Talk:List of beaches in New York

Requested move 15 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. I will open a broader discussion to examine this issue. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@CrazyBoy826, Interstellarity, Station1, IJBall, Epicgenius, Andrewa, and Calidum: Your input is appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Subtopics of places with ambiguous names. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

---

List of beaches in New York → List of beaches in New York state – This could be confused between New York City and New York (state). CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 23:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Move to List of beaches in New York (state). I am assuming the nominator meant that title. I think disambiguation is necessary to separate the state from the city. Interstellarity (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary WP:OVERPRECISION. There is only one article, that cover beaches in all of New York, so it's impossible to confuse with any other article. Disambiguation would be required only if there was a separate article for beaches in New York City. Could be moved to Beaches in New York per WP:CONCISE. - Station1 (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support because New York is frequently only the City. And it should match the name of the base article per the nom. The current title does not fulfill its purpose in identifying the topic, even though it is not ambiguous with other articles, it is not specific enough to enable a reader to determine the topic, since the City of New York also has beaches, the combination of "beach"+"New York" is not determinatory in its scope. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Someone seeing an article titled List of beaches in New York (state) might assume the list does not include beaches in New York City; otherwise why the need to specify "state" as a disambiguator if it doesn't disambiguate anything? Besides what would we do with the leftover redirect List of beaches in New York? The shorter redirect could only redirect to the now-longer title, since there's no other article. Station1 (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see that, since state is inclusive of city, until the city gains independence. It would specify "state" so that you wouldn't think it was just about the city (or county). -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Move to List of beaches in New York (state) to match the disambig. of the parent article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
• Move to List of beaches in New York (state) per IJBall. (Note, I am also creating a list of beaches in New York City, so this should probably allay the concerns of 65.94.170.207.) epicgenius (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. In that New York is a disambiguation page, meaning that significant numbers of readers go each way in the meaning they assume of New York (and see wp:NYRM for more on this!!!), the simplest and best solution is to have a single list at the current title covering all beaches that are in either the City or the State (or in both of course). Andrewa (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per OVERPRECISION as others have pointed out. Calidum 17:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above 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.