Talk:Patos Island

Requested move 20 April 2026

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: not moved. In this RM, we have a consensus to keep the Washington island as the primary topic (WP:LTS). Washington island substantially has more historical significance and coverage in English language reliable sources due to its lighthouse, national monuments and maritime history.

The alternative proposal to move the page to "Patos Island Marine State Park" is also being rejected. It has been established that the island's notability independently precedes the park's creation, and "Patos Island" remains the common name in secondary literature. (non-admin closure) Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 13:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Patos Island → Patos Island (United States) – There is also Patos Island (Venezuela), and I don't see a primary topic. ~2026-24309-13 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 21:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. No clear primary topic. {{GearsDatapacks|talk|contribs}} 20:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the an inhabited and accessible island would be considered the primary topic over an uninhabited and much smaller island. SounderBruce 21:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Patos Island, Washington is also uninhabited. At least, to my understanding, there is not significant permanent population, although at any given time there will be people there, especially in the summer. The entire island is a state park with primitive campsites and no drinking water. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

  At present, that's correct, though it has been inhabited. It is also a state park, has an active lighthouse on the National Register of Historic Places, is part of a National Monument, and there is a book which has it as a primary subject. I believe it has transparently more long-term significance per WP:LTS. I would also like to remind everyone of the language indicating that "usage in English-language reliable sources matters the most." Patos Island (Venezuela) cites exactly 1. AddieWillow (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

  Good points. I've changed my stance below. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support Patos Island (Washington) the American one has 156 views but the Venezuela one has 168[]. I would suggest using the state rather than the country as that is normal in America and the Commons category already uses this title. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, concur with SounderBruce. However, if moved, I agree that it should certainly be Patos Island (Washington). AddieWillow (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support some sort of move, either to Patos Island, Washington, Patos Island (Washington), or perhaps even to Patos Island Marine State Park. I don't love a WP:TWODAB situation but Patos Island is ambiguous with no obvious primary topic. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as this article appears to be more WP:NOTABLE than the other. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet of Justthefacts, see investigation. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per AddieWillow, SounderBruce, and PoliticalPoint. After further consideration, I am persuaded that the current situation is optimal. The island in Washington is very likely the primary topic. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support per Crouch, Swale (don't mind which disambiguator). Be cautious of geobias. The Washington one is slightly bigger but worse viewed. From there, little long-term significance can make there a primary topic. Even then, the Venezuelan one has arguably greater historical significance, being subject to a territorial dispute. It is also inhabited, or at least was in 2002. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  The pages are closer in page views (last 90 = 542 vs. 642) than in size (13,783 vs. 5,514 bytes). Patos Island (WA) was also involved in a territorial dispute, one that has more historical significance. The source about a family of fisherman is dated to 1997, not 2002 as far as I can tell, and it appears to be re-stating information from a mid-twentieth century source vs. an observation dating to 1997. While I appreciate the sensitivity to geobias, the dearth of even Spanish-language sources that treat the island itself as a primary topic (vs. mentions in coverage of disputes with the UK) suggests to me a lesser degree of WP:LTS. I'd like to re-iterate that per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "usage in English-language reliable sources matters the most." Google Trends (used as suggested per WP:DPT) gives Patos Island, Washington a slightly higher worldwide score from 2004-present than Patos Island, Venezuela. AddieWillow (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support - It's always better to keep "main" title like Patos Island for disambiguation. --Argo Navis (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  Interesting claim... if this RM succeeds then we should consider updating our guideline at primary topic which currently says exactly the opposite. Andrewa (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Patos Island Marine State Park is an available natural disambiguation as the article scope is actually the whole state park, which includes more than just Patos Island. Just to let everyone know. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 06:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The Venezuelan island would not even get a page except for the international wrangling over this otherwise apparently worthless square mile of real estate. It is even so only marginally notable, while the US island has a lighthouse which is historically significant. This results in its mention in many reliable secondary sources. This island is therefore the primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Give name proposed by Maltazarian some time. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support alternative rename and possible rescope if necessary (which seems doubtful) to Patos Island Marine State Park. The base name Patos Island could either become a two-way DAB or a redirect with a corresponding hatnote at the target of the redirect. Andrewa (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose alternative. Preferable to initial RM, but Patos Island was already notable on its own prior to the creation of the state park in 1974, and continues to be notable over and above its protected status. The island is federally (BLM) owned: WA Parks merely leases the recreation area from the BLM, meaning the lease could end following any given term & making the name Patos Island slightly more stable. The name Patos Island Marine State Park is not found in sources not directly dealing with the WA Park system, particularly not in sources from the first 175 years of its written history. The island is also significant as a "maritime borderland" (as one study of the island's history puts it), so calling the article Patos Island is more cognizant of its contested history & reference in Canada–US treaties, as well as more conducive to cross-border readership, e.g. Canadians involved in the annual Patos Island Race—not Patos Island Marine State Park Race. AddieWillow (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it is administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). But the common name of the island did not necessarily change in 1974 with the creation of the state park. Similarly, speculation as to what would happen if the lease ended is not relevant here. Nor is there any reason to disregard sources not directly dealing with the WA Park system. We consider all reliable secondary sources. There may even be reason to disregard sources that are directly dealing with the WA Park system as primary sources. Andrewa (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm afraid you are misunderstanding me. I am saying that the sources not directly dealing with the WA Park system do not call it "Patos Island Marine State Park". It is only called that in the primary sources associated with the WA Park system. The common name and the name used in secondary literature is and has been "Patos Island" for centuries, not "Patos Island Marine State Park," which is a technical name used only in reference to its protected status in WA government publications. I am not suggesting we disregard the secondary sources, that is what I am saying the case for "Patos Island Marine State Park" does. If I have misunderstood you, please help me understand the case for the necessity of the change more thoroughly. ETA: The thrust of my argument has nothing to do with common names, in fact. My claim is that island itself is significantly more notable than the protected area in which it happens to reside for the time being, which is referred to in virtually no secondary sources. The situation is optimal as-is, with Patos Island the primary subject of its own article and the less-notable protected area discussed within it.AddieWillow (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2026 (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.