Talk:Chinese people in Chile

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Nominator requests cancellation - Page not Moved  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Chinese people in Chile → Chinese Chilean — "Chinese Chilean" is not a neologism as previously suggested when the page was moved here. This article should conform to the convention previously established for Croatian Chilean, Basque Chilean, British Chilean, Austrian American and many others. — Ruodyssey (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC) --  Nominator requests cancellation. - Ruodyssey (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Yes it is a neologism. The example of "Austrian American" doesn't tell us anything. Off of Wikipedia, this alleged "convention" is limited to high-immigration Anglophone countries like the US, Canada, and Australia. Gbooks/Gscholar hits are almost entirely of the form "Fooian, Chileans", "pro-Fooian Chileans", etc. for pretty much any value of "foo" (Chinese, Croatian, etc.). None of the sources I examined when I tried to expand this article used this convention. The requestor's other undiscussed moves should similarly be reverted.


 * vs
 * cab (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * cab (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * cab (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * cab (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's also worth mentioning that the on-Wikipedia use of this naming convention for articles about migration to Latin America isn't the result of any wide consensus among editors or any presentation of evidence from reliable sources. Rather, two users User:Skanter and User:CARLMART --- both of whom have been blocked for their abuses in this topic area --- created a bunch of "Fooian Chilean", "Fooian Brazilian", "Fooian Mexican", etc. substubs without citing any sources. The rest of us who edit in this topic area haven't been arsed move them to proper titles because there's so much other never-ending cleanup to do. cab (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Acquiesce. First, let me say this is my first move request, and I made it to prompt a discussion, not to circumvent the others I had just moved (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). All of these either hadn't been moved or were moved only once (by you, incidentally), so I felt it was okay per WP:BRD to move them and nom at least one of them to get some attention. I've reverted each of them back to their original names.


 * Soon after making this nom, however, I found many, many other articles, categories and templates with the same problems. I agree, as you've pointed out, that many of these "Fooian Barian" topics (or "Fooians of Barian decsent", if you like) are notable, but the ill-thought idea that they should all exist has resulted in a "tidal wave" and a complete mess. No convention or consensus exists nor appears likely any time soon. The category master User:Good_Olfactory made an excellent point at this open category discussion by listing 8 distinct interpretations for the ambiguous "Fooian Barian". I no longer wish to in any way advocate that "Fooian Barian" is any sort of convention anywhere, as it's certainly a totally ambiguous neologism. I'd like to cancel this whole nomination and get back to other matters. CAB, your continued efforts in this area are commendable. I really hope some sort of consensus comes out of this, so I'll check back every so often but don't plan on getting involved. Thanks! Ruodyssey (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.