Talk:Chihuahua (state)/Archive 1

Please Move This Page
The term 'chihuahua' is redirected here. When one mentions the word chihuahua then obviously they think of the breed of dog. Someone move it please? 88.111.177.233 11:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Honestly, how many people type in the word and are looking for the Mexican state? This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Spanish-language one. Very few English speakers are even aware of the existence of a state by the name "Chihuahua." -134.84.102.192 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Result: moved!
Clear agreement. -- Anonymous 05:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move
Chihuahua to Chihuahua (state). Chihuahua far more commonly refers to the dog than to this Mexican state.

Helicoptor 15:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~ 


 * Weak oppose. - I don't think this page should be moved just to make way for the dog article, although I could see the wisdom of having a disambiguation page at Chihuahua instead. —sjorford ++ 18:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. - In addition to Sjorford's point, the nominator's account was recently used for vandalism (EG redirecting Iraq to dangerous place, then to George W. Bush; as well as re-opening the cat flap flap, with no response to a question about the strange edits), so the nature/intent/motivation of the nomination is questionable. -24.18.215.132 00:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. - Who cares if the author is immature and/or misinformed? let's just think of what is best for Wikipedia. -81.86.107.17 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Quiet Everyone please, because I have an idea to solve it :). - If people are looking for the dog, It will stay Chihuahua (dog), If people are looking for the state, It will be Chihuahua (Mexico). There!, It is now perfect! There!, Enough bull, it's resolved. -Anonymous 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Result: no move
Clear oppose. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we get this going again? I didn't even know there was a state in Mexico called Chihuahua. I vote to move it. 213.218.199.111 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly opposed. - Let's not "get this going again." A state in Mexico is clearly more important than a little dog. FitzColinGerald 07:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Incredibly opposed. - My state is by far more important than that little senseless dog... That's the problem with people like you... I bet I know far more about your stupid country (which ever it is) than you. Please quit the bull.


 * I agree. - I think a large majority of people who search "Chihuahua" are looking for the dog. I know I was when I found this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.149.189 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. - On further consideration, I say a disambigious page is in order. Thus is the case for Newfoundland (where I'm from), and Newfoundland (dog). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.149.189 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Opposed. - A state, regardless of what country it may be in is MUCH more important than a dog. The example set by the page on Newfoundland does not mean that this article should follow. If you weren't aware of a state that existed by this name, well congrats, you learned something today. Now really, lets just keep the article as is.Tcmstr134 (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Opposed. - The objective of Wikipedia is to enrich human kind knowledge, if people look for the Chihuahua dog and finds this page, the objective of wikipedia is fullfil. Because that person will expand his knowledge and find out that there is a state bordering USA with the same name as his beloved dog. And perhaps find out that is home to a canyon bigger than the Grand Canyon, a thriving German community, also, home to the tarahumaras, one of the few native American communities that still have the same way of live than their ancestors 500 years ago and finally the place of birth of Anthony Quinn....

NPOV
The best way I can describe the need for review for this article is NPOV. There's some obsene material in this article. If you are going to call our country "The United States of Crap", learn how to write an article and don't sign your name. -- 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Undiscussed unilateral move, 22.9.08
From Chihuahua to Chihuahua (Mexico). I am fiercely opposed to this, as are most other users who have spoken in the discussions above. Saying that most people think 'dog' when they hear Chihuahua is like saying most people think 'ham' when they hear Virginia. The state should be at Chihuahua, just as the state is at Washington -- capital city, founding father, and a slew of other meanings notwithstanding. Aille (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Chihuahua (Mexico) → Chihuahua — to revert undiscussed unilateral move — Aille (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose the dab looks good at primary. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The primary meaning within the terms of our naming conventions (if there is one) may be Chihuahua (dog); It's certainly not the state or town city. Andrewa (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Point of information: city, not town. State capital; population close to 1m. Big place; major city. Aille (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken. But I wonder how many other anglophones who would instantly identify a picture of a tiny dog as a chihuahua would have no idea what if anything else the term signifies? Andrewa (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And we are writing for the anglophones that actually exist, warts and all. Wikipedians are not engineers of the human soul. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  Weak Strong oppose. Neither of these is unambiguously primary; the dab page (which is about 20% the dog) is not good evidence: it may well be that those who add pets are more careful to link correctly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I hate unilateral moves, but I have to agree with this one. The dab should be moved to the plain title, because the term is ambiguous. Dekimasu よ! 07:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Revert unilateral move that was clearly opposed above on this talk page for several years. Note that the move broke the disambiguation page - the link to Chihuahua (state) now goes nowhere useful. --GRuban (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say WP:SOFIXIT, but I did it this time. Anyway, it wasn't the move from the plain title that broke the dab... it was broken by a move back to the plain title during this discussion. Dekimasu よ! 04:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. That was the name of the article until someone moved it without any consent, in fact all the other articles in the desambiguation page (like the dog, the dessert and the cheese) all come from the name of the State, other words it'd be like naming the city of Philadelphia as "Philadelphia (USA)" just because there is a cheese named after the city. Supaman89 (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, if we followed local and prevalent usage, we would locate that city at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support from Supaman89's comments. There wouldn't be this problem if it was a US State. —Borgardetalk 06:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were anywhere in the English-speaking countries, it would be mentioned more frequently in English than it is. If you find yourself in that alternate universe, you will presumably find it under Chihuahua in their English Wikipedia, if they have one. But we are dealing with the real world, or should be: frivolous claims of bias have no place in this discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think it can be argued that the state is the _primary_ meaning _in English_.  The dog would have a better case, but not an overwhelming one - therefore, Chihuahua should be the dab page. Tevildo (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Chihuahua refers to the state primarily. 71.106.182.162 (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Other uses of the name come from the name of the state. Ratemonth
 * Really? I always assumed they (including the name of the state) came from the name of the city. Anyway, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says nothing about etymology, and such a clause would lead to our Boston article being about a town of 55,000, among other things. What's named after what can possibly be weighed in when deciding what the primary topic is (I think such arguments were put forward to keep Spore about spores instead of the video game), but it can't be our policy. -- Jao (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Chihuahua refers to the state name first, then referring the city is the second. JC) 22:45, 29 September 2008 (PST)
 * Support Yes, but shouldn't the article be named Chihuahua State? --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "Chihuahua State" make it sound like a state university? Colorado State? Texas State? Plus, Quebec's at Quebec, not Quebec Province. Aille (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, it sort of does, but in my experience of creating lots of state and district pages for African countries on en and zh, it pays to just name the states as states, and the districts as districts, and so on down the line; and to do so unilaterally, and be finished with any kind of extra disambiguation, especially insofar as states, districts and towns often repeat themselves nomenclaturally. I think that the extra parentheses are aesthetically displeasing, as well. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it was 5 oppose against 7 support, I think we have to choose the name, as I said before naming the article Chihuahua (Mexico) or Chihuahua (State) is as absurd and biased as naming California as California (State) just because there are a number of things named after the state. Supaman89 (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Any additional comments:
 * Comments above. Also, how many of these 700+ incoming links to Chihuahua are looking for anything remotely canine?? Aille (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction. It's actually 1000+. Aille (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Or let plain Chihuahua be the disambig page? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * YES --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is systemic bias, plain and simple, merely because we're dealing with a Mexican state. Similar attempts to move U.S. states that share names with other prominent things have failed on the grounds that (sample arguments) 'states have hundreds of incoming links', 'it would make linking to the state more complicated', and 'this can be resolved with a simple hat-dab'. All of those apply to Chihuahua vis-a-vis the dog to the same extent that they apply to:
 * Washington: most non-US uses mean Washington DC: take a look at the incoming links; and surely George Washington is as important as a breed of dog?
 * New York: on a primary use basis that should really go to the city, but it goes to the state instead, for convenience sake; see archived move discussion.
 * Mississippi: the rather obscure state is overwhelmed in general use by the mighty river.
 * Colorado: again, a major river, some minor rivers, to say nothing of political movements in Paraguay and Uruguay.
 * There is, therefore, a clear precedent for states' getting primary usage. Why shouldn't that apply to Chihuahua? Further evidence that this move was carried out in haste and without a full understanding of the situation and its ramifications is the choice of location: Chihuahua (Mexico). Surely that's equally ambiguous with the capital city Chihuahua, Chihuahua? If this ill-considered move is to prosper, I implore that it at least goes to Chihuahua (state), which is not ambiguous. (The same applies to Hidalgo (Mexico), which I can't see follows naming conventions either.) Aille (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This "precedent" is imaginary, as a look at Talk:Washington and its archives will show. George Washington is under his full name, because almost all biographies have first names in the title; Washington DC is the physical city, not the synecdoche for the Federal Government, and it is called that more often than not. This leaves Washington free for the state, and it is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation like Washington (state), or use of the rare and inconvenient State of Washington.


 * Systemic bias is a cry of all work; Georgia (state) has also been decried as systemic bias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As has Georgia (country). If both sides are annoyed, it probably means equilibrium has been struck. ;) Aille (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that we can't really use this as a precedent, as all of these situations are substantially different: the U.S. states getting the undisambiguated names does not lead to the other meanings having to be at Washington (city), New York (city), Mississippi (river) and Colorado (river). I don't have a strong opinion on the requested move, but I strongly prefer Chihuahua (state) over Chihuahua (Mexico), to get in line with all disambiguated states of Austria, states of Brazil, Bremen (state), etc. -- Jao (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, and avoids ambiguity with the city. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Septentrionalis makes valid points about Washington (although I suspect that page gets a fair number of incoming links looking for the federal capital). With regard to this case, I again appeal to primary use: at discussion is a vast geographical area (bigger than the UK), whose article gets hundreds of incoming geo-links, versus a breed of dog (albeit a popular one) that takes its name from that state. Would we be having a parallel discussion if the favored Hollywood pet were a Delaware (chicken), or if a New Hampshire (chicken) suddenly became a vector for a bird flu outbreak in North America?  Aille (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Primary use should be overwhelmingly common - as NH and DE are compared to these varieties (and even to Lord Delaware); I've never heard of them before. If Delaware (chicken)s were as well known as chihuahuas, we probably would be having that discussion - in that parallel universe. (I'm not sure how that would become systemic bias; but I'm sure some way would be found. ;->)  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alaska (singer) (she's very big in Mexico), Arizona (snake), Kansas (band) (I've got one of their records), Idaho (serial), Iowa tribe, Illinois (album), Indiana (novel) (has nothing to do with the U.S. state, apparently), Hawaii (song), Kentucky (film), Mississippi (band), New Jersey (album), New Hampshire (book) (hey: first publication of "Stopping by Woods..."), Pennsylvania (album), Texas (band) and Texas (TV series), Vermont (automobile) -- none of those, not one, threatens the primary use location of the corresponding state. Any attempt to move those states to make room for a dab page would be ruled ludicrous and snowballed in a matter of minutes. Not seeing Chihuahua and Chihuahua (dog) (and, for that matter, Hidalgo and Hidalgo (Spanish nobility)) through the same lens is, I think, a failure in the neutral perspective to which this encyclopedia claims to aspire. Aille (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It is a recognition that chihuahua (the breed of dog) and hidalgo, the common (if blue-blooded;) noun, are far more frequent than any of this array of obscure strays rounded up from dab pages. That's, of course, frequency in English; what the Spanish WP does about Alaska is up to them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly thought Kansas (band) might have had some impact, but perhaps that dog just didn't manage to get its head out above the pack of strays. Never mind.
 * Out of interest, this afternoon I looked up the access stats for the two pages. The results were, lets say, sobering: Mexico's Texas vs. stunted rat-dog. No, Mr Barnum, indeed; no one ever went broke that way.
 * To change the subject somewhat, above, when you say that the dab page... which is about 20% the dog, do you mean that from what you saw, 20% of the incoming links to Chihuahua were looking for the dog? For curiosity's sake more than anything, because I'm aware at this stage in the game that this matter isn't going to be decided by number of incoming links (although, it must be said, I was surprised how few there were to the dog article -- very few indeed, with a disproportionate number of IP talk pages). But anyway. Curiosity about that 20% claim, just because that's a much higher proportion than I detected, using the highly unscientific method of clicking on names I didn't recognize or that I couldn't imagine had any connection to the state; my guesstimate would be fewer than 1 in 20 (and, yes, Virginia, Paris Hilton is in there). Again, not that it matters -- I'm not a bot-runner, so I don't plan on doing any of what now seems like an ineluctable & daunting dabbing task. Aille (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC Kyle MacLachlan was the sixth link to Chihuahua when I looked at it, and Anthony Quinn not much lower. When the page is a redirect, as this is, one muct be careful not to slip and get the whatlinkshere of the target; I also tend to discount links through templates, since that's really only one editing decision, on the template itself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one for the dog, one for the state. I found seven dog links in the first 200 links to Chihuahua (hiding transclusions); didn't dab them in case anyone else wants to try the experiment. Of the good links, there were a fair number of templates (isn't that what turning transclusion off is supposed to hide?) -- all the other states and state capitals, for instance; presumably there'd be fewer of those further down the list. There were more looking for the city than dog-hunting, too, which any furture dab effort would no doubt clear up. Of course, as you point out above, it may well be that dog-linkers are better at dabbing, but Chihuahua (dog) doesn't get 100s and 100s of article-space links. Aille (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Four dogs, one Apache chief, and several dubious calls between city and state in the next 100. Enough. Aille (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A hidalgo is also a sort of Spanish nobleman. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The (defunct) title of nobility does confuse matters in that instance; I suspect that the state should still get primary use -- and, were our coverage of that part of the republic up to scratch, would probably be arguing that point. But, no: my poor wording above confused the fact that I was merely advocating a Hidalgo (Mexico) to Hidalgo (state) move in that case. The comment was that using "Name (Mexico)" as a disambiguator is not helpful, for states; per Jao (ec) above. Aille (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct disambiguator
If the above move request fails and the article is to remain disambiguated, please have it at a title with an actual disambiguator, Chihuahua (state), and not Chihuahua (Mexico) which does nothing to disambiguate the title from the city, the song, the desert, the person, or the dog. —  AjaxSmack   18:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per this and Aille, PMAnderson and myself above. It hardly seems like the current title has any supporters. -- Jao (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No argument whatsoever on this point. Hopefully we can do the same to Hidalgo (Mexico) (WP:RM currently underway), too. Aille (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support this suggestion. Tevildo (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Andrewa (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose Naming the article as Chihuahua (State) is as absurd and biased as naming California as California (State) just because there are a number of things named after the state. Supaman89 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that as the question in this section is posed, "oppose" means that you prefer Chihuahua (Mexico) over Chihuahua (state). This section is only about what should be done if the above move request fails, not whether it should be disambiguated at all; that's what the large section above is for. -- Jao (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalemate?
Opinions appear more or less equally split, and there have been no additional comments for a while. Perhaps an admin could move the article to Chihuahua (state) (the current name is inappropriate and has no support, from either side, and the fewer articles that link to it the better), and re-list it on WP:RM, see if the discussion can get kick-started back into life? Aille (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But moving the article to Chihuahua (state) is also inappropriate and biased it'd be like naming California as California (state) just because there are a number of things named after the state. Supaman89 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, I think this article should be at "Chihuahua", too. But, if forced to choose, reluctantly, between "Chihuahua (state)" and the inexplicable/illogical "Chihuahua (Mexico)" -- no contest, "Chihuahua (state)" wins. Aille (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wander what would happen it all of a sudden I decided to move California as California (USA), it probably wouldn't even last 5 minutes before someone reverted it, isn't that biased? Supaman89 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved the article to "Chihuahua (state)", as it appears that there is consensus that the page should at least be there instead of "Chihuahua (Mexico)". I don't have a strong preference for either side of the argument,  however, I would caution Supaman89 against making such baseless claims of bias when they can be easily disproved with Georgia (U.S. state), for example. Move proposals that rely on "the other side is biased" rarely succeed, as far as I've seen. Citing evidence is usually the best way to go, even if it's a simple Google search (which are to a degree unreliable, but could help shed some light on which seems to be the primary topic). I've also closed the proposal as "no consensus"; perhaps if another proposal is initiated, it might be wise to file an RfC at the same time, in order to draw more uninvolved editors. Fresh eyes are never a bad thing. Parsecboy (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The case of Georgia is a special case because obviously Georgia (the country) would have a higher priority that the U.S. state, if there was a country called Chihuahua then of course we would have to make the clarification for this state, but since there is none, and the all the other "Chihuahuas" come from the name of the State, it is just needless, unnecessary and biased to name it as "...(state)", specially because it was moved without consent; the title should be simply “Chihuahua” since it is the original name. Supaman89 (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If there's a stalemate, then this article should go back to just Chihuahua instead of Chihuahua (state) since that's where it started out before the earlier unilateral move and ensuing nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratemonth (talk • contribs) 02:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well then, like Parsecboy very reasonably suggests, re-list the WP:RM, along with a related WP:RfC. As things stand, we have hundreds and hundreds of links looking for the state that get redirected to a disambig page. Aille (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)