This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the
Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the
importance scale.
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.
Comment. I would vote for Support, but because Sagada falls under the "jurisdiction" of the
WP:MOSPHIL naming guidelines, the proposed move would go against the stated guidelines and as such there is a strong reason for the move to fail. That said, there is an ongoing discussion at the
WT:TAMBAY talk page regarding the naming guidelines and I exhort people to participate in that discussion. —
seav (
talk)
19:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Thank you for creating a stub article about the village at Dagestan today. Fortunately,
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists and by my cursory look at various search results (Google, Google News, Google Books, Bing Search, Bing News), the municipality deserves the primary topic status. Now, don't use the argument that just because there are other topics named "Sagada" that this move request shouldn't succeed. Lots of topics are named "Paris" but that doesn't mean the capital of France does not deserve the article title "Paris". You need to have a better argument than just there's a village in Russia called "Sagada". —
seav (
talk)
04:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)reply
He did create the Russian village article just today, apparently to prove something. But why? And please review the rules on
WP:CIVIL, i.e, insults to fellow editors are uncalled for and can get you in trouble. Thanks! --
RioHondo (
talk)
06:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. Per B2C's
link, I'd like to see if an interpretation of the
WP:AT policy can trump local guidelines.
Anyway, to expand the reasoning and not just make my support another "me too", adding the province name is overly precise and certainly not concise especially when "Sagada" alone is recognizable to Filipinos. A look at Google News results show that the town is frequently referred to as "Sagada" alone without the comma-separated province name. Google Books results show that adding the comma-separated province name is rarer. —
seav (
talk)
05:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)reply
You do very well know that disambiguations still work if there aren't articles, that means articles are just waiting to be created. –HTD15:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)reply
How exacty will a disambiguation page work if there is only one article it will list? I did a look for other plausible topics that could have the name "Sagada" but all I came up with are "Sagada hanging coffins" and "Sagada National High School", both of which are not simply referred to as just "Sagada" and thus would not be under the purview of a Sagada disambiguation page per
WP:PTM. For instance,
Clinton (disambiguation) does not list
Bill Clinton. —
seav (
talk)
19:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Know that you mentioned it, what comes to your mind when you hear/read the word "Sagada". The town must be behind the thoughts of mountains and hanging coffins... the school not so much. –HTD04:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)reply
If you're asking that question to me personally, of course I will think of the town first. I'm a map geek, and places are what I usually think of first when a place name is mentioned. Furthermore, I have blogging friends who used to maintain the Visit Sagada blog and act as amateur tour guides to Sagada and so I'm quite familiar with the town. —
seav (
talk)
05:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)reply
How is this a bad-faith move request?
RioHondo thinks in good faith that this move would make Wikipedia better. You do have the point that putting this discussion on hold might be better, but accusations of bad-faith is too much. Please read
WP:AGF. —
seav (
talk)
18:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)reply
RioHondo has been involved in the central discussion, so he well aware that we're trying to reach consensus there. To work behind the scenes of this central discussion is counterproductive (to say it mildly). To give him the benefit of the doubt, I have striked it out. --
P 1 9 9✉21:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)reply
P199, AFAIK, this is no different than
Samar and
Leyte which i initiated and which ended with a clear consensus to move the provinces despite going against the WP Mosphil guidelines on provinces taking precedence over islands. With a little bit of common sense and
WP:BOLD decisions, we have successfully
WP:IAR the Mosphil and corrected this flaw. :) --
RioHondo (
talk)
02:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment. Another precedent for moves against local conventions (more relevant than the
Elizabeth II example) are page moves for Australian places a few years ago. In early 2010,
the Australian place-name convention stated:
All Australian town/city/suburb articles are at
Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital Cities will be excepted from this rule and preferentially made
City. The unqualified
Town should be either a redirect or disambig page. Local government areas are at their official name.
Oppose - Keep the title that is very safe. There are other items named Sagada that exist in the world. Moving it now, may require to move it again later.
Androoox (
talk)
22:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Please elaborate on your statement. As your argument stands, it's extremely useless. Lots of other items named "Paris" exist in the world, but that doesn't mean that the capital of France cannot get the article title "Paris". That's why we have a whole page called
WP:DAB. —
seav (
talk)
04:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Support. This is the clear primary topic of the term
Sagada, with basically nothing competing. If we're going to insist on strict adherence to
MOS:PHIL, in the very least
Sagada should redirect to this municipality (this is what's done with the similar guideline
WP:USPLACE).--
Cúchullaint/
c19:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.