Talk:Sagada

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.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sagada, Mountain Province → Sagada – Per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Disambiguation not needed as Sagada redirects here. – RioHondo (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UNDAB. --B2C 17:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• Comment I would think that "Sagada" should be a disambiguation page. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It should. Only there is nothing at Sagada (disambiguation).--RioHondo (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Very ignorant. People from Sagada, Dagestan may not like your point of view at all. Androoox (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to disambiguate. —seav (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Very ignorant. People from Sagada, Dagestan may not like your point of view at all. Androoox (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
      • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)

• Disambiguify Sagada, keep the article here as per WP:MOSPHIL. –HTD 09:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to disambiguate. —seav (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • You do very well know that disambiguations still work if there aren't articles, that means articles are just waiting to be created. –HTD 15:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
      • 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)
        • 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. –HTD 04:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
          • 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)
• Comment: This is a bad-faith move discussion while the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Naming of places is underway. This move discussion should be put on hold. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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.

Despite that, page moves like Ballarat and Coffs Harbour were successfully moved due to reasoning per the WP:AT policy. —seav (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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).--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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.