Talk:Tagalog language/Archive 3

Requested move 25 July 2015

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Tagalog language (and move disambiguation page to Tagalog as soon as incoming links have been sorted out). First, about the process. The preceding RM of 18 June was clearly procedurally valid and could not have been closed in any other way than it was, as a move to plain Tagalog. Normally, a fresh review should only be attempted after a few months, and given the lameness and the utter lack of deeper significance of the issue there was absolutely no justification for the harshness and sense of urgency (on both sides) in the subsequent discussions that hastened this new RM (and certainly no justification for move-warring against the closure, a form of misconduct for which Kwamikagami at least ought to have been blocked on the spot.) But what's done is done, and since the new RM has drawn substantially more participation than the previous one, it must now be seen as legitimately superceding it. In closing this, I have evaluated all opinions expressed in all the relevant RMs (both here and on the disambiguation talkpage), so no matter whether you opined in the first RM or in the second, or in both, all of you should be assured that your voices have been given equal weight. Across all RMs, I count 18 editors preferring Tagalog language and 8 editors preferring the language article to be at plain Tagalog. Such a clear numerical preponderance (c.70%) could only be discounted if it was found that the arguments on the majority side were consistently and systematically less well grounded in policy than those on the other side. I find this not to be the case. The principal points of reference in the debate were the guideline WP:NCLANG, interpreted by many as being in favour of "Tagalog language", and WP:NATDAB, part of the policy WP:TITLE, interpreted by many as being in favour of plain "Tagalog" through application of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC principle. One thing to be clarified here is that WP:NCLANG, being a guideline, can only be evoked together with WP:NATDAB to the extent that the former validly interprets and explains the latter, but not as contradicting it. Thus, votes of the type "WP:NCLANG demands '... language', so that's the policy" are invalid in principle. In fact, however, WP:NCLANG isn't contradicting WP:NATDAB, because both agree on the validity of non-disambiguated titles in clear cases of topic primacy. The only thing WP:NCLANG adds to this is the (reasonable) recommendation that in cases of names shared between a language and its ethnicity, determining primacy is most often a useless exercise and that disambiguation with "... language" should be considered as the default option in such cases. It thus all boils down to the question of whether a sufficient degree of primacy in the sense of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has been demonstrated here. Primacy was asserted by some, though demonstrated only through a single link to a google books count. However, primacy in the sense of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a deliberately vague notion, so whether or not we are satisfied that it applies here is as much a matter of personal taste as anything. Under these circumstances, I have no grounds for overruling the majority opinion that prefers to err on the side of more disambiguation, favouring Tagalog language. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Tagalog → Tagalog language – per WP:NCLANG, longstanding consensus, consensus in the last move request, and discussion in the previous thread. Wouldn't be such a mess if closing admins would base decisions on community consensus and WP guidelines in the first place. — kwami (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Wikipedia guidelines are based on discussion and consensus and have the primary goals of 1) standardizing presentation and 2) preventing endless moves and move requests for little practical purpose.  The standard in Wikipedia for naming language articles is found in WP:NCLANG.  It covers languages across the spectrum of usage from the little-known Timbisha language to the most widely spoken English language.  The guideline works.  --Taivo (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The trend has change albeit quietly:
 * Afrikaans, Amharic, Arabic, Avestan, Bislama, Bokmal, Dzongkha, Esperanto, Haitian Creole, Hindi, Hiri Motu, Interlingua, Kannada, Kinyarwanda, Kirundi, Latin, Lingala, Luganda, Malayalam, Northern Sami, Nynorsk, Old Church Slavonic, Pali, Pashto, Sanskrit, Scottish Gaelic, Standard Tibetan, Tagalog, Twi, Urdu, Volapuk
 * Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no such trend, quiet or otherwise. In the majority of these cases, there is no associated ethnic group.  Volapuk, Esperanto, and Interlingua, for example, are constructed languages without any possibility of ambiguity since no ethnic group was invented with the language.  Old Church Slavonic and Standard Tibetan are also not associated with any particular ethnic group because of the necessary modifiers.  Pali and Sanskrit are terms associated with religious speech forms and they are also not tied to any ethnicity.  Nynorsk and Bokmal, too, have no corresponding ethnic labels.  People who speak Afrikaans and Haitian Creole are known in English as Afrikaaners and Haitians, so there is no ambiguous reference between language and ethnicity.  So it's quite clear that this list is seriously flawed and overtly misleading.  There is no "quiet trend" here, just an application of the guideline to languages that have no corresponding ethnicity and therefore no possibility for ambiguity.  In the case at hand there is, indeed, an ethnic group associated with the language "Tagalog" and therefore ambiguity exists--a Tagalog person speaks the Tagalog language, lives in a Tagalog village, and practices the Tagalog culture.  There are no Volapuk people, no Volapuk villages, and no Volapuk culture.  --Taivo (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And what about Latin? It has a corresponding ethnicity but of course it is special. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no "Latin" ethnicity. The speakers of Latin are called "Romans" in English.  --Taivo (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So what are Latins? Latin Americans? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Latin is an exception made after an extended debate, as it is no longer associated with the ancient Latin tribe, and it listed at NCLANG because of that. Tagalog is not comparable: it's a typical case of a language named after a people. — kwami (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Support move per WP:PRECISE, WP:NCLANG, and as per the titles English language, German language, Japanese language, and most other language articles' titles. The current title is ambiguous -- it does not make it clear if it is referring to Tagalog language or Tagalog people. And move the disambiguation page to the base title "Tagalog". Khestwol (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per WP:NCLANG and WP:PRECISE. This is a matter of pure logic in maintaining a parity in the methodology Wikipedia uses to differentiate between an ethnic group and a language. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This contradicts WP:Commonname and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONCISE which led to the moves in the first place.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You've presented no evidence of that other than your assertions. --Taivo (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk:Tagalog has established these. It is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't actual evidence. That is an impressionistic comment about a single search on Google Books.  Actual evidence for primary topic is much more substantial than impressions and assertions without hard evidence.  --Taivo (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a simple test that is just as valid as a list on Google Books. Walk up to a native speaker of Tagalog and ask, in English, "What ethnicity are you?"  That native speaker will say, "I am Tagalog".  If you walked up to a native speaker of Latin (if such still existed) and asked the same question, the answer would be, "I am Roman".  That's the difference between Tagalog and Latin.  --Taivo (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How do your know that? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Because we have abundant documentary evidence from the Classical period where Latin speakers always called themselves "Roman". --Taivo (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per nom, Taivo and Khestwol.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Speedy close - This is clear WP:Edit Warring and those unhappy with the result simply rinse and repeat this nomination until they get what they want. There was WP:Consensus in the previous nominations above and continuing to nominate this article is simply Sisyphian labor. I get it, the is a WP:Content dispute but this is just extreme. There should be a limit on how many times an article be nominated until a satisfactory solution is achieved. It is unfair to BDD, Cuchullain, Mike Cline, SMcCandlish, Cavarrone, and Jenks24.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion in Talk:Arabic.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This move request already has as much support as the original one, which violated a Wikipedia guideline. And your example of "Arabic" isn't relevant because of the different usage of "Arabic" and "Tagalog".  There are Tagalog people, but people who speak one of the varieties of Arabic (a macrolanguage) are known as "Arabs", not "Arabic people".  The sociolinguistic realities of Arabic and Tagalog are radically different.  --Taivo (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Even so, this nomination is premature. The dust hasn't yet settled on the previous debates and here we areally now. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NCLANG: "Convention: Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language". If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for this.". The language is the primary topic.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Except most of the respondents here do not agree with you on that. For something to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC that has to be prety unambiguously clear, and this discussion proves it is not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NCLANG, as this is a primary topic. The call for a speedy close is also appropriate, given that this has just been discussed several times. --BDD (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has offered any kind of proof that this meets the criterion of Primary Topic. There are only assertions without any actual evidence being presented.  It's very clear to me that every editor asserting "Primary Topic" doesn't actually know what that designation means when it comes to languages.  --Taivo (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See below. No one has offered any evidence in support of a move.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The only evidence necessary is that "Tagalog" can refer to the language or to the people or to the culture, etc. It is ambiguous.  That's why a clear policy exists and the move is supported by WP:NCLANG in its primary reading.  If you want to use one of the exceptions to that policy then you must offer actual proof for the exception (keeping the current ambiguous title).  You have not.  --Taivo (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you'd need to show evidence that other ambiguously-titled articles challenge the language as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term "Tagalog". WP:NCLANG, and also the project-wide policy and practice on article titles, supports the primary topic being at the base name.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You did not demand such evidence for the original move. You should also read NCLANG before you cite it. — kwami (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The evidence I've cited below is quite clear, as is WP:NCLANG, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:COMMONNAME, and other elements of the article titles policy.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidence which contradicts you! Haven't you bothered to read them? Several others here cite NCLANG to prove just the opposite. And, per longstanding consensus, there is no PRIMARYTOPIC between a nation and their language, with rare exceptional cases such as Latin. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the only actual evidence presented clearly shows the language is the much more likely to be the topic readers are looking for; as such the current setup accords with the relevant policies and guidelines. I've said everything I can hear, and I'm tired of this back-and-forth and your incivility.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you have presented no actual evidence whatsoever. The problem is that the only valid evidence is whether "Tagalog" can be both the name of the language and the name of the people.  The answer to that question is unequivocally "Yes", which means that the move you want to preserve is invalid.  And the alleged "data" that you have presented you have misinterpreted and failed to properly weigh.  And your comment "everything I can hear" is absolutely appropriate to your argument.  It's fully described in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT because you refuse to examine the weakness of your position.  --Taivo (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose and speedy close as far too soon. The confusing move requests and move warring has made it more difficult to determine the primary topic based on page views, but the evidence supports the language easily being primary. In the last 30 days, the two locations of the language article have been viewed several times more than the locations of the article on the Tagalog people. Tagalog has been viewed 13,204 times, and Tagalog language has been viewed 19,042. Meanwhile, Tagalog people has been viewed only 3775 times and Tagalogs 2415. In Google Books, "Tagalog language" returns 1180 hits, while "Tagalog people" returns. Simply skimming through search results for "Tagalog" on Google Books and WorldCat, as well as my university library, revealed far more sources intending the language than anything else.
 * WP:NCLANG indicates that "If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for" the title to be disambiguated. This is case like Latin or Esperanto. Similarly, the article titles policy indicates that we should use the WP:COMMONNAME if a subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term, and that titles should be WP:CONCISE and no more WP:PRECISE than necessary.
 * This RM should be speedily closed as disruptive, and not re-opened until the dust has had a chance to settle.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: : By that logic, English language should have been at "English". In the last month, "English language" has been viewed 173,070 times, but "English people" has been viewed only 13,717 times. However, moving "English language" to "English" clearly violates WP:PRECISE. Khestwol (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This whole issue of Primary Topic being argued by the "Oppose" supporters shows clearly and unequivocally that they do not understand the meaning of "Primary Topic". There are no "Latin people" (they are "Romans"), there are no "Esperanto people" (it is an invented language).  By their version of "Primary Topic", then every language article must be labelled without "language", leading to massive ambiguity.  "What are you?" and "What language do you speak?" can both be answered by "Tagalog".  If that is the case, then "Tagalog language" cannot be considered to be the primary topic.  --Taivo (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we're not here to discuss English language, and I have no opinion on that. It's worth pointing out that "English" is much more ambiguous than "Tagalog", as it can also refer to anything to do with England or even the United Kingdom.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * English language is also a language topic, where the language article is viewed more than 10 times as many as the ethnic group title. As per WP:CONSISTENCY we should try to be consistent with the majority of language-article titles. Also please see that German language, Japanese language, and most of other language-article titles use the WP:NATURAL disambiguator "language" in their titles, which makes the titles WP:PRECISE. You can not break consistency and have double standards when it comes to Tagalog. Khestwol (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, this isn't a move request for English language. But like I said, "English" is also a search term for England, which was viewed 155,321 times in 30 days. The language doesn't look like a primary topic for the term "English" to me. In this case, evidence indicates the language is the primary topic of "Tagalog".--Cúchullain t/ c 17:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You simply don't understand primary topic, Cuchullain. And your analogy to English language fails utterly because the situation between English and Tagalog is absolutely analogous.  You're trying to mislead by trying to make them different.  But they are exactly the same situation:  English language, English people, English culture, English village, etc. // Tagalog language, Tagalog people, Tagalog culture, Tagalog village, etc.  At no point is there a difference between the name of the language and the name of the people who speak that language.  And as Kwami as pointed out elsewhere here, English language is not the primary form, it is derived from "the language spoken by the English people", not vice versa.  Thus, the Tagalog language is the language spoken by the Tagalog people, not the other way around.  --Taivo (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand PRIMARYTOPIC perfectly well, thanks, and the evidence and relevant policies speak for themselves. I've said plenty already, I'm not going in circles on this any further.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are going in circles because of the simple fact that you are wrong. The relevant policy, WP:NCLANG does, indeed, speak for itself:  "Tagalog" can refer to both the language and the people, so the move that you so desperately want to maintain violates the relevant policy.  --Taivo (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And there is no "dust". That's just an attempt to mask the simple fact that there are twice as many editors who support following Wikipedia guidelines than there are who don't want to follow Wikipedia guidelines.  --Taivo (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It's frustration about the way this has shaped out and the fact that a few editors keep wasting everyone's time with endless discussions and move warring.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cúchullain@undefined So then why are you wasting everyone's time? Per longstanding consensus and WP guidelines, this article belongs at "X language". It should never have been moved in the first place, but the closing admin didn't know what they were doing. You are being a hypocrite by demanding evidence to restore the status quo that was never required to violate our guidelines to begin with. — kwami (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you know that that's not the way to speak to someone you're trying to persuade of your point of view.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Kwami, please remember WP:NPA. You could be blocked for your description of Cúchullain above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cúchullain has already filed a complaint at ANI. But a personal attack is against a person, not against their behaviour. We're free to call out people's inappropriate behaviour for what it is, whether it's hypocritical, or trolling, or vandalism, or whatever. — kwami (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Applying particular labels to someone's behavior can, in some cases, clearly be a form of personal attack. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Per above. Alex2006 (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per the eminently sensible, long-standing consensus that languages which share their name with a peoples or country - or anything else of significance - should be naturally disambiguated. We don't make the titles of articles ambiguous simply because they cover the primary topic. Alakzi (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. This mess could have been avoided if the original move request had been posted to WP:LANG as usual. For some reason, RMCD bot didn't notify the project of this or of a bunch of other move requests by the same editor. I've asked on the bot talk page if we can expect notification in the future. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support per nom Ogress smash! 01:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Support just because the June RM discussion was only the consensus among five friends and if you read all the discussions and RMs that were killed after, here and at Talk:Tagalog (disambiguation), it clearly does not represent the consensus of the community. This Tagalog right here is learning a lot from Taivo and Khestwol btw, thanks guys/salamat/gracias.--RioHondo (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would like to remind everybody that the article is currently move-protected for six months because of edit warring by Kwamikagami, the current nominator. I think edits should respect this process by avoiding to inflame the situation and by adhering to the current consensus. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are reading the current consensus right here and its not in your favor. That previous unadvertised "consensus" is a false one.  And a "move protection" can always be reversed.  You are simply trying to protect your false consensus by using the wikilawyer technique of trying to get the article locked in your anti-policy, anti-consensus version.  --Taivo (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How can this be the current consensus when it isn't over yet? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. --Taivo (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Tagalog (disambiguation). Please take note of the observations above this section also. You know this Shhhww is also to blame for invalidating those discussions by creating multiple overlapping RMs to win on procedural points. But you know this flash mob consensus will just be challenged over and over.--RioHondo (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose and speedy close. The language is the primary topic and the repeated move requests are disruptive. Calidum T&#124;C 03:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As with the others, you don't understand the difference between "Primary Topic" and ambiguity. If the people are also named "Tagalog", then ambiguity takes precedence and per WP:NCLANG the language article must be named "X language".  And unless you can offer conclusive proof that the language is the primary topic, then it isn't.  Your word is not satisfactory.  How do you prove that the language is the primary topic in these cases?  By demonstrating that the people are not named the same as the language.  If you ask a native speaker "Who are you?" and they answer with the same word as the language name, then the language is not, and cannot be, the primary topic.  Ever.  This is not a repeated move request when the first RM was hidden and kept off the relevant interest page, in this case WP:LANG.  It was an invalid move, against policy, and without proper notification.  --Taivo (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Kwamis and Taivos arguments above are convincing: The language is named after the people, and hence is not the primary topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The original meaning of a word in its native language is less relevant than the meaning used in English here in this Wikipedia. The word "Tagalog" overwhelmingly refers to the language in English as proven by the statistics listed above and the page views here vs. the people page. While in Tagalog, "Tagalog" originally meant a person, in English it is a language much like Latin is. There are other words that use Latin as an adjective, for example Latin culture, Latin literature, Latin music, Latin jazz, Latin Church, and Latin America, yet the language remains as "Latin" not "Latin language". This to me seems like a simple case of Europrivilege and a Third World systematic bias. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Eurocentrism? You are the one argueing that mostly common English usage should override policies about ambiguous titles, and the clear pattern of having languages where the ethnic group has the same name as the language located at "X language".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The charge of "Eurocentrism" is ridiculous since User:RioHondo is Tagalog (and is translating his/her comments into Tagalog here) and supports the move back to "Tagalog language". --Taivo (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This editor, and the assumption that the language can take over and represent its people and a myriad of other related topics in an encyclopedic entry is Third World laziness and ignorance. Some people find worth in the administrative discussions, and changing photos of ethnic group representatives in infoboxes on a daily basis. This time suck is nakakaawa naman talaga.--RioHondo (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet none of you have answered why Latin is special. It's basically a contradiction to WP:NCLANG that in itself creates an exception to the rule.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We have answered you over and over and over again, but you refuse to hear. The people who spoke "Latin" were called "Romans".  But even if that were not the case, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies.  --Taivo (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support given that there are two articles that can legitimately claim to be the primary article, Tagalog should be a disambiguation page, and the articles with regards the language and the people carry disambiguators. The slew of RM's based on the argument of "but that's what the man in the street understands by it" is a surrender to the lowest common denominator, but surely the purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate, not reinforce ignorance.--KTo288 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's already been established that the language article supersedes the people article as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Just a simple search in Google Books can attest to that. The overwhelming result refers to the language not the people. The problem here is that some people are unwilling to accept the valid result of a debate until they get what they want. This includes being disruptive. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Shhhhwwww!!, you are quite wrong when the "flash mob" consensus you boast of was 1) against policy (WP:NCLANG), 2) against a long-standing consensus, 3) reached without any notification on the relevant project page (WP:LANG), and 4) reached with a tiny number of editors. It is simply not a consensus. You are engaging here in a feat of wikilawyering to enshrine your invalid move against a major consensus that has been built against your move. The long-standing consensus to have this article at "Tagalog language" has been validated. --Taivo (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have proven nothing, Shhhhwwww!!. As we continue to point out to you, but you continue to ignore, primary topic is irrelevant here.  Once it is established that the word "Tagalog" can refer either to the language or to the people, it is crystal clear in WP:NCLANG that the language article must then be named "X language" (as are English language, German language, French language, etc., etc., etc.)  --Taivo (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC not relevant when it is mentioned in WP:NCLANG? Kwamikagami should have notified you (the project) instead of move warring this page. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not listening. In language article names, WP:NCLANG's primary ruling is that if the people and the language are called by the same term, then the language article is called "X language".  The "primary topic" clause is exceptional.  This is not an exceptional case.  Not by a long shot.  It is a simple matter:  The language and the people are called by the same name, therefore the language article is "X language" and the people article is "X people".  And Kwami's actions are irrelevant to the issue here.  --Taivo (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Move this is standard for virtually all language articles, no reason for an exception here besides feigned ownership. μηδείς (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose foolish consistency, that being the hobgoblin of little minds etc. The only relevant questions are : "What is the common name?" (it's "Tagalog") and "What is the primary topic?" (the language is). A naming convention that disagreed with these principles would be quite harmful, no matter how official; it's a good thing, then, that the relevant naming convention doesn't. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are quite wrong about the relevant policy, WP:NCLANG. The only time that "Primary Topic" is relevant is as an exception to the rule.  You simply don't understand the policy.  The policy is very, very simply stated.  It's amazing that it is confusing for anyone.  The policy is this:  "If the people and the language have the same name, then name the language article 'X language' and the people article 'X people'."  That's it.  If the two things have different names, then you look for primary topic, etc.  But if the people and the language have the same name then the answer is crystal clear and can be understood by anyone who isn't pushing their own agenda.  --Taivo (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NCLANG and WP:PRECISE. It should never have been moved in the first place. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Standard language article title convention here, standard method of WP:NATURAL disambiguation, and standard usage in linguistics. This should have simply been taken to the section of WP:RM for reverting undiscussed moves.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NCLANG: "Convention: If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for this.".
 * This is not a vote. People who agree with this proposal insist that the language is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but do not provide any evidence why it is not. They keep on pushing policies in WP:NCLANG and agree that there are exceptions but they do not clarify why these exceptions apply to certain languages, such as Latin, but not for Tagalog. The language, over the ethnicity, is the primary topic in colloquial usage in the Philippines because of it's status as the (basis for) the national language. In other countries, like the United States and Canada, the corresponding ethnicities, Filipino American and Filipino Canadian, do not use the term "Tagalog" to describe themselves, according to the United States Census and Canadian Census. The term "Tagalog" excusively refers to language in contrast "English " refers to both language and ethnicity (English Americans). Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop turning things around. Why would someone from the Ilocos Region in the US write Ilocano–American as their ethnicity? Of course there is only Filipino–American regardless if you are Ilocano, Waray, Tausug, etc. The problem with you is you think you know a lot about the country and its people when you are there precisely to be ignorant about the land you have left behind. As someone who used to live in the US, you first ask if someone is Filipino, and if the answer is yes, you ask if he is Tagalog/Visayan/etc. That's how it works. And here in the Philippines, you have to go to the provinces, like the Visayas, Mindanao and outside the Tagalog Region to understand that those who already call themselves Filipinos in the capital region are still called Tagalog by outsiders, and im sure everyone is familiar with the negative perceptions of us Tagalog, e.g, Imperial Manila. --RioHondo (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And, Shhhhwwww!!, we keep telling you the only evidence necessary to apply the normal reading of WP:NCLANG, but you continually ignore it: If the name of the language and the name of the people are the same, as they are with Tagalog, then you name the language article "X language" and the people article "X people".  What's so difficult about that?  What do you fail to understand about that?  That's why Latin is at "Latin" because the people who spoke Latin called themselves "Roman".  That's why English is at "English language" because the pre-colonial people who spoke that language called themselves "English".  It's not rocket science.  That's the proof you keep asking for.  "Primary topic" is simply immaterial.  No, it's not a "vote", but that only applies to situations when the division is 5-4 or 6-5.  When it's 16-5, that's a WP:CONSENSUS.  --Taivo (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Taivo, I don't know how you can say "'Primary topic' is simply immaterial" when NCLANG specifically addresses "the language is the primary topic for a title". And what's with the scare quotes? PRIMARYTOPIC is a well established guideline, not some sort of trick Shhhhwwww!! is trying to pull on you. It's one thing to say the language isn't the primary topic; it's another to try to pretend there's no such thing. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So what's this BDD, Selective Primary Topic? English has 173,070 views for its language versus only 13,717 views for its people. And still the language and people are clearly separated and disambiguated. As a Tagalog, I am insulted by this selective application of common sense. Now go and take a look at google books results for English, test your Primarytopic on that article and then come back here when you've proven something.--RioHondo (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please try not to take this personally. None of this should be interpreted as value judgments about Tagalog people. It is, however, a discussion specifically about the naming Tagalog-titled articles, and not other articles. It may well be that the English language is primary topic for the term "English", but that's not what we're discussing here. --BDD (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss their fashion (Barong tagalog), cuisine (Bistek tagalog, Tagalog Latik, Siling tagalog), mythology (Tagalog deities, Tagalog gods, Tagalog godesses) or anything else pertaining to the Tagalog people, their region, history and culture, you know who to ask. And of course, anything about their language too.--RioHondo (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:BDD, what you and User:Shhhhwwww!! continually WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ignore in your failing drive to push your POV here is that the first thing that the relevant policies (WP:NCLANG and WP:NATURAL) state is that language articles are named "X language" and people articles are named "X people". It's only in exceptional cases where ambiguity is not in place that "primary topic" might be relevant.  If both the language and the people are named the same thing, then there is absolutely no justification to even look at "primary topic".  That's what you don't get.  No one is arguing that there are more page views for the language and than for the people, but it's irrelevant for an application of WP:NCLANG.  As soon as a native speaker can answer the question "What are you?" with the same term that he uses to answer the question "What language do you speak?", then "primary topic" becomes utterly irrelevant and disambiguity becomes the sole driving factor.  --Taivo (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clear that you interpret it that way, but PRIMARYTOPIC is much more fundamental to our naming conventions, like WP:COMMONNAME. I don't think it should be invalidated by specialized conventions, but I suppose this comes down to a difference of interpretation. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When specialists, in this case linguists, come to a consensus that disambiguation is far more important than primary topic that is their right as a body of specialists. It is then up to non-specialist editors to adapt and follow the specialized convention.  This happens all the time in Wikipedia.  See, for example WP:MOSMAC, based on WP:ARBMAC2.  The primary topic for "Macedonia" is the name of the modern country.  But a compromise between Greek and non-Greek editors on the topic places the country name at "Republic of Macedonia".  Your slavish adherence to "primary topic" is actually not in line with Wikipedia policy which places more importance on building a valid consensus.  --Taivo (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather be a "slave" to a community-developed guideline than narrow sets of self-appointed specialists. Your emphasis on top-down decision making and credentials is, frankly, antithetical to the Wikipedia way. If there was ever a chance of us seeing eye-to-eye on this, I think we've exhausted it now. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NCLANG, longstanding custom, the ambiguity of the term "Tagalog", and common sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that user:Shhhhwwww!! made there have been dozens of these move requests, nearly all of which were defeated as being against consensus despite WPLANG not being notified for many of them. Tagalog is merely one that fell through the cracks — there is no conceptual difference between it and the many defeated move requests. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was, in fact, my request that initially moved "Tagalog language" to the current title. Remember, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." --BDD (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad. — kwami (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. There is no other article listed at Tagalog (disambiguation) which might be at Tagalog undisambiguated; The phrase Tagalog (undisambiguated) is unambiguous. The questions then are: Is the undisambiguated phrase commonly used for the language, and if so is there any other reason to avoid this common usage? The answers are yes and no respectively. The common usage is well documented above. The argument for disambiguation seems to rest on a supposed parallel with English language and similar, but these cases are very different. We commonly refer to The English as a people (see for example A song of patriotic prejudice); The Tagalog is however rare, we would say The Tagalog people. Andrewa (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The natural answer to the question, "What is the most numerous tribe of the Philippines?" is "Tagalog" or "The Tagalog".  See, for example, Ethnic groups of the Philippines.  Note the first definition for "Tagalog" here.  And you should look in the Oxford English Dictionary at "Tagalog".  Again, the very first definition for "Tagalog" is the people.  If the Oxford English Dictionary says it, it is so.  It is exactly parallel with "The English".  You have presented zero evidence that this article should be an exception to the language article naming policy at WP:NCLANG, which represents a  Wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS.  --Taivo (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Taivo. Pretty much all editors who are more involved in editing language articles, have !voted in support of the move to "Tagalog language". The base name "Tagalog" itself should be the location of the disambiguation page just like German, English, and Japanese. Khestwol (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I find The Tagalog a far more natural in response to that question... depending on the exact context. But regardless, the fact that the The could be left off in that particular context (and you seem to admit that even then it might not be) doesn't seem terribly relevant. As for the naming convention, as has already been mentioned above it reads in part Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language". If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for this. (My emphasis.) So I'm not suggesting that we make an exception to the convention, rather what I'm suggesting is entirely consistent with it. Andrewa (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Andrewa, So you think you know more about Tagalog than the Philippine government and its cultural agency, the National Commission on Culture and the Arts? Please, I'm the only Tagalog here. I should know.--RioHondo (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but I do know the Wikipedia policies on article titles and personal attacks and strongly suggest that you read both without further delay. The essay at WP:official names might also be helpful. No, I'm not a Tagalog (but curious as to how you knew that, my guess is that you're guessing that you're the only Tagalog here... but that's irrelevant anyway). But I have both studied and taught linguistics at a tertiary level, in English, including many exercises based on Tagalog. So my experience is probably at least as relevant as yours... and in terms of our article naming policies, I'm afraid that is not very much at all. Again, please do some reading. Andrewa (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're not Tagalog. And I am Tagalog. But neither of us is a language. So stop contradicting yourself when you yourself use just Tagalog to refer to a person. And, it is very clear you were making assumptions up there, hence The Tagalog responded accordingly.--RioHondo (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We ignore WP:article titles often as a result of 1) specialized consensuses such as WP:NCLANG, which affects language articles across the board; 2) arbitration such as WP:ARBMAC2 which affects specific articles or a very small number of articles; and 3) one-off consensuses that affect one article only as at Latin. While there are general principles that can be followed in the majority of cases, when a specialized consensus is reached for a particular article or for a particular topic area, that supersedes the general principle.  --Taivo (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree that we ever ignore WP:AT, and if we do then we shouldn't. But agree that we sometimes do deviate from it, and there's always WP:IAR to justify this. That should only be done after giving careful consideration before the fact (see WP:correct) and also consideration to fixing it after the fact (see WP:Creed). Disagree that the detailed naming conventions such as WP:NCLANG overrule WP:AT, on the contrary, they are quite explicitly part of WP:AT, see the sidebar there. Andrewa (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We "ignore" WP:AT by establishing a WP:CONSENSUS to use a different naming convention as here. And the problem you have with WP:NCLANG is that you have not established any reason whatsoever to ignore the first, primary clause of the policy.  You have failed utterly to prove that "Tagalog" is unambiguous because you completely ignore English usage as stated clearly and unequivocally in every English dictionary:  That the first definition of the noun "Tagalog" is the name of a people.  And, in the end, WP:CONSENSUS is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, not WP:AT.  The consensus here is clear, overwhelming, and unequivocal:  This article should follow the primary precept of WP:NCLANG and be called "Tagalog language" to avoid ambiguity with "Tagalog people".  --Taivo (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest you reread my post. I'm not a Tagalog. And when you say you are Tagalog, that's quite correct, but Tagalog there is an adjective, not a noun. We use noun phrases as article titles. This is a very important point, thank you for raising it. Andrewa (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did use it as a noun which clearly suggests the term has varied uses and is just as commonly applied to the people as the language as evident in this whole discussion.--RioHondo (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that I used it as a noun. But in your post, it was an adjective. That's my point. Again, see Wiktionary (links below). Andrewa (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment the evidence from most !voters, and dictionary definitions alone are enough to confirm that "Tagalog" as an English language word (and even as a Tagalog language word, see tl:Tagalog) is ambiguous. Khestwol (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this is now my view too, which is a slight change from my !vote rationale but does not affect its outcome. The primary meaning in English is the language, in my opinion. I also notice that the Tagalog Wikipedia page to which you link currently lists the language first... not that I think that the order of the entries there is any more relevant to this discussion than their order in English dictionaries, but others seem to think it is. Andrewa (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your assertion, that Tagalog is the primary meaning in English, coupled with your distinctly minority view of the meaning of WP:NCLANG, means that you think English language is improperly named as well. In other words, you think that the plain meaning of WP:NCLANG should never be followed.  The fact is that you are wrong.  If you read a book on ethnicity, the only term you will find to describe this people is "Tagalog", not "Tagalog people" (as in the map at Ethnic groups of the Philippines).  The fact is that "Tagalog" has no primary meaning except within the context of the book in which it is found.  It is ambiguous otherwise.  That's the point that you choose to ignore:  the meaning of "Tagalog" is not absolute, but is context-based.  In every English dictionary, the ethnicity is listed first and the language second.  That's a valid context in which the ethnicity is the primary meaning and is described as such explicitly in the dictionaries themselves.  In any context-free environment, "Tagalog" is ambiguous.  --Taivo (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, you agree with my view yet you oppose the move just because you want double standards when it comes to Tagalog? If English is a dab page then so should be "Tagalog" to follow WP:CONSISTENCY. Please stop the circular reasoning. Khestwol (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no circular reasoning that I can see. But no, I don't oppose the move just because you want double standards when it comes to Tagalog. I oppose it both because it violates our naming conventions (however slightly) and because it makes Wikipedia a little harder for the reader to use. English is not a good analogy, for reasons already given.
 * Agree that consistency would be a valid reason for the move, all other things being equal, but all other things are not equal. Indeed, consistency is only one of the five basic criteria listed at WP:CONSISTENCY, and overall, the shorter name better satisfies them, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support move back to Tagalog language for reasons as summarized by Aɴɢʀ, kwami, others. The rest of the discussion is just variations on WP:JDLI. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Moratorium proposal
Shall we propose a break from future move/renaming discussions? If so, how long (id est how many years)? --George Ho (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with a moratorium, but it should be 3 or 6 months to let us see how the page views shape up.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're a hypocrite. You're being hypocritical. You do not require evidence for the move you approve of that you demand for a restoration of consensus. — kwami (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidently what should have happened was to have an ANI review of the original move, but instead I was advised to simply file a new move request. Now that I have, you've decided that's a problem. — kwami (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a classic example of a group of editors speedily moving an article away from a long-standing, consensus-based, and policy-supported name and then demanding a pause for the "dust to settle" before returning to the prior title. It is wikilawyering at the least.  And something quite unwelcome in Wikipedia at the worst.  The only reason they care about a "moratorium" is that they see the discussion for moving the article back to its proper place is going against them and they have neither policy nor data to back up their position.  Move the article back to its policy- and consensus-backed title, then have a pause while the rebellious editors try to prove their point.  --Taivo (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem clearly isn't having an RM, it's the way it has been done - it's far too soon, and Kwami has behaved unacceptably. The sad thing is, if it hadn't been for Kwami's move warring in the first place, it's quite possible the article would be back at your preferred title already.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it might be far too soon, or why Kwami's behaviour might call for shutting the RM. Alakzi (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Kwami's behavior is immaterial. The issue is that a poorly executed move against policy and over a long-standing consensus is being treated like it's a precious egg that has to be carefully handled or else it will break.  It was broken when it began--the move that you so tenderly want to preserve, Cuchullain, is the root of the problem here, not Kwami's behavior.  --Taivo (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not appropriate Wiki behavior to move it to Tagalog; the user has listed and moved language pages and they don't get listed in the appropriate arenas and therefore do not reach consensus, or, in this situation, break consensus. "Wait for the dust to settle"? I just got here and I can tell the name is against policy and this is sheer wikilawyering. Ogress smash! 02:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note that once this RM was appropriately listed at WP:LANG (as the first one should have been), editors involved in the Languages Project started showing up and are unequivocally in favor of this article being placed at "Tagalog language". This should be a good indication of the poor quality of the "consensus" that moved "Tagalog language" in the first place. --Taivo (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: if it hadn't been for Kwami's move warring in the first place, it's quite possible the article would be back at your preferred title already – That may or may not be (I'm not going waste time analyzing who said what where), but if ANI suggesting taking it back to RM, or reasonably can be interpreted as collectively having suggested this, that's either a community decision on what to do, or good-faith interpretation of what the community consensus recommends, respectively. Berating him for it doesn't seem productive. It's better to just have the discussion and settle the matter.  Especially since it looks like a WP:SNOWBALL anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact is that the "two bites at the cherry" approach in quick succession certainly strikes me as having been designed to fly under the radar (the second having been closed off on the 5th day). To now expect that a moratorium be put in place in order to uphold the decisions of an impoverished under-representation of interested editors is unacceptable. Moreover, editors are free to call WP:SPADE where it's warranted without being censured for personal attacks.


 * If there's a desire to 'enshrine' any decision, the preference should go to the previous long-standing consensus version until those opposing it can actually formulate a convincing argument for this 'new' version.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Status quo first before moratorium. Move the article back to where it had been the longest and most stable, THEN we discuss this along with English and all other ambiguous people-languages covered by WP:NCLANG. The same message in Tagalog coming from a Tagalog: Ibalik sa kinalalagyan ang artikulong ito kung saan ito ay pinakamatagal at pinakamatatag, saka natin muling talakayin ito kasama ng Ingles at iba pang bagay patungkol sa wika at mga gumagamit nito na kailangan ng paglilinaw sa ilalim ng WP:NCLANG.--RioHondo (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The moratorium needs to happen now. There was no debate to justify the original name prior to June 18, 2015 so it was a mere assumption that the original name had consensus. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "The moratorium needs to happen now" is being pushed by a single, solitary editor who is losing the argument against his anti-policy, anti-consensus, unadvertised "consensus" of five editors. As you can see from the above Request for Move, Shhhhwwww!! represents a very small number of editors, and from this request for a moratorium an even smaller number of editors who want to wikilawyer their anti-policy move into place.  The editor in question has just been rejected from a similar move at Tigrinya language for the very same grounds as here:  Moving the "X language" article to "X" violates WP:NCLANG and is ambiguous.  --Taivo (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now here is someone who does not even know that the Philippine Revolution, Philippine–American War, Moro Rebellion and WWII happened under colonial rule telling me what my language is or isn't. After derailing the last discussions by creating multiple overlapping RMs to discredit them, what made you think I am still interested in engaging with you further.--RioHondo (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Um... we need to rush the moratorium to enshrine your hasty flashmob move against long-standing page name? That doesn't sound like consensus. Ogress smash! 09:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The WP:Consensus lies with the current name not the previous one. There were plenty of opportunities for all of you to vent in previous discussion but some of you didn't. The point is there were already three discussions about what to name this article and the name held at "Tagalog". We shouldn't just keep on nominating this article. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Shhhhwwww!!, you are quite wrong when the "flash mob" consensus you boast of was 1) against policy (WP:NCLANG), 2) against a long-standing consensus, 3) reached without any notification on the relevant project page (WP:LANG), and 4) reached with a tiny number of editors. It is simply not a consensus.  You are engaging here in a feat of wikilawyering to enshrine your invalid move against a major consensus that has been built against your move.  The long-standing consensus to have this article at "Tagalog language" has been validated.  --Taivo (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Talk:Tagalog happened over a month ago and Talk:Tagalog (disambiguation) was over a week ago. If there was really no consensus back then, why did it took you this long to provide evidence, long after the fact, long after the discussions have closed? This issue has been debated in three separate discussions and the name "Tagalog" has stuck. It's Sisyphian to constantly  push this over and over.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's because you rushed the original RM (just one week), failed to advertise it properly in the relevant place, and then relied on a tiny number of editors to push your anti-policy change through. It's not rocket science and everyone sees through your desperation and wikilawyering.  --Taivo (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * People also have lives. Some bone-headed moves don't get noticed for over a year. [shrug].  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't rush that proposal. I simply voted for it. It's not my fault I agreed with the result. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you are the only one ignoring the growing consensus here, and the only one pushing an invalid flash mob consensus, then you bear the brunt of the discussion. If you are just an "innocent bystander", who simply voted for the invalid move, then why are you wikilawyering and pushing failed arguments so hard here?  Accept the results of the valid consensus here (properly advertised and in conformance with Wikipedia policy) and be on your way to happier editing.  --Taivo (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @RioHondo, Kung gusto mo makipag-usap sa iyo ng Tagalog, makikipag-usap ako sa iyo ng Tagalog. Paikot-ikot na lang e. Lubos-Lubos na ang mga halimbawa na ang salitang "Tagalog" ang mas naaayon na pangngalan sa wika kaysa sa lahi kung ang Wikang Ingles ang pagbabasehan. Mas maraming mga aklat ang naisulat sa Wikang Ingles na tumutukoy sa wika kaysa sa lahi. Nakalulungkot lang isiping kahit gaano karami pang paliwanag hindi pa rin ito matanggap ng iilan-ilan. Hindi na tama ito. Sana naman may makinig na diyan. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia. Writing in another language is inappropriate without a translation.  RioHondo simply translated his comments into Tagalog.  --Taivo (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, what you are pushing for is a more eurocentric general categorization ignorant dismissal of a term which finds no other use from a foreigners view, but a language. That just sounds lazy and arrogant from a local's view. And if 90%+ of google books results for English also pertains to the language, there really is something wrong with your primary topic argument as the article is still at English language.--RioHondo (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support move moratorium, for a year. I don't support moratoria for longer, because WP:Consensus can change. We don't need disruptive movewarring, however.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A moratorium after moving the article back to "Tagalog language" per a straightforward application of WP:NCLANG policy based on the strong consensus expressed above. --Taivo (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The moratorium needs to have happened before the current RM proposal. This is a clear WP:CONTROVERSIAL article already subject to move wars. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is of course impossible. The RfC decides the current consensus and a moratorium cannot be implemented to disregard an evident consensus.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support six months moratorium only if the article is moved back to "Tagalog language" the proper consensus version of title. The last move discussion for which the language project was not notified can't be accepted as proper consensus. Khestwol (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment:I guess we could take it as read that everyone would support a moratorium provided it supports their own particular view... So logically, this vote and similar ones above tell us absolutely nothing. At this stage, the only meaningful support for a moratorium is unqualified support. Andrewa (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of the overwhelming support above for moving the article based on WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NCLANG, a moratorium seems rather pointless. It was originally proposed as a way to wikilawyer the existing article title which was built on a "consensus" of four.  --Taivo (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I won't be closing this RM, assessing the consensus looks more difficult to me than you suggest. But I must disagree that the support is based on WP:NCLANG, because several (self included) have taken the view that the convention doesn't support the move at all, just the opposite, and those who have quoted the text of the convention rather than just dropped its name seem to have taken this view (again self included). The closing admin will have to take all of this into account. Whether there's any point in the moratorium may be a moot point as getting consensus for it seems problematic too, which was where my comment was leading. Andrewa (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have misread the convention as have the others. The number one issue is ambiguity and the argument based on primary topic is a red herring that is only applicable when the ethnic label and the language label are different, such as is the case with "Latin", spoken by "Romans".  Perhaps you have ignored the Oxford English Dictionary, as well as every other English dictionary, which defines "Tagalog" as the people first.  It's not rocket science.  If "Tagalog" can mean either the people or the language, then the rules of ambiguity apply and WP:NCLANG is crystal clear.  You and all the others have no real argument other than you want to be exceptional.  The first rule of WP:NCLANG names this article "Tagalog language" and the ethnicity article "Tagalog people", just like the policy is intended to do whenever the name of the language and the name of the people are identical.  That's the first rule of WP:NCLANG and there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't apply here, other than a generous application of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  When all English dictionaries define "Tagalog" as "1. A member of a Philippine ethnic group" first and foremost, then there is no reason to read any further than the first clause of WP:NCLANG.  --Taivo (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The first clause reads Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language". Agree that if we stop reading there it supports your view. But the second clause reads If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for this. Why you would stop reading where you have escapes me.
 * I am confident that the contributors who arrived at a consensus on this naming convention intended the whole of the first paragraph to be read, not just half of it. Andrewa (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that your claim regarding dictionaries is relevant, but it is in any case just plain false. See Tagalog. And note that we use noun phrases not adjectives as article titles, as I have said before. But in any case the language currently comes first. Andrewa (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Taivo. And don't forget the AT policy on WP:PRECISE which this move violated. Which is: titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. The article at Tagalog is a clear violation of that.--RioHondo (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:stringing. This seems to be replying to my post, but it doesn't address it. Andrewa (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, fixed I see. Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So it all boils down to which policy is more important? And which should be given prime consideration when naming articles: WP:AT and WP:PRECISE in particular, or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Considering what we know about the ambiguity of the term.--RioHondo (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict. The much-quoted WP:PRECISE reads in part Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such as Primary topic... (I invite you to read the rest and make sure I'm not leaving out anything relevant). Clearly, the writers saw the need to consider WP:Primary topic, and sometimes even to defer to it. That's what they are explicitly allowing here. Andrewa (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But that exception is in conflict with the Wikipedia project WP:NCLANG and its convention. So if WP:AT and WP:PRECISE were to be strictly followed, add a bit of WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONSENSE, we'd have arrived with the ambiguated article title that is undisputed and with overwhelming consensus from the community.--RioHondo (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not in conflict with the Wikipedia project WP:NCLANG and its convention, and this was answered above. Andrewa (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You simply continue to treat Tagalog as an exception to the rule that when the people and the language have the same name, then you disambiguate them by naming the language article "X language" and the people article "X people". You have utterly failed to prove that this is an exception to that primary ruling.  The second half of that clause only applies when there is no ethnic group called by the name of the language.  The WP:CONSENSUS here is that "Tagalog" can mean both.  Every English dictionary lists the people first and the language second when defining the noun "Tagalog".  Your continued wikilawyering about the second clause is simply irrelevant because the first clause perfectly defines this situation.  --Taivo (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You simply continue to treat Tagalog as an exception to the rule that when the people and the language have the same name, then you disambiguate them by naming the language article "X language" and the people article "X people". True. You have utterly failed to prove that this is an exception to that primary ruling. Can you explain what you want me to prove? The second half of that clause only applies when there is no ethnic group called by the name of the language. Disagree. It applies whenever WP:Primary meaning is relevant, as is claimed here. There is no mention of ethnic groups. The WP:CONSENSUS here is that "Tagalog" can mean both. True. Every English dictionary lists the people first and the language second when defining the noun "Tagalog". Almost true. Answered elsewhere, several times now. Your continued wikilawyering about the second clause is simply irrelevant because the first clause perfectly defines this situation. Disagree, and suggest you reread WP:NPA.


 * But more important, this completely ignores the logical structure of the first paragraph. Let me quote it again, this time in full so there is no ambiguity: Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with "language". If however the language is the primary topic for a title, there is no need for this. Examples are English language and Persian language, contrasted with Esperanto and Latin.


 * Now the structure is this: The basic convention is set out in the first sentence. Exceptions are then authorised in the second sentence. It is impossible to tell whether this is an exception without reading the second sentence. Quite impossible. Does that really need to be further explained? And if it is one, then... well, obviously then the second sentence is very relevant indeed! As is claimed to be the case here.


 * So we can't just ignore the second sentence. If we do, then we completely defeat its intent, and it might as well not be there. Which was not the intent of those who formed the consensus that approved this convention, obviously. Andrewa (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. You "defeat the intent" when you have clear situations (as is the case with the vast majority of languages) where the people and the language share the same name, but you ignore it in order to push an agenda which ignores the problem of ambiguity.  In order for the second clause to take effect, you must prove that the people and the language have different names.  That is certainly not the case here.  The Romans spoke Latin.  Esperanto has no people.  There is no ambiguity.  But here the Tagalog people speak the Tagalog language just as the English people speak the English language.  You simply have no argument other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  --Taivo (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But, in the end, your attempts to violate the clear intent and plain wording of WP:NCLANG for no reasonable purpose butt up against the clear and overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS that has already been built above. Just because you claim that your argument is better than everyone else's doesn't make it so.  The community has spoken clearly and unequivocally and they don't agree with you.  --Taivo (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying what you want me to prove! In order for the second clause to take effect, you must prove that the people and the language have different names. OK, I'll admit that certainly I can't prove that, because it's not true. Tagalog can refer to the people group or the language. I thought that was agreed long ago, frankly.


 * And the whole point of WP:Primary meaning is that there are such instances where two topics can have the same name. So the second clause is only relevant in such cases, where two (or more) topics can have the same name.


 * In order for the second clause to take effect, you must prove that the people and the language have different names. Then the second clause will never, ever take effect. It's about things that can have the same name. Am I missing something?


 * I'm afraid my reaction is rubbish. I can't put it more gently. They can have the same name. There is consensus on that, and I think you yourself have asserted it (I could be wrong there). And that is the very reason that the second clause is relevant.


 * Just because you claim that your argument is better than everyone else's doesn't make it so. Agree.


 * The community has spoken clearly and unequivocally and they don't agree with you. Not convinced, obviously. But the closing admin will decide that, and will weigh up the arguments not just count the votes. I don't envy them. But it's not all that big an issue really. Thank you for listening so intently to my arguments. Andrewa (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NCLANG has a simple and clear point that the vast majority of editors here understand readily. The point is that when the language and the people have the same name you name the language article "X language" and the people article "X people".  You don't mess with "primary topic" because the answer is very simple.  Notice the two examples given for the second clause of WP:NCLANG:  Latin and Esperanto.  Latin is not ambiguous because the people who spoke Latin were called Roman, not "Latin".  And there is no ethnic group called "Esperanto" because it is a constructed language.  Your mistaken interpretation of the second clause as having any relevance to "Tagalog" is falsified by the examples cited in WP:NCLANG.  --Taivo (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that the examples given do not cover this situation, and perhaps should, but they can't cover every situation. Disagree that my mistaken interpretation of the second clause as having any relevance to "Tagalog" is falsified by the examples cited, rather they don't have any relevance. Again, they simply do not cover this situation, and perhaps should. Still disagree that the second clause has no relevance. Andrewa (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What you continue to ignore is that there are two examples given at WP:NCLANG which are precisely analogous to Tagalog's situation: English language and Persian language.  Every argument that you have tried unsuccessfully to advance here is as relevant to these two languages as it is to the Tagalog language.  So WP:NCLANG does, indeed, have two examples that perfectly match the situation with "Tagalog".  And in both cases, WP:NCLANG specifically and unequivocally considers them to be examples of "X language"/"X people".  You are right, neither "Latin" nor "Esperanto" match Tagalog's situation because they are not supposed to.  "Tagalog" precisely matches the situation for "English" and "Persian".  That's why it doesn't match either Latin or Esperanto because "Tagalog", like "English" and "Persian" is covered by the first clause of WP:NCLANG.  --Taivo (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is at least the third time that you have accused me of disruption, and you have similarly accused at least one other contributor. I gently suggest that you have no case, and that in view of this, this behavior is not acceptable. Perhaps also read WP:AGF.


 * I was replying to your statement above Notice the two examples given for the second clause of WP:NCLANG: Latin and Esperanto. You seem to now agree that they are both irrelevant, which is exactly what I was saying.


 * So now let's look at the possibly relevant examples: English and Persian. Note that these are far more extensive disambiguation pages than Tagalog (disambiguation). So while I'd agree that they do have some relevance, the claim that they are two examples that perfectly match the situation with "Tagalog" is I think doubtful. Note that in order to be a primary topic by reason of usage, a topic needs to be more likely than all other topics taken together, and I can see why that isn't the case for English or Persian. In the case of Tagalog though, there are really only two contenders. Andrewa (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Latin and Esperanto are indeed relevant to this issue because they are clear examples of how the second clause of the policy operates. And Tagalog fits into neither of those cases.  It is perfectly in line with the English and Persian examples--where the ethnicity and the language ambiguously share the same name--and that is what this overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS agrees with.  --Taivo (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I misunderstood your point there... partly because you seem to have changed your view that we should ignore the second clause completely (good). Disagree that It is perfectly in line with the English and Persian examples for reasons already given. And again, if the consensus really does side with you, then that's fine and we'll move on. It's not a big deal for me. But it's not a democracy, and I'm still hopeful that when the arguments are considered, it is a lot closer than you seem to think.


 * And I think it's particularly important that the arguments should be assessed in a case like this, where the discussion has been in my opinion overly aggressive. As I've said elsewhere, you have accused me and others of disruption, and on several occasions. You have continually questioned the good faith of myself and others, also accusing me of Wikilawyering, circular arguments, illogic, and so on. In this environment, it's to be expected that at least some with opposing views to yours will decide that they just don't want to join in the discussion. A simple majority vote achieved in that way should not be called a consensus, and here at Wikipedia, it's not. Andrewa (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My point about the second clause has not changed--it's still irrelevant and always has been in this case. The point about Latin and Esperanto is that they illustrate that the second clause is, indeed, irrelevant to the case of Tagalog.  You are simply twisting my words.  Just because the two examples show that the second clause is irrelevant to Tagalog doesn't mean that I have changed my view about either the value of the examples or the irrelevancy of the second clause.  Your views on the relevancy of WP:CONSENSUS are heretical to Wikipedia.  The notion that an admin can ignore a consensus with as much support as this one has is simply not in keeping with one of Wikipedia's primary pillars.  The notion that your minority view on the interpretation of WP:NCLANG is more important than the interpretation of the overwhelming majority of editors (some of them also admins and many of them quite experienced) who have joined this discussion is rather idiosyncratic.  The case of Tagalog is very, very simple.  When both the ethnicity and the language are called by the same name, then the articles are named "X language" and "X people".  Whether there is a corresponding disambiguity page labelled "X" depends on other factors.  Sometimes there is a redirect there to "X people", sometimes to "X language".  But the two articles' titles are based on the simple and straightforward interpretation of WP:NCLANG that the majority of editors subscribe to here.  I do assume good faith, but that doesn't mean that you can't be wrong.  --Taivo (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree that I can be wrong. Disagree that my views on the relevancy of WP:CONSENSUS are heretical to Wikipedia, you seem to be implying that I don't think that consensus is relevant, and that is just not true, it is relevant and that is non-negotiable. But Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that is an official Wikipedia policy. Agree that The notion that an admin can ignore a consensus with as much support as this one has is simply not in keeping with one of Wikipedia's primary pillars. But ignoring consensus has not been suggested, and certainly not by me. I don't think there is anything else there that is new. Andrewa (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day, it's all down to WP:CONSENSUS for something as controversial as this. However good your argument is like in the failed Talk:English, if you cannot convince the community about the benefit of your Article Title, then it's really all down to the votes here.
 * And to reiterate my position: The article title at Tagalog language best meets all 5 criteria of our WP:AT policy. It is not just WP:PRECISE, it is also WP:CONSISTENT with other language articles that share the same name as their ethnic groups, is WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:NATURAL, and finally, is not too WP:CONCISE that it fails to identify the topic to the readers, which can be either the people or language as both sides here have conceded.--RioHondo (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, and to reiterate my position (which I admit has changed a little during the discussion): The name Tagalog for the language meets the criteria for primary meaning, and should therefore be the name of the article. The criteria employed by dictionaries for ordering their entries are not terribly relevant; We are not a dictionary. Tagalog language is an acceptable name but not the best name in terms of WP:AT, as it is unnecessarily disambiguated. No big deal really, and sorry if I've upset anyone, but to me it's a close but clear decision.


 * And at the risk of argument from silence, the presence of so many blatantly illogical arguments should give us cause to worry about the validity of the case for Tagalog language. I have been accused of wikilawyering, nitpicking and ignoring the other sides' arguments, whatever. My motivation is just to improve Wikipedia, see User:Andrewa/Creed, and I have no time for such games. It has been strenuously argued that we should read only half of the opening paragraph of the relevant naming convention. Words fail me. Perhaps one side doth protest too much, methink? Andrewa (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I find it incomprehensible that you claim you have proven that the language name is the primary topic. You have offered not a single shred of evidence for that.  And your arguments are simply "I choose to ignore the plain meaning of WP:NCLANG because I want to."  You call our plain, simple, precise arguments "illogical" simply because you have nothing but wikilawyering to respond with.  Yes, your arguments have changed over the course of the discussion because your own arguments were baseless, illogical, and contrary to facts, policy, and consensus.  --Taivo (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Tagalog language is an acceptable name but not the best name in terms of WP:AT, as it is unnecessarily disambiguated . The language in Tagalog language is unnecessary disambiguation you say? Clearly you are contradicting yourself again here when hours ago you said you agree with the majority that Tagalog is ambiguous.1--RioHondo (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And btw, isn't Primary topic also determined with respect to long-term significance and not just on usage? It says the topic is considered primary if it has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with the term." Don't tell me the ethnic group after whom the language was named has less educational value and no long-term significance compared to the language? In this regard, both topics are of equal weight and importance I must say, hence there is no primary topic as per obvious consensus here.--RioHondo (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are two criteria for primary topic, but no conflict in this case. Again let's see what the guideline says. In many cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus determines which article, if any, is the primary topic. (My emphasis.) This is not such a case where there is conflict. With respect to long-term significance, as you say, In this regard, both topics are of equal weight and importance. Therefore, in this case only one sense of primacy is relevant... That is, usage. The guideline is quite clear.


 * How you can argue hence there is no primary topic from that escapes me. What the guideline says is that if both topics are of equal weight and importance based on long-term significance, as you say they are and I agree, then we must decide based on usage. Instead you want to move directly to the conclusion that there is no primary topic, without considering usage.


 * As for evaluating the consensus or otherwise above, I say again, that's for the closing admin to decide, not you or I. And again I say, they don't just count votes. They consider the arguments, and that includes deciding whether the guidelines and policies they cite are cited accurately. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have changed my mind (very, very slightly) regarding ambiguity. That is part of the reason we have these discussions. It does not affect my "vote" on the matter, and it is a part of the process of developing understanding and building consensus. Andrewa (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Andrew has not really advanced the discussion, since every single one of his points has either been previously stated by the tiny number of people who want to ignore the plain sense of WP:NCLANG or has been refuted. At this point, his most frequently pushed point is to beg the closing admin to ignore WP:CONSENSUS and to side with the five editors who agree with him.  --Taivo (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree with all of this, obviously. Particularly, the plain sense of WP:NCLANG suggested seems to me to be a bizarre interpretation, particularly but not only because (as is admitted above) it requires us to ignore half of what it says.


 * But among the name-calling above there are some good points made. It's up to the closing admin to try to sort them out. And we move on. Either name is acceptable. The undisambiguated name is the better choice, and is supported by the guidelines provided they are read in full rather than quoted in selected parts. Andrewa (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's definitely not the better choice just because you like it. It is not supported by the plain reading of WP:NCLANG nor is it supported by WP:CONSENSUS.  Don't you think it tells you something when your minority wikilawyered view of policy is opposed by an overwhelming majority of editors here, including admins and other editors who are just as experienced as you are?  --Taivo (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree that it's definitely not the better choice just because you like it (my emphasis). Please stick to the issues. Discuss the content, not the contributor. Andrewa (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh so you want to discuss hierarchy now? That's just my opinion. There's nothing in the guideline that says what to do in the case of topics with "equal weight and importance." Cos then again, language is not the only thing that makes me a Tagalog. It is one of many. There's religion, customs, cuisine, history, social structure, etc apart from language that define a people or ethnic group, if you want to be technical about it. But in terms of educational value, I see the language as equally important as each and every one of those that makes me a Tagalog. So in this regard, one part or aspect is in conflict with the bigger picture, the sum total in the ethnolinguistic equation. That's basic sociology.--RioHondo (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree that There's nothing in the guideline that says what to do in the case of topics with "equal weight and importance." There are two criteria. If one ranks the two as equal, then the other may still apply, so it needs to then be examined. And the evidence (and I haven't given any above, as others have given ample evidence and have not been refuted) is that, on the basis of usage (the other of the criteria), the language is indeed the primary meaning. Or that's my conclusion. I accept that yours differs.


 * I also accept that you have a great personal interest in this article, an interest which I do not share. If I were writing the guidelines, this would be a consideration in your favour, and I'd similarly give companies a say in what their articles were called. But in fact our guidelines do just the opposite, at present at least. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I did say I am a Tagalog representing the Category:Tagalog Wikipedians. My interest is in the clear separation of equally important and related articles sharing the same name as the ethnic group I belong to. The language is not primary topic, in fact there's none, due to ambiguity and their equal relevance in the realm of the Tagalog. If something is ambiguous, it has to be disambiguated. And this is social science, not some commercial exercise where you have identical entities competing for the prime billboard spot. The primary objective here is to provide precision, as the unqualified title would likely to confuse readers if it is not clarified. It's not only rational and benefitial, it's the way an encyclopedia is supposed to function in the first place.--RioHondo (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have disclosed the potential conflict of interest, and satisfied that provision of the guideline, and that's good. Disagree with the rest of this, and it says nothing new. Andrewa (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is absurd to suggest that someones nationality could be a conflict of interest. You clearly dont know what Conflict of Interest actually means.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that I was not suggesting that RioHondo should in any way be restricted in contributing on this topic. Rather I was rebutting their claims to have privileged status in contributing in this area. I was saying that, if anything, it works the other way. You disagree? Andrewa (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I disagree. The fact that an editor knows more about a topic, in this case about whether the Tagalog language is named after the Tagalog ethnic group or vice versa, should probably mean that their arguments are weightier than the arguments of people argueing with no basis of knowledge - certainly never less.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But there is no question of whether the Tagalog language is named after the Tagalog ethnic group or vice versa. It is generally agreed that the language is named after the people group. But that question is not relevant in terms of our naming and disambiguation conventions. Andrewa (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Since no one else wants to, you are welcome. Ogress smash! 06:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course it is relevant since that shows that the term is ambiguous and that the language is not in any meaningful sense the primary topic. Regardless of the fact that apparently some users WP:DIDNTKNOWABOUTIT.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether one meaning is derived from another doesn't seem to be mentioned in the guidelines as a factor in determining which if either is the primary topic... have I missed it? Your second point escapes me too, that particular part of the guideline doesn't seem to say anything that would suggest that the language is not the primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Nouns and adjectives
I think I may have stumbled onto one reason that there's so much controversy here.

Where one contributor said above I am Tagalog, they were quite correct, but in English some verbs (verbs of incomplete predication) can take adjectives as well as nouns as their predicate arguments (see complement (linguistics) for the traditional and probably most approachable explanation of this). So in the phrase I am Tagalog, the term Tagalog is an adjective, not a noun, and this construction does not attest to English usage of Tagalog (the noun) unqualified to refer to the people.

The point that may have been lost is, our article titles are noun phrases.

Does this help? Comments welcome of course. Andrewa (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you are going with this. When I said "I am the only Tagalog here," can you tell me if the word i used in my initial reply to you functions there as an adjective or a noun? Aren't they used interchangeably? --RioHondo (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In I am the only Tagalog here it functions as a noun. But in I am Tagalog, as I said above, as an adjective. Andrewa (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Tagalog" as the name of a "language" is also an underlying adjective in the phrase "the Tagalog language". The Oxford English Dictionary (and every other English dictionary) is very clear:  "Tagalog, noun, 1) A member of a Philippine ethnic group".  (Wiktionary is not an authoritative English dictionary, by the way.)  The OED, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Random House Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Collins, etc. all list "Tagalog" as a noun and every single one of them list the first definition as a member of the ethnic group.  It's not even close.  "Tagalog", like most other language names, is ambiguous between the name of the people (a noun) and the name of the language (a noun).  --Taivo (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary is an English dictionary whether you consider it authoritative or not, so as said above the claim that every other English dictionary does this is quite simply false. But as also pointed out before, this is of doubtful relevance. You have not addressed this point, but let me expand on it anyway. We would need to know why these dictionaries list this meaning first. I would guess it is because of the etymology of the term, that is to say, it is because the language is named after the people rather than the people after the language. If that is so, then the order in which these dictionaries list the meanings is irrelevant to this discussion. Their criteria are different to the ones we are applying here. Andrewa (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The false point that you are trying to make here is that the people name is an adjective, but the language name is a noun. That is false.  Both are nouns and both can be used adjectivally or nominally.  There is absolutely no functional or syntactic difference between them.  Therefore, "Tagalog" is ambiguous.  The reason that the ethnic definition occurs first is that it is primary.  All other uses of "Tagalog" flow from its use as the name of the people:  the Tagalog people speak the Tagalog language, they practice the Tagalog culture, they live in Tagalog villages, they tell Tagalog stories, they wear Tagalog clothing, etc.  --Taivo (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The false point that you are trying to make here is that the people name is an adjective, but the language name is a noun. That is false. Well, that is hopelessly oversimplified, and not the point at all. Both are nouns and both can be used adjectivally or nominally. There is absolutely no functional or syntactic difference between them. Agree. Therefore, "Tagalog" is ambiguous. I don't know how many times I need to say that I agree with that.
 * The reason that the ethnic definition occurs first is that it is primary. Very important point, if you can provide evidence of this connection then I will happily concede. But I'm skeptical. Evidence? Do the dictionaries even use the word primary to mean the same thing as we do here? Do they even have such a concept?
 * All other uses of "Tagalog" flow from its use as the name of the people: the Tagalog people speak the Tagalog language, they practice the Tagalog culture, they live in Tagalog villages, they tell Tagalog stories, they wear Tagalog clothing, etc. Agree. Important point! And I actually made that point myself above somewhere i think, or a similar one. And it's probably why the name of the people is the first meaning listed in dictionary definitions. But it's not a consideration here. Andrewa (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the use of the name for the people is primary (and therefore the first definition in the dictionaries) is partially based on the wording of the second definition in the majority of cases: "2. The language spoken by this people".  In most of these cases, the language definition refers to the people who speak it.  In only a small number of cases is the language defined without reference to the people who speak it (who are defined in the first definition).  The other basis for treating the people as primary when the same word is used for both is that ethnicity is only partially defined by language while language is in the vast majority of cases defined by its use within an ethnic group.  So the majority of Shoshoni don't speak Shoshoni, but nearly all speakers of Shoshoni are Shoshoni.  Finally, there are overt statements in the introductions to the dictionaries themselves to determine primary meaning versus derived meanings.  As an example, this is what the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has to say on the subject:  "Entries containing more than one sense are arranged...with the central and often the most commonly sought meanings first." (pg. xxxix).  --Taivo (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a step in the right direction, we now have the criteria used by one dictionary, but it's too vague to be useful... with the central and often the most commonly sought meanings first (my emphasis)... While that's not completely unrelated to Wikipedia's concept of primary meaning, the connection is uncertain and tenuous. We'd need much more information. The most commonly sought meanings are (note the plural) often first. OK, but in this particular case, is the most commonly sought meaning first? That's the question, and it has not yet been answered.
 * The rest of this post is completely irrelevant, in my opinion. It concerns the etymology of the term. That is not one of the criteria for primary meaning as Wikipedia uses the term. Is it? Andrewa (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Andrewa, but you are simply ignoring the obvious. The simple reading of the dictionary introduction is clear and evident:  The first definition is "central and often the most commonly sought meaning".  There is nothing ambiguous or unclear about that.  There's nothing to wikilawyer there.  And the rest of my comment is not just "etymology", but a clear discussion of what "primary meaning" is with regard to ethnicity and language labels.  This section started as you tried to separate "Tagalog" into noun and adjective uses.  When it was clearly shown that you were wrong based on every English dictionary (again, Wiktionary is no more reliable a source than Wikipedia for our purposes), then you began to nitpick the clear evidence of primary meaning and why the ethnic label always comes first in English dictionaries before the language meaning.  --Taivo (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree with all of this, I think. I'll let others decide who is nitpicking, wikilawyering or whatever other insults you care to use. I hope and believe that they don't help your case. Andrewa (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oldest non-stub version
I just checked, and it seems to me that the first time this article ceased to be a stub was this edit, and so the first major contributor was User:Seav, who used the title Tagalog. See WP:TITLECHANGES for why this might be relevant. Of course, we also need to consider whether it has been stable under either title. Andrewa (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not relevant because that predates the application of WP:NCLANG. Once NCLANG came on-line then most language articles were renamed to conform to it (with little to no disagreement as I recall).  Why wasn't it controversial?  Because it made sense.  --Taivo (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no mention at WP:TITLECHANGES of any such restriction on its scope, and it is a section of the article titles policy. Andrewa (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * it is totally irrelevant because there is a current RfC that will decide the consensus, and consensus overrides WP:TITLECHANGES, as well as any other lawyering you can come up with.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a wikilink to that RfC, please? Andrewa (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are participating in it right here, Andrewa. Maunus was referring to this RM.  --Taivo (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? They are not the same thing, and Maunus is experienced enough to know that. Andrewa (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an example of your wikilawyering, Andrewa. I am 99% sure.  --Taivo (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It would still be good to hear what Maunus has to say on the matter, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I meant the open move request where about twenty editors have already commented. The outcome of that move request will decide the future title of this article regardless of what minor technical arguments you can think up to support your personal position. Because thats how wikipedia works - consensus decides.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And, actually I think you are wrong about the name of the article in 2003. When you do a "differences" link the title doesn't reflect what the actual article title was at that time, but the current title.  In other words, the only way that you will find article moves is by actually looking through the history.  I just did that and before the current change against policy and consensus, I couldn't find a single article move.  Indeed, there is evidence within some of the edit summaries that the article has always been "Tagalog language".  (For example, there is one edit summary from about 2007 or so that says something like "Tagalog language#Vowels".  That is a clear indicator that at that time the article was named "Tagalog language".)  Another piece of evidence for the longstanding existence of "Tagalog language" is the history of the Tagalog disambiguation page.  It was created in January 2010 and specifically lists "Tagalog language" in the edit summary.  1) There is evidence that this article has always been named "Tagalog language", 2) the disambiguation page was created in 2010 and it lists "Tagalog language" at that time, and 3) there have been no attempts to move the article until this recent event.  --Taivo (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In looking back through the archives of this page, there is this: .  It is the original move notice to conform to WP:NCLANG.  2004.  There was no argument.  (Apparently WP:NCLANG dates to 2002.)  --Taivo (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your research.
 * But the section to which you permalinked above, Talk:Tagalog/Archive 1, seems to refer to a move from Tagalog to Tagalog language. It reads: Just a heads up. Tagalog has been moved to Tagalog language in order to be consistent with the naming conventions for language. This has been done for other Philippine languages as well. This is timestamped 01:30, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC), while the version I quoted above (here's the permalink in case the diff I gave is not adequate, but either links to the other of course) is timestamped 18:54, 4 July 2003.
 * So it still seems to me that Tagalog was the original title, as the text of that version of the article would suggest. But agree that the edit history needs to be consulted to be absolutely sure of that, so I'm interested in any further research you can do, it may save the closing admin some trouble.
 * Suggest (again) that you leave out the personal attacks, they just make your reasoning harder to follow and less likely to be read. Andrewa (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I pointed out that the move in 2004 was to conform to WP:NCLANG. But because the article spent only one year at "Tagalog", then eleven years unarguably at "Tagalog language" that one year is irrelevant.  I already examined the entire edit history of this article and the talk page and there were no moves or move requests during that entire time.  It has been stable at "Tagalog language" for ten years longer than it was at "Tagalog".  --Taivo (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is a factor in favour of the move. It needs to be seen in the context of it having been stable at the other title as well, but admittedly for a lesser time, and the interpretation of WP:NCLANG, which seems to be one sticking point, the other of course being the question of primary topic. Andrewa (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The comment on the original move also points out that the majority interpretation of WP:NCLANG here is the oldest, and most stable, interpretation. --Taivo (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion shows that the move was unilateral, and that it was challenged after the fact but not reverted... As we see on the sanskrit talk page, Naming conventions (languages) says "Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with 'programming language' in the case of programming languages, or 'language' in the case of natural languages. If the language's name is unique, there is no need for any suffix." That seems like a better and simpler way to do it. So why don't we call it Tagalog straight up, assuming there isn't a sports car or a food, then it's obviously simpler and better. Obviously other filipine languages like Cebulano might reffer to a region or a group of people, but tagalog doesn't refer to a single thing I can think of other than the language. Anybody agree? It was a discussion of only two persons, the mover (who rightly pointed out that Tagalog does refer to other things) and one opponent. Andrewa (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to equate one comment, which was answered quite satisfactorily and succinctly in the next post with what has happened here? Are you calling that an "argument"?  For eleven years after that there is not a single, solitary word or request for move or unilateral move.  Eleven years is an eternity in Wikipedia terms and one comment is not an "argument".  --Taivo (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No. But I do think that the whole discussion (little as there was... and that is significant too) needs to be read, not just the outcome, to put your post to which I was replying into its proper context. It's not as clear-cut as you are suggesting. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I now see that you have removed the latest personal attack. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TITLECHANGES has got absolutely nothing to do with RMs, which involve discussion, as Maunus has explained above. Alakzi (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree that it has got absolutely nothing to do with RMs. Just the opposite. WP:TITLECHANGES is the part of WP:AT that explicitly deals with RMs, and on a quick scan it's the only part that deals with RMs. It reads in part Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia. In discussing the appropriate title of an article... (my emphasis, and I encourage those interested to read the rest to make sure that I am not misquoting it). Totally agree that RMs involve discussion, I don't see your point there but am happy to concede it. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact I not only concede that point, I totally endorse it. RMs do involve discussion, and WP:TITLECHANGES would make no sense at all otherwise. I hope we need waste no more time on that! Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you mean by as Maunus has explained above. This diff doesn't seem to explain it... it there another? Andrewa (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But these excerpts are irrelevant to the point you were making - which I'd assumed to be in reference to the first and second paragraphs, which advise against moving an article away from a stable title when it is likely to be controversial, without prior discussion. Since we are discussing the move and nobody's move warring, I don't see how that might be relevant, either. Alakzi (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong assumption. The point I was making is that, in the event of no consensus, WP:TITLECHANGES provides a default that isn't just to reject the RM (as would be normal with most no consensus decisions). It's not helpful to my case, just the opposite probably, but despite all the (unhelpful in my view) allegations to the contrary above, I do want to get the best outcome for Wikipedia, and that means considering the relevant policies and guidelines (including WP:CONSENSUS of course). I'm afraid I find the suggestion that this particular policy is irrelevant quite incredible. But then, I find much of the discussion above incredible, and hope the closing admin will agree with me.
 * So again I ask, where above has Manus explained something that justifies your claim that WP:TITLECHANGES has got absolutely nothing to do with RMs? If that's true, it's very important, and should be agreed. Andrewa (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I was referring to his comment dated 07:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC), but that point is now moot. Alakzi (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * it is totally irrelevant because there is a current RfC that will decide the consensus, and consensus overrides WP:TITLECHANGES, as well as any other lawyering you can come up with. There are so many problems with that post that it's hard to know where to start. My request for the URL of the RfC produced no response from Manus, but it did produce a reply from another contributor who claims that he meant this RM. So it appears there may not be an RfC at all (there is a difference). Andrewa (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Points of contention
The above makes heavy reading, so I'm going to try to summarise what I think are the sticking points. It's also probably about time for a new section anyway. Just for clarity, I disagree with the suggestions described in all of the five bullet points below.


 * It's argued that Tagalog language is not the primary meaning of Tagalog. If this is true, then the rest of the discussion is irrelevant, so we can stop there, and the move should proceed. All opposing arguments depend on it.
 * It's argued that the second clause of WP:NCLANG is irrelevant. If this is true, then again the move should proceed. This clause is what makes the question of primary meaning relevant.
 * It's argued that WP:TITLECHANGES is irrelevant. I'm afraid words fail me here.
 * It's suggested that I am Wikilawyering to the point of disruption. I very much hope this is not true, and that the (excellent) essay in question makes this quite clear.
 * It's suggested that I wish to ignore consensus. I deny this strenuously.

This is not the place to take the last two behavioural issues any further, but they are so much part of the argument above, repeatedly being raised despite my requests to give it a break, that I think they need to be part of the summary.


 * In view of the continued discussion below of behavioural issues, I have now started a section for them on my user talk page at User talk:Andrewa, and posted heads-ups to it on the user talk pages of the three other editors involved. Andrewa (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments (below I suggest)? In particular, is there any important point, for or against, that I have missed? Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: it seems Andrewa has convinced exactly 0 users of his circular reasoning and wikilawyering? Khestwol (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Andrew is correct on most of his points. In general the tone of this discussion has been very unfortunate.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Andrew has mischaracterized the issues.
 * First point, no one in the consensus is arguing about "Primary topic" except to say that is it irrelevant to the proper application of WP:NCLANG. The tiny number of editors who agree with him want to make it an issue, but the consensus view is that it is irrelevant and that ambiguity is the primary factor.
 * Second point, WP:TITLECHANGES firmly dictates a change back to "Tagalog language". The point is that the last title change before the current contested one occurred just one year after the article was written; after an initial question was answered, was uncontested; and was stable for the next eleven years.  The only applicability of WP:TITLECHANGES in this case is to say, "Tagalog language is the stable, long-term title".  Andrewa wants WP:TITLECHANGES to support the current title because 1) it was the title for one year at the beginning of the article's life and 2) it can be a useful policy in the case of no consensus.  The problem with 2) is that there is a consensus for moving the article back to its most stable name, and the name that conforms to WP:NCLANG.
 * Third point, Andrewa is wikilawyering. In defiance of the clear WP:CONSENSUS above, he continues to argue minute points that are virtually irrelevant for the discussion.  He asked Manaus to provide a link because he mistyped RfC instead of RfM.  When I said that the move in 2004 was uncontested, he ridiculously pointed out that there was one opposing comment.  He brings up WP:TITLECHANGES when that policy is almost never invoked in RfMs (in my experience).  He finds minute phrases in policies in order to bolster his points.  He has continued this discussion for days and convinced no one of his position against consensus.  And he continues to express the notion that a closing admin will ignore an overwhelming consensus here in favor of his nitpicking policy points.
 * Fourth point, he is, indeed, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and has repeatedly expressed his hope that the closing admin also ignores consensus. He argues that WP:TITLECHANGES is relevant when there is no consensus as if there is no consensus here.
 * Fifth point, Andrewa has missed the very clear point that the overwhelming consensus here accepts WP:NCLANG's plain meaning and that it applies here without obfuscation: "If the same name is used for both the language and the ethnic group, the language article is named 'X language' and the ethnicity article is named 'X people'."
 * --Taivo (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * After examining the history of WP:NCLANG, I discovered that the "primary topic" language was inelegantly added to the text in early 2014. It was the subject of a long discussion, but without a clear consensus being formed on the Talk Page.  What is clear from the discussion on this page, however, is that the majority of editors still interpret WP:NCLANG in its older, long-standing meaning (about twelve years) that "primary topic" is irrelevant and the only key issue is whether or not the language and the ethnicity share the same name.  --Taivo (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've said it before, but I think I must say again that WP:NCLANG is listed at WP:AT via the sidebar template Template:Naming conventions. If this is an exception to it, that's one thing, but if as claimed it does not reflect the current consensus, then that should be raised on its talk page. Please do so.
 * But you can't have it both ways. You have been the one repeatedly citing WP:NCLANG. Now you want to apply an obsolete version of it rather than the current version. Words again fail me. Andrewa (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are twisting my comments in another example of your wikilawyering here. All of my comments about WP:NCLANG except for the historical ones relate to the current text of the policy.  The second clause about "primary topic" is still irrelevant because the first clause covers "Tagalog" perfectly.  That's precisely how all the other editors in the overwhelming consensus here also interpret it.  For all your wikilawyering, you haven't changed a single mind.  That the overwhelming plain interpretation of the current text of WP:NCLANG happens to coincide with the interpretation of WP:NCLANG throughout its history simply shows that your wikilawyered interpretation is no more convincing now that it ever was.  --Taivo (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:Andrewa. Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that summary of your case above. I think it covers all the points, and that is very helpful. Andrewa (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (Replying to Khestwol 17:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)) Thank you, that's a sixth point, albeit a minor one: I have also been accused, both above and just then, of circular reasoning. This vague charge has not been substantiated in any detail. It appears to be just another insult. Andrewa (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The reference to the RM/RfM/RfC confusion above led me to discover and recall a sixth point that I think is significant, and again with which I disagree:


 * It's argued that Tagalog people is the primary meaning of Tagalog because the Tagalog language was named after the people group rather than vice versa.

Please note that it is agreed above that the Tagalog language was named after the people group rather than vice versa. The contentious point is just whether this makes the people group the primary meaning as claimed. Andrewa (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that overstates the "primary topic" issue again. The issue isn't that the ethnicity name is primary in Andrewa's legalistic Wikipedia sense, but that the ethnicity name is not subordinated to the language name as the tiny number of opponents to this move would have us believe.  The point is that the term "Tagalog" is ambiguous.  That is the problem with much of this discussion.  The words "primary topic" were poorly inserted into WP:NCLANG about a year ago without a proper consensus being reached on the Talk Page there.  That has fueled the tiny number of opponents of this return to the article's most stable title as they continue to treat "primary topic" as a holy grail.  The overwhelming consensus here is that "primary topic" is irrelevant when there is a clear, decade-old consensus as to the meaning of WP:NCLANG  --Taivo (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is now agreed that Tagalog is ambiguous (and I have changed my view on this during the discussion). The point however is that the order of naming is not relevant. Tagalog language can still be the primary meaning of Tagalog, even if the other meaning came first, as it is also agreed it did. Andrewa (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. The point is that the consensus here declares that "primary topic" doesn't matter for the proper application of WP:NCLANG.  As much as you and the two or three others who agree with you want to make a big deal out of it, the WP:CONSENSUS here is saying, "Who cares about 'primary topic' in this case?  The term 'Tagalog' is ambiguous and we have a long-standing process that deals elegantly with it."  --Taivo (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, that summarises your position well I think. But note that consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. (My emphasis.) Andrewa (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS are not just policies but pillars, and they make it absolutely clear that a solid consensus is able to override and set a side any amount of lawyering that someone might want to undertake to enforce their point of view over that of others.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree totally. But that is not the same thing as a solid majority, is it? I will abide by the closing admin's assessment of the consensus here. Andrewa (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there no end to your wikilawyering? Ask 100 Wikipedia editors and not a single one would agree with your definition of "Consensus".  To quote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means."  "Consensus" is an English word that means when a group of people come to a decision--a "common sense".  When editors are evenly split on their interpretation of something here, then the closing admin, will, indeed, evaluate the arguments, but more often than not will declare "no consensus".  But when an overwhelming number of Wikipedia editors are in agreement on an issue compared to a tiny number of editors who oppose them, that is a consensus.  You are seriously ignoring the plain meaning of consensus to attempt to WP:WIKILAWYER your way into getting the closing admin to ignore the actual overwhelming consensus that has been built here.  You have proven my point, that you want to ignore WP:CONSENSUS.  --Taivo (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:Andrewa. Andrewa (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Add. It is argued that the current unqualified title is against WP:AT and WP:PRECISE/WP:CONCISE in particular. That the benefits of disambiguation far outweigh a minority's preference for unneccesary disambiguation, for a term that they themselves admit is largely ambiguous. That the Reasonability and Concensus for restoring the title back to its longstanding and most stable qualified title is being questioned by a few which choose to ignore and argue for the sake of arguing. Thank you.--RioHondo (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think that summarises your position well. Andrewa (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"speculate" recast as "have discovered"
This edit caught my eye. I have not reverted it, but it seems WP:POVish to me. I lack technical qualifications to make a judgement, but I note that this source (which appears to be an online version of one of two cited supporting sources) seems to be referring to this as "The Greater Central Philippines Hypothesis", which looks more like speculation than discovery to me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't really my area, but I'd say you're correct, . The slideshare presentation is Blust, while the Zorc source was published in 1977. If it has suddenly been recognised as being more than a theory/hypothesis, I'm unable to find any RS establishing this to be the case. I'm predisposed to reverting, but will await WP:RS from Iluvumerijaan for cite verification. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tagalog language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080127174205/http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr05153tx.html to http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr05153tx.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228152829/http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=L00000000001&page=1&epage=1 to http://www.filipiniana.net/ArtifactView.do?artifactID=L00000000001&page=1&epage=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080127174205/http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr05153tx.html to http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr05153tx.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://emanila.com/news/opinion/ggrivera_2001_04_10_opinion_tagalog.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

"whichever is easier to use"
We're told that many Filipinos code-switch between Tagalog/Filipino and English, "whichever comes to mind first and whichever is easier to use". The first of these I can understand, but what is "whichever is easier to use" supposed to mean? What would make an English word "easier to use" than a Tagalog/Filipino one, or vice versa - complicated grammar, or difficult sounds? But a Tagalog/Filipino speaker would presumably have no problem with either of these, and native English-speakers are surely a small minority in the Philippines. In short, this doesn't strike me as a very scientific explanation of the code-switching process.89.142.218.53 (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Filipino = Tagalog?
Why the article Filipino language are there? The Filipino and Tagalog are the same national language of the Philippines. So you merge in Filipino language article. The language are same. So, if you want to merge it, you disambiguate the article, thanks. -- Cyrus noto3at bulaga Talk to me 08:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Spoken by majority?
The lead of our article currently implies that it is spoken by majority of people in the Philippines, 20m native, and presumably, by most of the rest. Well, suggests there are ONLY 3m or so of secondary speakers. That's a major discrepancy. How many people speak Tagalog? Majority or minority of the Filipinos? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The majority speak it as a lingua franca but it's probably second to Bisaya of one dialect or another as the mother language they learnt nursery rhymes in. That situation will inexorably change (despite the Duterte presidency) due to immigration to Luzon and that region's high birth rate... --BushelCandle (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (LATER): I've just read the lead again and I think it's fine and do not detect the implication that you do. Tagalog is an Austronesian language spoken as a first language by a quarter of the population of the Philippines and as a second language by the majority.--BushelCandle (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically, the confusion arises from the fact that Ethnologue distinguishes 162k L2 speakers of Tagalog against 45M L2 speakers of Filipino. The criteria for this distinction are not quite clear to me. The whole things is clearly part of the Tagalog/Filipino debate.
 * Unless a L2-speaker makes a conscious effort towards either autochtonous Tagalog as spoken by ethnic Tagalogs in the Katagalugan, or Filipino as the standardized national language, most L2 speakers actually acquire proficiency of Tagalog/Filipino in a mix of school instruction, mass media consumption and direct interaction with Tagalog L1-speakers, so there actually is no well-defined target that can be clearly labelled as Tagalog or Filipino. So basically the statement in the lead is correct, once you accept Filipino simply as a special label for the Tagalog language.Austronesier (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Spot on! --BushelCandle (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

controversy as national language
A different point of view can clear the controversy regarding the adoption of Tagalog as national language. The country which adopted Tagalog as national language in 1898 was the Tagalog Republic comprised of Tagalog speaking provinces. This country considered other ethnic groups as allies but never as territories. However, it was merged with the Republic of the Philippines with English and Spanish as official, albeit foreign languages.

In the face of certain extinction of close to 200 native languages, Filipino language was made official so that people can still communicate officially using any of these native languages.

To promote unified multi-ethnic national identity, it was proposed that Filipino encompass all the native languages much like Bahasa in Indonesia.

However, the creation of an encompassing national language did not materialize because it still entailed extinction of individual languages.

Although English is already being used on a national level, it is difficult to learn because the rules of grammar are alien, and could be said to be in reverse. The same is true for Spanish but it was already removed from official status because of disuse once US defeated Spain. Learning another native language is easier.

Tagalog is being used at the moment much like Mandarin for Chinese languages, a commonly used native language but not replacing the other languages. The same could be said for Cebuano. Filipino means all the native languages.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.220.32 (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Please either restate this in the form of suggestions for improving this article or take your opinions to a blog somewhere outside of Wikipedia. See WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)