Talk:New York, New York (disambiguation)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 01:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

New York, New York (disambiguation) → New York, New York — There is no primary meaning of this 4-word phrase. Georgia guy 01:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support - I agree with Georgia guy. —Mets501 (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Having been born in New York, New York, I am pretty damn sure that there is a very well-known primary meaning for that term. And if you don't like it, get outta my way. :) --Russ (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The common name of the city is New York City, which is where the article is titled, and which everyone knows the city as. It is most likely that anyone who wants to search for the city would want to type New York City. Georgia guy 22:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - insufficient justification. "New York, New York" is a standard designation of New York City, and of Manhattan in particular. I don't see the reason for this change, but I'd be willing to change if it could be explained better. -Will Beback 23:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "New York, New York" is used almost exclusively in either writing an address or singing with the Sinatra tune. Show me that it is a very common name independent of these 2 special cases. Georgia guy 23:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Writing an address is a very common usage. I don't see why that is excluded as a special case. Readers accustomed to writing letters would likely search on that term. Is there a harm cause by the current arrangment that needs to be corrected? -Will Beback 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the reasoning is insufficient. --Yath 11:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There was a huge brouhaha about where to put the article on the city. You can read some of it here but there was even more. A substantial body of opinion wanted the city's article at New York, New York. That's what would be typed by a reader who was familiar with Wikipedia's "Cityname, Statename" naming convention for articles about U.S. cities and who didn't know that NYC was an exception. "New York, New York" as a reference to the city is far more common than all the other meanings combined, so it should redirect to the article about the city. JamesMLane t c 04:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Why reopen this can of worms without a compelling reason? Every single alternative usage is derived from the city or the county. Retain the redirect to the city. –Joke 00:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Refers specifically to Manhattan as per the postal service. — CharlotteWebb 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That implies that Manhattan is the primary meaning. However, this doesn't agree with the status quo of a re-direct to New York City. Georgia guy 23:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It should probably redirect to Manhattan after all, but we are not here to discuss that. A disambiguation page at a title which is a verbatim postal address would give undue weight to the derivative topics, including but not limited to the nadir of Scorsese's career. Show tunes and other artistic works are always secondary to geographical locations, and that's a fact. — CharlotteWebb 23:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. All other city/town entries in Wikipedia are in the City, State format. New York City is inconsistent and "breaks" searches. New York City should be a redirect entry to "New York, New York". —Quicksilver^{T @} 03:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  Nonsense. Here are some examples: Copenhagen, Istanbul, Philadelphia, Chicago, Montréal, Mexico City. It breaks searches? Which, pray? –Joke 04:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

This requested move is a little thin on justification. Would someone (Georgia guy?) mind explaining it more? --Yath 22:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

See the above comment I made in response to the first vote to oppose. Any objections?? Georgia guy 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What I was getting at was, what other meaning than New York City could New York, New York have? Ok, some anon comments above mention it means the county of New York, in mailing addresses. Not the most prominent meaning if you ask me. --Yath 11:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Georgia guy's position just plain misses the point. Yes, "New York, New York" can have several meanings -- a city, a song, a Vegas hotel -- but it has one clear primary meaning. If supporters of this proposal are serious, they should specifically address the criteria given on Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic. --Russ (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

How is the city the primary meaning of this phrase?? Georgia guy 13:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

G.g., there are over 2300 (estimate) pages on Wikipedia that link to New York, New York. Perhaps if you read some of those pages and see what the editors thought the phrase refers to, you would understand. --Russ (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please include only pages in the article namespace. Georgia guy 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, gee, then there are only 2179. My bad. Russ (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.