User talk:Andrewa/New York (overview)

WikiProject New York WikiProject New York City

Why this page[edit]

This is a draft broad-concept article as suggested by discussion at Talk:New York (disambiguation)#Broad concept article proposal and other discussion linked to from that section. Andrewa (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status[edit]

There is currently no consensus as to what should be at the base name New York... the candidates are

the state
the city
a DAB
this broad-concept article

and the main function of this draft at this stage is to demonstrate what such a page could look like, for the process of building consensus.

Depending on that decision, this draft may be moved to the base name, or to some other name in the article namespace, or it may be userfied to my user space. I'd prefer it wasn't deleted, as it represents some work and may be of help in further discussions either concerning New York or concerning broad-concept articles more generally. Andrewa (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following NYRM2017 there is now consensus that it should not be the state. Andrewa (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-ups[edit]

The WikiProject New York template should alert that WikiProject. Unsure as to whether a WikiProject New York City heads-up is also required... thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Text copied from[edit]

Please do not archive this section, it is required as part of the edit history required under our copyleft licences. If auto-archiving of this page is implemented, this section should be exempted.

Text copied from New York (disambiguation).

Text copied from New York metropolitan area.

Text copied from Province of New York.

I am removing the timestamp from my sig, in case this page is ever auto-archived. Andrewa (talk)

Punctuation[edit]

It annoys me that there's now no end of the sentence that introduces the bulleted sentence fragments in the lede. Suggestions? Or am I the only one who finds it irritating?

Agree that the removal of and several other unrelated places, both in the United States and elsewhere, see New York (disambiguation) for a complete list is OK, it's covered in the hatnote in any case, it just left an awkward question of punctuation IMO. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can wewrite it so it looks better, but I do agree that it looks weird. Remember this is only a draft. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:New York#Should we move the draft. Andrewa (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Testing the water re a more modest move proposal[edit]

I am tempted to instead move this immediately to draft:New York (overview).

This would have the advantages of better representing both the content and the intention. There is no prospect, this late in the process, of moving this to the base name New York. If that is ever to happen, then that is a question for after this move closes and any moratorium expires. Such a move would definitely be covered by any likely moratorium!

There has already been some discussion relevant to this. Here is the place for it to continue. I will post some heads-ups, and depending on the responses, perhaps an RM draft:New York -> draft:New York (overview) would be the go. Andrewa (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved[edit]

In that nobody has objected, I have boldly done it. Please note that this did not involve any admin powers. I am acting as an editor only. Andrewa (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not objecting or asking for it to be moved back, but less see what the discussion on the main talk pages concludes with. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If indeed there is a conclusion. I suppose eventually others will find their patience exhausted, but I see no sign of it yet. I have raised my desire for closure many times. Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of the name[edit]

Alanscottwalker has removed the text Historically, the name was first applied to the settlement formerly known as New Amsterdam, the capital of New Netherland, upon its surrender to English forces in 1664 with the edit summary False it was applied to the province taken from the Dutch. [1]

That may be so, but it would be better surely to correct the statement rather than removing it completely. How should it be phrased? Andrewa (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the unsourced statement? Phrased? That is rather backwards, one should first start with a review of sources before pitching some phrase. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. I was assuming that you had some reason for the claim you made in the edit summary. Not so?

The idea of a draft is to improve it. Your point about source is valid, but your edit seems to be a step backwards to me. Andrewa (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to shout. Per WP:V, improvement comes through removal of stuff that is not verified, and yes I do think the above statement is unverifiable. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of an article, perhaps. Even then, if as your edit summary seemed to indicate, you have access to verifiable information, I really can't see any reason to remove rather than replace the information. That was my whole point, which you seem to have missed.

And in a draft, definitely better to flag as unsourced than to remove.

That information came from somewhere, and I can't offhand remember where. It may well be that there's an unsourced and perhaps unverifiable statement to the same effect in the article namespace somewhere, and if so, removing (or better replacing) that would definitely improve Wikipedia. It shouldn't be too hard to find, I'll have a go. Stay tuned!

And I'm sorry that you dislike my emphasis, it improves the clarity IMO, and it's not SHOUTING as I understand the term, in fact it seems quite within that guideline to me... not to you? Andrewa (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you copied it from Wikipedia? If so, see WP:Copying within Wikipedia and where it came and attribution should be clear. At any rate, what's the the WP:RS on which the claim is made? Assertions, "historically" should really not be laying around unsourced. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of emphasising again, what I said was That information came from somewhere.... Copying within Wikipedia (which has actually been the subject of recent and ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Page history) is about copying text. So unfortunately, it's no help here.

(Text can be copyrighted and is, information can't be. If either of those statements were not true, then wp:5P3 would be in serious trouble!)

Some text here has been copied. See #Text copied from above, which I think conforms to the guideline you cited... even exceeding it in several important ways, which is what we've been discussing at VP.

Agree that Assertions, "historically" should really not be laying around unsourced, if you mean in the article namespace. But if you mean in the draft namespace, justifying your edit that I questioned above, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Far better to fix them.

And fixing them before moving to the main namespace is certainly important, and thanks for bringing this one to my attention. Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/new-amsterdam-becomes-new-york rerads in part ... New Amsterdam, the capital of New Netherland, ... Following its capture, New Amsterdam’s name was changed to New York, in honor of the Duke of York, who organized the mission. That seems to me to be a reliable source supporting Historically, the name was first applied to the settlement formerly known as New Amsterdam, the capital of New Netherland, upon its surrender to English forces in 1664.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/nyregion/new-yorks-350th-birthday-party-your-invitation-isnt-lost-in-the-mail.html tells exactly the same story, but it's a bit flippant in tone and may soon disappear behind a paywall.

Alanscottwalker, would you object to me reverting your removal of that text, if I cite that first source? Or do we need better ones, in your opinion?

Or do you have some conflicting source? Your edit summary was quite definite that the statement was false. On what basis?

Because, and far more important, the lead of our article on New Amsterdam currently reads in part New Amsterdam (Dutch: Nieuw Amsterdam) was a 17th-century Dutch settlement... and later New Amsterdam was renamed New York on September 8, 1664, in honor of the then Duke of York... (my emphasis), which seems to also support the statement that you called false.

So again I ask, why do you say False it was applied to the province taken from the Dutch (again my emphasis)? Are you perhaps splitting hairs here? Or are there sources that do insist, as you seem to wish to insist, that the name New York was first applied to New Netherlands (or some other "province") rather than to New Amsterdam? Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Neither of those sources support the statement. The statement expressly contends that a name was changed before another ("first"). But those do not say that. Saying it was changed "first" is OR, and goes beyond the source. You can use that source to say the name was changed, but you cannot use it to say first. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see your point. The source says that the settlement was renamed after the Duke of York, but it is still logically possible that the province was renamed first, to the same name.

It does suggest that your edit summary, for which you have provided no justification, was itself false.

http://www.jesuitseast.org/Assets/Publications/File/The%20History%20of%20the%20New%20York%20Province%20Jesuits.pdf is interesting... the 1880 catalogue noted that the province received the new name of the New York Province, named after the largest city in the new jurisdiction. (my emphasis) Both the State and the City were know as New York by this time, of course, and both were included in the Jesuit "province".

I'll keep looking! Andrewa (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, my edit summary was not false. The entire Dutch colony was renamed New York, as the entire Dutch Colony was given to James, Duke of York and Duke of Albany, in England by his bother before any English ships even went there.[2][3] [4]. Your Jesuit Province source about the 1840s to the 21st century is obviously not relevant to anything in the 1600s, so no, it is not interesting, just irrelevant. I also do not have the WP:BURDEN, you do. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those sources! I confirm that they do support your claim.

Agree that the burden of proof is on those adding material, rather than deleting it. I find your phrasing a little unfortunate. Please do not take any of this personally. Andrewa (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion[edit]

A somewhat related discussion is taking place at Talk:New York/Proposed move. Please read and comment if you have anything to share. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That page is now at Talk:New York (state)/Proposed move following the move of the New York State article, and is now best seen as an archive page IMO. Andrewa (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps better seen as an outline[edit]

Perhaps this would be better rewritten to be a draft for Outline of New York, which would belong in Category:Outlines of regions.

We would need to move the existing Outline of New York article, I guess to Outline of New York State. It's a shame it can't better match the article name of the New York (state) article but I can't see how to do that, and as New York State redirects there anyway it's not a great problem IMO.

See Portal:Contents/Outlines and Portal:Contents/Overviews for the differences between the two types of article.

Comments? Andrewa (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will this be mainspaced?[edit]

Looks well developed, but no one remembered to send it to mainspace. I found it up for possible G13 deletion Legacypac (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay for now, as the NYRM process of which it is part is ongoing (unfortunately).

This (which is also a legitimate edit) will keep it off the G13 list for another six months, hopefully!

Thanks for the heads-up. Andrewa (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]