Wikipedia talk:NYRM2018

Why this page

At NYRM2017 at was foreshadowed that there could be a further RM to test whether New York City is the primary topic of New York.

If and when this occurs, wp:NYRM2018 will become a permanent pointer to that discussion. Meantime it is a placeholder to use in discussion and perhaps edit summaries to make it explicit what is being discussed.

It is my belief that NYRM2018 should be moved on or after 19 July 2018, that being a year from the close of NYRM2017 at 10:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC).

For now it contains a useful reminder of the moratorium. In some ways a redlink would be better, but that would make this talk page liable for deletion under wp:G8. Andrewa (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What NYRM2018 might achieve

Reader experience

Our bottom line. The PT guidelines are there to make the encyclopedia as reader-friendly as possible, so if NYC is the PT that's a good case for another move, and so testing whether NYC is the PT is also a good case for raising an RM, in good time. Andrewa (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor experience

It's confusing for new editors if we have rules we don't follow. We can't be perfect in this and shouldn't even try to be, but again if NYC is the PT (as many have suggested) then it would be good to fix that, and if not then equally good to document that. Andrewa (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Condorcet paradox test

Resolving this is not IMO anywhere like sufficient reason for NYRM2018, but it's a useful byproduct as a concrete example to cite when (inevitably) someone decides to suggest a Condorcet paradox (hence CP) in the future as an argument that there is no consensus to move. While the closer of NYRM2016 did not rely on this argument, they did raise it for some reason, later restated it, and they did conclude no consensus.

So let us lay this one to rest! It was always rather bizarre IMO, to the point that anyone who knows the (rather subtle) underlying maths would call it a ridiculous suggestion. But some very experienced and competent editors took it seriously, so obviously I could be wrong, and I'd like to complete the investigation.

Completing the investigation would have two benefits:

It's possible that some still suspect a CP in this case. NYRM2018 will probably settle this, but at the very least it will pave the way for NYRM2019 (see below) which will settle it.
It provides some groundwork to help answer the question if the possibility of a CP is raised again, in the context of another unrelated RM. Leaving the issue hanging, on the other hand, will just encourage those playing for no consensus to raise similar (and IMO probably equally baseless) suggestions that a CP may exist. (This also does the Marquis de Condorcet something of an injustice, as his work was on how voting systems can work well, rather than on how they fail. He showed that unresolvable CPs are exceedingly rare, described the conditions under which they can occur, and most important, the ways in which they can be resolved and avoided. But they have captured the popular imagination in a way that would have broken his heart, this being a good example.)

Just to recap how this RM would complete the investigation, a CP only exists if we have three (or more) possibilities and A beats B which beats C which then beats A. In this case, the three possibilities are that the destination of the base name New York could be

NYS (as prior to NYRM2017), or
NYC (as is to be tested by NYRM2018), or
neither (as at present).

You can think of it as a triangle, with these three possibilities at the angles, and an arrow along each side indicating which of the possibilities at either end of that side is preferred over the other. If and only if all three arrows point in the same direction around the triangle, we have a CP situation, and RMs can go on forever moving around the triangle. (The arrows can point in either direction, just so long as all three point in the same direction. So in any three-way contest there are exactly two possible and different Condorcet scenarios. The NYRM2016 closer did not say which of the two they thought might exist here, but NYRM2017 eliminated one of them. So now we just need to deal with the other.)

We've established in NYRM2017 that "neither" beats NYS. If we now decide (in NYRM2018) whether (or not) NYC beats "neither', then:

If NYRM2018 is rejected, then "neither" also beats NYC, and there's no CP, QED. To have a CP, we need the arrows to all go the same way around the triangle, and this would have one going in each direction, so the direction of the third is irrelevant.
If NYRM succeeds, then NYC beats "neither", and in theory we'd still need to test whether NYS beats NYC (the third arrow around the triangle). Let us call this NYRM2019!
- If NYRM2019 were to succeed, that would move NYS back to the base name, and we would indeed have a CP. And we'd need to deal with that!
- But IMO, NYRM2019 is doomed to the point of being a waste of time (and so hopefully it will remain hypothetical), and always was (and that's why the CP suggestion was always ridiculous to anyone who knew the math), and there has always been strong consensus on this! It's just that many either did not see this, or did not realise its significance.

Or in other words, there has always been strong consensus that NYC beats NYS (ie that if there is a primary topic, then it's the city rather than the state). So I'd be happy to leave it at NYRN2018 without any further RM (ie without NYRM2019) or RfC. We have always known the direction of this third arrow, as was admitted many times in statements to the effect of if NYS is moved away from the base name, there's no way we'll aver move it back or if NYS hadn't been at the base name for a long time, there's be no problem moving it now etc. etc. etc..

And either way, this little loose end will be neatly tidied up by NYMR2018 (and without needing NYRM2019), IMO. Andrewa (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panel closes can work after all

See Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move 8 February 2018. I don't completely agree with the result (I was trying hard to build consensus) but the panel have made an excellent call that everyone should respect. Andrewa (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why I do not intend to proceed

Since NYRM2017 my thoughts have changed somewhat, and largely because of reflections on that discussion.

I still believe that by any sensible measure, New York City is the primary topic of New York.

But what has changed is that I have concluded that despite this, reader experience is far better served if the page on New York City is at an unambiguous page name. This is a radical view and has consequences far beyond these specific discussions. See User:Andrewa/Why primary topic is to be avoided and its talk page for more on this.

This does not of course prevent any other editor from raising NYRM2018.

I would probably oppose it, but only at this stage on grounds of wp:IAR. The policy and guidelines currently (and dare I say, unambiguously) otherwise support a move, in my opinion. But we would of course have to see what arguments were presented. Andrewa (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Andrewa/Primary Topic RfC for my latest thoughts. Andrewa (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]