Citation listed under "Area" refers to the differing area values for the state, which obviously include water area (the larger figure) or don't include water area (the smaller figure). TheKurgan ( talk) 15:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
200.2.179.174 ( talk) 15:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 21 maart 2012 200.2.179.174 ( talk) 15:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC) inhabitant of Suriname
The British didn't annex New York. In the Dutch-British war Suriname, a very rich plantation of the Dutch in the Guiana's was captured by the British. The dutch changed the name to New Amsterdam. When the war was over the Dutch agreed to trade the two territories, since at that time NY was a simple Indian trading post and Suriname a thriving plantation economy.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschiedenis_van_New_York_City http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suriname
The following coordinate fixes are needed for:
Region is IN, should be US.
NOTE: Region is incorrect on Turkish page only:
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york
- Bernie
Right! this is the English-language article, not Turkish Incaking below ( talk) 20:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
You can't edit this at all, it is really annoying — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.45.17 ( talk) 00:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I've never edited this page and don't intend to now, but to me it seems appropriate that some mention should be made of Indian reservations in NYS. I've heard that there's one on Long Island, and I know Gov. Cuomo had to negotiate with some to allow gambling in Catskill area, and I assume there are more further north. -- kosboot ( talk) 16:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The article currently claims there are 22 national parks within New York. This is, of course, patently untrue, as there are only 50-some national parks in the entire country; the actual number is a big fat zero. (See List of national parks of the United States.) Does the article mean that there are 22 areas protected by the United States National Park System? (See List of areas in the United States National Park System.) If so, the number seems a little low, and the phrasing is incredibly misleading. Powers T 15:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
It's been four and half years (in July 2008) since the name of this article was discussed in depth and nominated for moving (ie. renaming) or not, so I wonder if it could be revisited. 'New York' on its own, as a commonname, refers to both the city and state. 'New York City' is certainly a widely used common name for the city of New York, so I would say that article's name is fine; I'd like to see this page named New York (state), to reflect that the state of New York is quite commonly refered to as simply 'New York' but that disambiguation is needed, as the city of New York is also quite commonly refered to as simply 'New York'. Mayumashu ( talk) 05:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Our main history section here only covers through the 19th century (with mentions of immigration continuing hence). As a native of NY I can assure you, we continued to have history after 1900. Some of it quite spectacular. The sub-article on NY history includes some information. If someone were so inclined, I'd suggest a summary of the 20th century at least belongs here. NYC alone should provide fodder, let alone us poor upstaters. I am not a writer or historian, so I yield to the better part of valor here, but please believe me, NY continued to have history up until quite recently. 204.65.34.167 ( talk) 18:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following External link to the Tourism and recreation category:
This is a link to an Amateur Radio related website for a "Special Event" which commemorate an historical occasion or other special event ( Call sign - See Amateur Radio topic). Many special event stations provide a special QSL card or certificate. The state of New York, being one of the Original 13 Colonies, participates in this yearly event (the event organizer is a New York resident). Dzabawa ( talk) 14:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please, place a link to the article "Treaty of Westminster (1674)" in the text "Treaty of Westminster" under the "17th century" topic.
Treaty of Westminster Morone ( talk) 14:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
He is the man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.219.161 ( talk) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This is by no means the only local pronunciation. There are several possibilities. (It's a pretty big state. Talking of "the" local pronunciation is almost as ridiculous as talking of the "local" pronunciation of the Chinese name for China.) ([nu ˈjɔrk]) would be used in much, if not most of the state. (It is quite common even in "non-rhotic" New York City.) Kostaki mou ( talk) 04:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the state flower and bird? 69.122.4.110 ( talk) 14:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of New York's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "MLA Data":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
On good merit, I believe (for the due expedience and non-hindrance of the Wikipedia user experience and heuristics) New York (the query itself) should redirect to the City of New York. São Paulo does not redirect to the state itself; Rio de Janeiro does not redirect to the state itself. It's a proper, and upstanding request -- please make changes swiftly and accordingly. All best.
I have calculated the July average high for NYC central Park using the NCDC Daily Summaries Daily Summaries Station Details: NEW YORK CENTRAL PARK OBS BELVEDERE TOWER, NY US, GHCND:USW00094728 | Climate Data Online (CDO) | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and the July average high is 84.88666667 therefore the July average is 84.9°F not 84.1°F , 84.1°F is dubious.
But the wikipedia NYC page moderator does not agree to change the dubious 84.1°F to real 84.9°F in New York climate.
NYC Central Park real Average high http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/398827moyennemaximaleanewyork.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:39AF:800:5153:3388:12FB:F2BC ( talk) 07:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Under geography of New York at the end of the third paragraph it states -People in New York have tiny micro penises. Big tits on the sexy abbes- Pretty sure this should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Te1085 ( talk • contribs)
To all of the readers, I would like to say that, as an editor, I appreciate your comments. There are many folks who have tried to update this article with additional information, but other editors revert and delete it, even though it is relevant and would improve the article. So, I just wanted to say that your comments have not gone unnoticed as there are editors involved in this page who revert and delete the positive and relevant contributions of others, without any discussion or follow-up regarding their reasons. I hear you, but also know that my own contributions have not been seriously considered or respected by certain other editors. Thank you! Daniellagreen ( talk) 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
New York has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Correct the broken link to the USDA Economic Research Service New York State Fact Sheet under External Links - "New York State Fact Sheet". The correct link is: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=36&StateName=New%20York#.U8A9GPldUeo
Correct the broken link to USDA Economic Research Service under reference number 49. The correct link is the same as above: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=36&StateName=New%20York#.U8A9GPldUeo
Parker ts ( talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This 2006-AUG-20 edit established the default date format for accessdates for this article per MOS:DATEUNIFY & WP:STRONGNAT & WP:DATERET.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JimWae ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a typo at the beginning of the last sentence of the first paragraph.
Are there really anyone that would expect to find an article about the state of New York when they search for New York? OK, I am aware that there exists such a state, but surely anyone searching for New York would expect to find an article about the city. -- Oddeivind ( talk) 21:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The article contains a number of grammatical errors, mainly the use of semicolons where a comma is required or vice versa. General readability would also be improved through better sentence structure in certain places. These would be easily fixed if the article could be edited. 66.249.82.173 ( talk) 00:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I have gone through and updated a few grammatical errors Jacquelyntwiki ( talk) 16:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
New York has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change m² to m<sup>2</sup>
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
New York. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
New York. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
New York has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
People of New York would like to be known as Yorkens on the Wiki page. 70.251.175.250 ( talk) 20:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 21 June 2016. The result of the move review was Overturn and relist. |
SSTFlyer closed and re-closed (is there even such a thing?) this Move request on 18 June, 2016. Next, the outcome was controverted and listed at Move review, on June 21 (mentioned here, just above). Next, bd2412 closed that Move review as Overturn and relist (never clear whether "overturn" means full undo or just revert to undecided), on 7 July. (Update not mentioned here.) The new RfM was pre-listed for initial discussion at
Talk:New_York/July 2016 move request (instead of on this page), on 7 July. (Change was not mentioned here.) The "re-listing" (new Move request) will not be "filed" and real discussion begin (there, not here) until July 14 22:00 18 July 2016 (is there even such a thing as a deferred RfM? (They're actually deleting comments!)). (Only mentioned here NOW, 11:22, 18 July 2016.) -
A876 (
talk)
11:26, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
There are three possible ways to close this discussion, depending on how the discussion closer interprets the consensus.
This is not an easy decision. I originally closed this as “no consensus” according to option 1, but now I am modifying my closure to implement option 3 instead. Among policy-based arguments, there is rough consensus that the state is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and should not be at the base title, thus option 1 (maintaining the status quo) is not optimal. On the other hand, I do not consider the consensus to move New York City to the base title to be strong enough. Therefore, I am closing this as move New York the state to New York (state) (suggestions to use WP:PARENDIS instead of WP:NATURALDIS were not opposed), and move New York (disambiguation) to New York. This is without prejudice against a new RM discussion at Talk:New York City to move the city to the base title. (closed by a page mover) SST flyer 05:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
New York →
New York State – According to the
AP Stylebook,
New York City is listed as New York, and is also the legal name of the city. The state and city use New York for a name. The state does not have primary usage of the name. Most people, when saying "New York", refer to the city and not the state. If people were referring to the state, they should say "New York State" or "State of New York" or "Upstate New York", etc. I propose having the state named New York State and having the city named New York City, with New York as a disambiguation page. Also, New York State instead of New York (state) is
WP:NATURAL. There is really no
WP:PRIMARY topic of "New York" - you could be referring to the state or the city. That is why I am proposing this new requested move. Another option, instead of New York as a disambiguation page, is to redirect it to New York City, although I am opposed to it.
✉cookiemonster✉
𝚨755𝛀
18:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.I note that in the titles New York, New York (So Good They Named It Twice), The Sidewalks of New York, An Englishman in New York, etc., the phrase New York refers to the city. That to me is evidence that the primary topic may be the city. At the very least, in the absence of evidence to the contrary (and the above discussion is long on opinions, short on evidence), it seems to count against any other primary meaning. Andrewa ( talk) 03:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Wbm1058 and Amakuru: before performing these page moves (which requires an administrator because this article is move-protected), existing pages that link to New York must be updated, because the disambiguation page is going to take its place. Normally I would do this using AWB, but with 73,972 articles having links to the state, it simply isn’t feasible for me to update all these links by hand. How should all these links be updated? Should a bot request be filed? SST flyer 06:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Speaking just from a technical standpoint now. Something of this magnitude cannot be done overnight. If you just move the page now, the good volunteers at WikiProject Disambiguation will be throwing darts at you. The Disambiguation pages with links machine will blow some gaskets.
There are nearly 400 templates linking to New York. I suppose the first step would be to manually disambiguate those templates. The next step would be to wait, likely a month or more, for the job queue to work through those. Then take another look at the remaining what-links-here results to evaluate methods for efficient disambiguation of the rest. There may be ways it could be tackled by AWB if specific usage patterns can be detected.
But any way you cut this, it's a major undertaking at this point in the Wikipedia project. I've gotta think that if such disambiguation was really necessary, it would have been done years ago. The bigger the encyclopedia gets, the harder this gets to implement. We should hold off on beginning implementation until after this is reviewed. wbm1058 ( talk) 12:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually you would move the page, but New York must redirect to New York (state) for an extended period of time. New York (disambiguation) should not be moved over the base title until the groundwork is done, and only a manageable number of pages needing disambiguation remain. wbm1058 ( talk) 12:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I've started the process of implementation - moving the
economy,
politics,
education,
flag and
government articles to the "(state)" title (cleaning up all the links after the move), and I've cleaned up the {{
United States topic}}
template where it is used so that it works properly. There's a long way to go, but moving the page to
New York (state) and leaving the leftover redirect alone for a bit would be helpful. It would allow us to change the target of all of the redirects that are going to point to the state article instead of the disambiguation page without having one of the double-redirect bots changing them back. -
Niceguyedc
Go Huskies!
13:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow, what a mess! This means that we're going to have to move a lot of articles with titles "List of x in New York" or "x in New York" to "List of x in New York (state)" or "x in New York (state)" (see Special:CategoryTree/New York). This is a move with really large consequences. This really needs move review. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium ( talk) 15:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I see some discussion has continued within the closed MR, but ideally that shouldn't be modified. And sorry, I do feel the need to give my opinion, even if it's too late (did it ever cross anyone's mind to notify any of the regional NY WikiProjects, all of which are heavily affected by this rushed decision?)
This entire thing seems to hinge on a Google search. Given the city's economic importance and tourism appeal, it is not surprising that it is well-represented online. That seems to be the sole evidence-based argument that the city is PRIMARYTOPIC; both support and oppose give unsourced assertions that the state is, or isn't, primary. (I strongly disagree that "Among policy-based arguments, there is rough consensus that the state is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC". "Rough" is way too generous.) Evidence pointing to the state perhaps being primary is plain in the section above this comment; I do not thing you will find that an excess of those incoming links were intended for the city. Every single municipality, park, building, person born, etc. outside of the metro area will have a link to the state page. I don't know if this is worth the massive effort "fixing" this problem will cause.
I don't see a strong argument demolishing WP:NATURAL here, by the way. It is natural for people to append "New York", meaning the state, when describing the location of anything outside the city. It is also natural for people to do the same within the city, but not at all uncommon to say "New York City" instead, a natural name that is plainly recognizable to people worldwide. There is no natural equivalent for referring to the state. Hence, the current setup makes sense, and is in no way confusing for visitors to this site, some of whom at worst may need to click on a hatnote link. (This new 'solution' forces everyone to make an extra click, how is this an improvement in usability?)
Sorry. Really wish I had known about this before its effects started blowing up my watchlist. I strongly feel this should be re-opened or reviewed. Antepenultimate ( talk) 14:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone ever considered Manhattan ( New York County, New York) as yet another place that may also be called "New York"? When people outside of the country think about "New York", it's usually about the city. When they think about the city, it's usually about Manhattan. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium ( talk) 01:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
That in a nutshell, shows where the fault lines lie here. The locals are mostly content with the status quo. Those from overseas favor the city. I haven't reviewed all the discussions about this, but, in terms of Policy, there is no single "right answer". The guideline says "When a widely accepted English name exists for a place, we should use it." Great. New York is a widely accepted name for both. New York City is another widely accepted name for the city. WP:USPLACE gives guidance for naming populated places, cities, counties, metropolitan areas, minor civil divisions and neighborhoods, but no specific guidance for naming one of the 50 states. WP:PLACEDAB says "When there are conventional means of disambiguation in standard English, use them, as in Red River of the North and Red River of the South, and in New York City (to distinguish from the state of New York)." But, I suppose if there are no conventional means of disambiguation for the state, then the generic parenthetical disambiguating tag (state) is acceptable. Primary topic determination is subjective, but the page view stats don't make a strong case for the state as PT, I must concede. Has anyone found evidence of a mislinking problem, i.e. editors saving [[New York]] when they meant to link to the city? If that's a significant problem, then making the title a {{ disambiguation}} page ensures these bad links will be corrected. I can guess though that if disambiguation is forced, there will be a lot of need to use NAVPOPS to change [[New York]] to [[New York (state)|New York]]. It might be worth it if there is a significant mislinking problem here. – wbm1058 ( talk) 21:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Ease of searching is only one of the reasons for identifying the primary meaning. Ease of linking is also important. In most parts of the world, editors will write [[New York]] and assume that the link will be to New York, the city. If the resulting link is to a DAB, they will be notified on their talk page, but if it's to the state, we'll get a mislinking that is hard to detect in any automated way. So if there's no consensus as to the primary topic, the DAB is a good choice for the undisambiguated name. Personally I think a case can be made that the city is the primary meaning, but even if that's the case then having the DAB at the undisambiguated name is not too bad, while having the state there is a far bigger problem. And similarly if the state is the primary meaning. Andrewa ( talk) 11:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This link shows how many backlinks to New York there are. We can use this to track progress.
|location=New York
or |place=New York
). So, if we exclude the citation links, we still have 65 pages out of 132 pointing the wrong way, i.e. 49%, confirming my measurement that about half of the internal links to
New York are meant for the city. —
JFG
talk
09:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
This link shows how many backlinks to New York (state) there are.
Side topic, but I had to respond to the comments above that "most of New York is currently blacked out" could only apply to the city as the entire state losing power would be "impossible". Ɱ, you don't remember the Northeast blackout of 2003, which happened on a perfectly nice summer day? (But hot enough to cause significant A/C use) Caused by a software glitch. Now that we know an infected thumb drive took down a nuclear facility in Iran, it seems just a matter of time before some hackers do something similar with the power grid. wbm1058 ( talk) 01:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The close above is in favour of Moving the state away from the base title, and moving the disambiguation page to the base title. There is no consensus for having either the city or the state to be the primary topic, and some participants think a primary topic does not exist.
Unless there is to be a move review, this should now happen. If there is to be a move review, I would recommend meantime moving only the article on the state, and redirecting New York to the DAB. This will at least stop the further leakage of mislinks. Andrewa ( talk) 02:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
. . .
Going back to the oldest discussions on this, as early as 2004 it was recognized that "Lots of the links to this article ought to be linked to New York City." However, as pointed out by Shereth in August 2008, the claim that more incoming links to [[New York]] are intended for the city is probably wrong. See User:Shereth/NYLinks. Past attempts to address this have failed because of poor implementation – generally they have attempted to do too much, too fast, which has triggered reversions. Clearly, and I believe there is consensus for this, there cannot be an article sitting on the [[New York]] page. This mislinking issue cannot be made to go away.
However, from that it does not follow that [[New York]] must be a disambiguation. Other options are (1) REDIRECT to New York (state) or (2) REDIRECT to New York City. The mislinking problem can be patrolled by bypassing all links to the [[New York]] redirect. The work to fix the mislinks should be done, and this work will not be wasted if [[New York]] remained a redirect to the nominal primary topic rather than moving the dab to the base name.
I note that when much of the previous discussion of this took place, the state of Washington was still at the base title. Washington moved to Washington (U.S. state) in May 2010 and then to Washington (state) in January 2011. I don't like the idea of telling the nice guys of that state that their state must be parenthetically disambiguated, while New York doesn't need to be. While the state's website does disambiguate with "NEW YORK STATE", as New York doesn't have a state university following the common naming convention as Oregon State, Montana State, Michigan State and Ohio State, Washington does and thus Washington State is a disambiguation. So I support using the parenthetical, rather than natural disambiguation.
Thus I endorse the decision to move New York → New York (state). If no objections are immediately forthcoming, I will do this shortly, or another admin is welcome execute this as well. Then the work of disambiguating and fixing the mislinks can begin. This process will take time. It will go faster if the nice guys who do this sort of work get some help. Once we get the rest of the templates changed, if we wait for the job queue bots to do their thing, we'll have a better idea of how much work is really needed. It seems daunting now, but might not be quite as bad as it looks.
Once that work has been completed we will have some new data, and be in a better position to assess the question of whether there's a nominal primary topic. I reserve the right to review that piece of this, and suggest editors show some patience here. I think past attempts to force this question have been at least partially responsible for keeping the more important need to avoid mislinks unaddressed until now. Yes, Schoharie, this is a hairy issue, but it need not turn into another Ireland. Maybe, as with Chihuahua eventually the disambiguation moves over the base name. Bow Wow! But, I'd rather not be a Speculator until we have better data as a result of the mislinks cleanup. Tricks such as using AWB to:
County]], [[New York]]
andCounty]], [[New York (state)|New York]]
and
|subdivision_name1 = [[New York]]
|subdivision_name1 = [[New York (state)|New York]]
should help. If we find more than a few hundred meeting that critria, yes a bot request could be used to fix them. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Does MR really have a snowball's? Have a Google on London, Paris, New York and ask seriously, in most of the English-speaking world, what does New York mean? A look at Paris (disambiguation), London (disambiguation) and Washington (disambiguation) might also help perspective. Finally a look at this excellent article might help cleanse the palate (whether you agree with it or not) or failing that try this.
There are T-shirts in Australia that read London, Paris, New York, Turramurra (or whatever your favourite suburb is in place of Turramurra) and I'm sure they exist in other countries as well (if not there are some business opportunities).
We have I think established that there is a dialect of English in which New York means New York State, and that there are some Wikipedians whose strong good faith belief is that this applies to all or at least most English speakers. But there is also a rough consensus that this is not the case.
The question of whether New York City is the primary meaning of New York is of relatively little importance, and has not been settled (and I wish those who want to spend time on it the best of luck). But the more important question has been well and truly discussed. There are several ways of prolonging this discussion further, but none of them stand any chance of improving Wikipedia, in my opinion.
IMO there is no prospect of overturning that hard-won consensus, and it should now be respected. Andrewa ( talk) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, the policy-based rationale for moving this is that New York fails the WP:precision criteria of the Wikipedia:Article titles policy because that title does not sufficiently distinguish from New York City. I agree that the "consensus" regarding primary topic is marginal at best; I encourage a new discussion on that when changing the New York redirect becomes feasible. Right now it's not, until the necessary preparation work is completed in the background. I have not changed, nor do I endorse a change in primary topic. The primary topic is still the state. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Noting how Britannica disambiguates this, though it seems they have a sort of subtitle means of disambiguation that the Wikipedia developers have yet to give us. Andrewa, I am quite aware of your position on this, and your continued filibustering is getting annoying. Somehow I've let myself wade into the kind of controversy that I generally avoid. It's not fun feeling heat from both sides. I get the sense that some don't care at all if we have hundreds of "New York" internal links that are not going to their intended targets. That makes our encyclopedia inaccurate, but my sense is you don't care about that. All you seem to care about is that the big bold title at the top is what your POV thinks it should be. If y'all insist on "all or nothing" I'll just revert my little concession to you, though I would like to see those internal links fixed that you don't seem to care about. Ɱ has a point, perhaps your "hard-won consensus" was won by not advertising this to our contingent of NY-based editors, who probably edit NY-related articles far more than the average European or Australian-based editor, and who just dismiss such discussions as "already decided" – until they are blindsided to find that they're not. wbm1058 ( talk) 23:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Why was this article moved with New York still re-directing here?? Did the user who made the move want New York to re-direct to New York City?? Georgia guy ( talk) 01:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The population of the New York metropolitan area is over 20 million people, but a lot of those live in New Jersey and Connecticut. The entire state of New York has less than 20 million residents. But, if you throw out the out-of-state "New Yorkers", and limit "the city" to just Yonkers / Westchester and the close-in Long Island suburbs, then roughly half the state does not live in "the city". To anyone who doesn't live in the city, "New York" generally means the state. Upstate is "Main Street" New York. Once the Empire State, proud factory to the world. A lot of those towns are shells of what they were at their peak. It won't surprise me if a lot of them vote for Trump, though Hillary is most likely winning the state as a whole.
It will take a while for some to get used to the idea that Wikipedia has a "worldwide" point-of-view. Yes, New York increasingly begins and ends with Wall Street. – wbm1058 ( talk) 12:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
And nobody bothered to inform me, either. Get over it. There is a move review happening right now. Chime in there. ✉cookiemonster✉ 𝚨755𝛀 07:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm hoping that either the MR will endorse the close as moved to New York (State), or that the relisting will produce the same result. But there's a risk that the move will be reopened and then eventually closed as Not moved, no consensus.
In that event I think the following actions would be reasonable:
1. Have a discussion as to whether the higher-level jurisdiction criterion should, in this instance, be allowed to override the two criteria explicitly suggested in the guideline. I have started this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#higher-level jurisdiction criterion. Depending on the outcome:
2. Have a discussion on whether New York State is the primary meaning of New York. Depending on the outcome:
3. Initiate a new RM based on the consensus that New York State is not the primary meaning of New York.
I hope that's a reasonable approach.
Of course its success would depend on goodwill and focus. There have already been a number of off-topic posts at the discussion I initiated in step 1. Obviously these can derail the process, either accidentally or deliberately.
I foreshadow these moves in the hope that they won't be necessary. Long term I think the logic of having New York point to what most of the English-speaking world mean by New York, in conformity to our well-established naming conventions, will win out. But the RM and MR have both been heated and messy.
My personal view of course is that New York should be an article on NYC, that having it as a DAB is acceptable (and let's move on), but that having the state there makes a mockery of our guidelines. But that it's not worth busting a blood vessel over either, and should be decided logically and by consensus. Andrewa ( talk) 04:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
it seems they have a sort of subtitle means of disambiguation that the Wikipedia developers have yet to give us." Note that the New York City article has a subtitle "New York, United States" which indicates where New York City is. And the article about the state. which is at the Primary Topic title New York, has a subtitle "State, United States" which tells us what and where it is. This is a grey zone; observe that the URL does include "state" in lower case: www.britannica.com/place/New-York-state – Frankly Britannica handles this more elegantly than our current software allows us to. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Most of the above relates to step 2 (Is New York State the primary meaning of New York, or not?), which may not even occur.
To help with step 1, I've started an essay at wp:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion. See Wikipedia talk:Higher-Level Jurisdiction Criterion. Andrewa ( talk) 21:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Castncoot, User:Coolcaesar, I don't think this is the place to support or oppose the move. If it's relisted, then is the time and place. (But please don't fix it now, that just makes it more confusing. If you like we can just hide both those votes and this comment... would that be agreeable to you both?) Andrewa ( talk) 06:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, we're going to have a new and hopefully neater RM discussion, see below. No surprise there, and we need to see how it goes. There is every possibility that the closers of that RM will make recommendations that affect my foreshadowed program.
But it, and particularly WP:HLJC and WT:HLJC, may well be referenced in the new RM. It would be good to keep discussion on the HLJC on those pages, IMO, rather than cluttering the new RM with side issues. Andrewa ( talk) 23:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I have closed the move review as overturn and relist. I have created a dedicated subpage at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request, for a new, complete, and well-advertised discussion on this topic to be initiated one week from today. I have relied on Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request for guidance in structuring this process. I strongly recommend enlisting a three-admin panel for closure of the discussion (or a panel of two admins and a non-admin volunteer who is well-versed in move discussions). Of course, this is just my judgment on the matter, and the conditions or structure of such a discussion are subject to community determinations that they should be carried out other than as I have proposed. Please make appropriate notices to any affected projects. bd2412 T 21:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I am concerned that despite widespread support for relisting, there has so far been no input at all at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Argument and evidence in opposition to moving the page, which has been open for some days but will shortly be closed and the new move opened for discussion.
I have posted three other heads-ups so far, here, here and here. Andrewa ( talk) 19:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– See Talk:New York/July 2016 move request Andrewa ( talk) 00:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: The closure of this discussion will be conducted by a panel consisting of Future Perfect at Sunrise, Niceguyedc, and Newyorkbrad. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)