Jump to content

Talk:Chihuahua (state)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The dog...

[edit]

Came here expecting an article about the dog. Of course I can undertsand why the state is more important, but how about a link to the dog article direct from this page, in addition to the disambuguation? I've seen this on other Wikipedia pages, where it says something like "For the dog, see X, for other uses see <disambig>". Saves people another page load, and I have a (purely intuitive) suspicion that a lot of people searching for Chihuahua will be looking for the dog. Thoughts? Is this offensive to anyone? --124.168.248.156 (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a disambiguation page like for Newfoundland?
But yeah, what if i want to look up Kansas the band as opposed to the U.S. state? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.99.154 (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two big hairy guidelines on this: WP:DISAM and WP:MOSDAB, and probably others. Nevertheless, consensus for a particular article can easily be achieved here. I'll fix it. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was apparently already a discussion about this, but it got lost somewhere. Regardless, right now there is no (legitimate) primary page, since the state (being a historic, geographical entity) has about 3x as many incoming links as the dog, but the state gets only about 1/5 of the actual views of the dog. By rights, this page really should be a disambig between the two, guilty conscience or no. -LlywelynII (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found discussion still left at Chihuahua (state). Included below. -LlywelynII (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking it over, it's clear that User:W950712 (a banned sockpuppet of User:Rayesworied) ignored the consensus (&, fwiw, policy-appropriate) choice to leave the page at Chihuahua (Mexico) and the current page should be returned there or better moved to Chihuahua (state). [ Talk:Chihuahua_(dog)/Archive_1#Proposed_move also felt leaving Chihuahua as a dab was the most appropriate outcome.] Anyone have the time to fix the incoming links? -LlywelynII (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk from Chihuahua (state)

[edit]

Please Move This Page [ Chihuahua > Chihuahua (state) ]

[edit]

The term 'chihuahua' is redirected here. When one mentions the word chihuahua then obviously they think of the breed of dog. Someone move it please? 88.111.177.233 11:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Honestly, how many people type in the word and are looking for the Mexican state? This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the Spanish-language one. Very few English speakers are even aware of the existence of a state by the name "Chihuahua." -134.84.102.192 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: moved!
[Agreed.] Clear agreement. -- Anonymous 05:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move [ Chihuahua > Chihuahua (state) ]

[edit]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
Rubbish. - Who cares if the author is immature and/or misinformed? let's just think of what is best for Wikipedia. -81.86.107.17 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [ Agree ]. Quiet Everyone please, because I have an idea to solve it :). - If people are looking for the dog, It will stay Chihuahua (dog), If people are looking for the state, It will be Chihuahua (Mexico). There!, It is now perfect! There!, Enough bull, it's resolved. -Anonymous 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Result: no move
Clear oppose. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this going again?

[edit]
  • [ Agree ]. Can we get this going again? I didn't even know there was a state in Mexico called Chihuahua. I vote to move it. - 213.218.199.111 09:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly opposed. - Let's not "get this going again." A state in Mexico is clearly more important than a little dog. - FitzColinGerald 07:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredibly opposed. - My state is by far more important than that little senseless dog... That's the problem with people like you... I bet I know far more about your stupid country (which ever it is) than you. Please quit the bull.
  • I agree. - I think a large majority of people who search "Chihuahua" are looking for the dog. I know I was when I found this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.149.189 (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. - On further consideration, I say a disambigious page is in order. Thus is the case for Newfoundland (where I'm from), and Newfoundland (dog). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.149.189 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Opposed. - A state, regardless of what country it may be in is MUCH more important than a dog. The example set by the page on Newfoundland does not mean that this article should follow. If you weren't aware of a state that existed by this name, well congrats, you learned something today. Now really, lets just keep the article as is.Tcmstr134 (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Opposed. - The objective of Wikipedia is to enrich human kind knowledge, if people look for the Chihuahua dog and finds this page, the objective of wikipedia is fullfil. Because that person will expand his knowledge and find out that there is a state bordering USA with the same name as his beloved dog. And perhaps find out that is home to a canyon bigger than the Grand Canyon, a thriving German community, also, home to the tarahumaras, one of the few native American communities that still have the same way of live than their ancestors 500 years ago and finally the place of birth of Anthony Quinn....

NPOV

[edit]

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

Undiscussed unilateral move, 22.9.08

[edit]

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

Requested move [ Note that this poll is regarding moving page to Chihuahua from Chihuahua (Mexico) ]

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Point of information: city, not town. State capital; population close to 1m. Big place; major city. Aille (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. But I wonder how many other anglophones who would instantly identify a picture of a tiny dog as a chihuahua would have no idea what if anything else the term signifies? Andrewa (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And we are writing for the anglophones that actually exist, warts and all. Wikipedians are not engineers of the human soul. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "Chihuahua State" make it sound like a state university? Colorado State? Texas State? Plus, Quebec's at Quebec, not Quebec Province. Aille (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, it sort of does, but in my experience of creating lots of state and district pages for African countries on en and zh, it pays to just name the states as states, and the districts as districts, and so on down the line; and to do so unilaterally, and be finished with any kind of extra disambiguation, especially insofar as states, districts and towns often repeat themselves nomenclaturally. I think that the extra parentheses are aesthetically displeasing, as well. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

[edit]

Any additional comments:

YES --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is systemic bias, plain and simple, merely because we're dealing with a Mexican state. Similar attempts to move U.S. states that share names with other prominent things have failed on the grounds that (sample arguments) 'states have hundreds of incoming links', 'it would make linking to the state more complicated', and 'this can be resolved with a simple hat-dab'. All of those apply to Chihuahua vis-a-vis the dog to the same extent that they apply to:
Washington: most non-US uses mean Washington DC: take a look at the incoming links; and surely George Washington is as important as a breed of dog?
New York: on a primary use basis that should really go to the city, but it goes to the state instead, for convenience sake; see archived move discussion.
Mississippi: the rather obscure state is overwhelmed in general use by the mighty river.
Colorado: again, a major river, some minor rivers, to say nothing of political movements in Paraguay and Uruguay.
There is, therefore, a clear precedent for states' getting primary usage. Why shouldn't that apply to Chihuahua? Further evidence that this move was carried out in haste and without a full understanding of the situation and its ramifications is the choice of location: Chihuahua (Mexico). Surely that's equally ambiguous with the capital city Chihuahua, Chihuahua? If this ill-considered move is to prosper, I implore that it at least goes to Chihuahua (state), which is not ambiguous. (The same applies to Hidalgo (Mexico), which I can't see follows naming conventions either.) Aille (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This "precedent" is imaginary, as a look at Talk:Washington and its archives will show. George Washington is under his full name, because almost all biographies have first names in the title; Washington DC is the physical city, not the synecdoche for the Federal Government, and it is called that more often than not. This leaves Washington free for the state, and it is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation like Washington (state), or use of the rare and inconvenient State of Washington.
Systemic bias is a cry of all work; Georgia (state) has also been decried as systemic bias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As has Georgia (country). If both sides are annoyed, it probably means equilibrium has been struck. ;) Aille (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that we can't really use this as a precedent, as all of these situations are substantially different: the U.S. states getting the undisambiguated names does not lead to the other meanings having to be at Washington (city), New York (city), Mississippi (river) and Colorado (river). I don't have a strong opinion on the requested move, but I strongly prefer Chihuahua (state) over Chihuahua (Mexico), to get in line with all disambiguated states of Austria, states of Brazil, Bremen (state), etc. -- Jao (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, and avoids ambiguity with the city. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Septentrionalis makes valid points about Washington (although I suspect that page gets a fair number of incoming links looking for the federal capital). With regard to this case, I again appeal to primary use: at discussion is a vast geographical area (bigger than the UK), whose article gets hundreds of incoming geo-links, versus a breed of dog (albeit a popular one) that takes its name from that state. Would we be having a parallel discussion if the favored Hollywood pet were a Delaware (chicken), or if a New Hampshire (chicken) suddenly became a vector for a bird flu outbreak in North America? Aille (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly thought Kansas (band) might have had some impact, but perhaps that dog just didn't manage to get its head out above the pack of strays. Never mind.
Out of interest, this afternoon I looked up the access stats for the two pages. The results were, lets say, sobering: Mexico's Texas vs. stunted rat-dog. No, Mr Barnum, indeed; no one ever went broke that way.
To change the subject somewhat, above, when you say that the dab page... which is about 20% the dog, do you mean that from what you saw, 20% of the incoming links to Chihuahua were looking for the dog? For curiosity's sake more than anything, because I'm aware at this stage in the game that this matter isn't going to be decided by number of incoming links (although, it must be said, I was surprised how few there were to the dog article -- very few indeed, with a disproportionate number of IP talk pages). But anyway. Curiosity about that 20% claim, just because that's a much higher proportion than I detected, using the highly unscientific method of clicking on names I didn't recognize or that I couldn't imagine had any connection to the state; my guesstimate would be fewer than 1 in 20 (and, yes, Virginia, Paris Hilton is in there). Again, not that it matters -- I'm not a bot-runner, so I don't plan on doing any of what now seems like an ineluctable & daunting dabbing task. Aille (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC Kyle MacLachlan was the sixth link to Chihuahua when I looked at it, and Anthony Quinn not much lower. When the page is a redirect, as this is, one muct be careful not to slip and get the whatlinkshere of the target; I also tend to discount links through templates, since that's really only one editing decision, on the template itself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's one for the dog, one for the state. I found seven dog links in the first 200 links to Chihuahua (hiding transclusions); didn't dab them in case anyone else wants to try the experiment. Of the good links, there were a fair number of templates (isn't that what turning transclusion off is supposed to hide?) -- all the other states and state capitals, for instance; presumably there'd be fewer of those further down the list. There were more looking for the city than dog-hunting, too, which any furture dab effort would no doubt clear up. Of course, as you point out above, it may well be that dog-linkers are better at dabbing, but Chihuahua (dog) doesn't get 100s and 100s of article-space links. Aille (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Four dogs, one Apache chief, and several dubious calls between city and state in the next 100. Enough. Aille (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The (defunct) title of nobility does confuse matters in that instance; I suspect that the state should still get primary use -- and, were our coverage of that part of the republic up to scratch, would probably be arguing that point. But, no: my poor wording above confused the fact that I was merely advocating a Hidalgo (Mexico) to Hidalgo (state) move in that case. The comment was that using "Name (Mexico)" as a disambiguator is not helpful, for states; per Jao (ec) above. Aille (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct disambiguator

[edit]

If the above move request fails and the article is to remain disambiguated, please have it at a title with an actual disambiguator, Chihuahua (state), and not Chihuahua (Mexico) which does nothing to disambiguate the title from the city, the song, the desert, the person, or the dog. — AjaxSmack 18:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stalemate?

[edit]

Opinions appear more or less equally split, and there have been no additional comments for a while. Perhaps an admin could move the article to Chihuahua (state) (the current name is inappropriate and has no support, from either side, and the fewer articles that link to it the better), and re-list it on WP:RM, see if the discussion can get kick-started back into life? Aille (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But moving the article to Chihuahua (state) is also inappropriate and biased it'd be like naming California as California (state) just because there are a number of things named after the state. Supaman89 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, I think this article should be at "Chihuahua", too. But, if forced to choose, reluctantly, between "Chihuahua (state)" and the inexplicable/illogical "Chihuahua (Mexico)" -- no contest, "Chihuahua (state)" wins. Aille (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wander what would happen it all of a sudden I decided to move California as California (USA), it probably wouldn't even last 5 minutes before someone reverted it, isn't that biased? Supaman89 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article to "Chihuahua (state)", as it appears that there is consensus that the page should at least be there instead of "Chihuahua (Mexico)". I don't have a strong preference for either side of the argument, however, I would caution Supaman89 against making such baseless claims of bias when they can be easily disproved with Georgia (U.S. state), for example. Move proposals that rely on "the other side is biased" rarely succeed, as far as I've seen. Citing evidence is usually the best way to go, even if it's a simple Google search (which are to a degree unreliable, but could help shed some light on which seems to be the primary topic). I've also closed the proposal as "no consensus"; perhaps if another proposal is initiated, it might be wise to file an RfC at the same time, in order to draw more uninvolved editors. Fresh eyes are never a bad thing. Parsecboy (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The case of Georgia is a special case because obviously Georgia (the country) would have a higher priority that the U.S. state, if there was a country called Chihuahua then of course we would have to make the clarification for this state, but since there is none, and the all the other "Chihuahuas" come from the name of the State, it is just needless, unnecessary and biased to name it as "...(state)", specially because it was moved without consent; the title should be simply “Chihuahua” since it is the original name. Supaman89 (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a stalemate, then this article should go back to just Chihuahua instead of Chihuahua (state) since that's where it started out before the earlier unilateral move and ensuing nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratemonth (talk • contribs) 02:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, like Parsecboy very reasonably suggests, re-list the WP:RM, along with a related WP:RfC. As things stand, we have hundreds and hundreds of links looking for the state that get redirected to a disambig page. Aille (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with moving page to Chihuahua (Mexico) or Chihuahua (state). I know I am very late to discussion, please inform me if this becomes current again. PamelaBMX 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current article name, "Chihuahua", is just fine the way it is.
Anyone who happens to own a yappy little dog would benefit from knowing what it's named after.
The utter ignorance of the United States of the countries on its borders is appalling.
Varlaam (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State Capital

[edit]

Although the State Capital designated by the State Constitution is the city of Chihuahua, the seat of the three branches of Government have moved in to Ciudad Juárez, this means that the Capital de jure is the first, but in fact, the 3 powers are currently based de facto in the second, by definition (de jure, de facto) the changes in the article are correct and it should be reflected in the article's infobox. EOZyo (мѕğ) 00:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time zone change

[edit]

Can we mention the time zone change (and reasons therefor) or is that too esoteric? —Wiki Wikardo 17:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions

[edit]

I suspect that the article would be better served by removing the current template from the Administrative divisions section and replacing it with a main article template link to Municipalities of Chihuahua. --Bejnar (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some nice writing on this page!

[edit]

Like the organization and paragraphing with clear themes.TCO (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spanish wiki

[edit]

this article (and several similar ones, like Galeana) ought to be wikilinked to the spanish wiki. Often there is more detail (for smaller areas MUCH more) and then the articles are pretty easily read even by a non-Spanish speaker by means of Latin cognates. Also often more images there.TCO (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move - Chihuahua (state)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved (casting vote after 14 days discussion); and plain name as disambig. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

} Chihuahua → Chihuahua (state) — 1) This is not the primary topic. Outside Mexico most people think of the dog, and the dog page is viewed much more often. Chihuahua should be a dab page. 2) Other states around the world use the disambiguation term "(state)", this should be done for Chihuahua state too. See list below. It--TopoChecker (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]

@1) Primary?

View statistics:

It also does not matter whether the dog is named after the state. Many things on the page Washington are named after George Washington, still he does not get the primary article or a redirect.

@2) How is dab done elsewhere? Other states from around the world at disambiguation pages:

TopoChecker (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]

  • Comment: The view statistics show the opposite, so how do you come to the conclusion it is primary? Primary has nothing to do with which topic is named after which. Washington is not the article for George Washington even if all the other topics would be named after him, because it more commonly refers to the state or the District of Columbia. That is what counts: what do people most often refer to when saying "Chihuahua"? TopoChecker (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]
No prove for wp:primarytopic, which says:
... that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term.
TopoChecker (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]
  • At least for outside North America I would make strong bets for the fact that most people think of the dog first. If you expected the city or the state, then this is a proof for the fact the state is not primary. I don't think anything that humans made, included disambiguation with comma could be seen as natural. TopoChecker (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]
  • Comment: Take care: What about those that first view the state page and then have to click further to the dog page? This would mean even fewer people are interested in the state than the stats seem to show. And whether there is confusion or not does not matter, the guideline talks about primary topic. TopoChecker (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]
  • I do not object to the name of the state, I also think it is fine. Only the article title is violating the guideline. That the primary topic for "Chihuahua" is the state, is only stated by some users, but never ever these users did provide any evidence. While to the contrary, evidence was provide for the fact that if at all, the dog might be primary. TopoChecker (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]
And please enough of the campaigning. Also TopoChecker stop changing links from Chihuahua to Chihuahua (state) in existing articles. Wait until such a move is completed (if it happens). Vsmith (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no point in arguing about what we think other people think of when they hear "Chihuahua". The article page view stats are clear - many more people visit the article about the dog than any other article about a Chihuahua use. That's strong indication that whenever someone enters Chihuahua in the search box they are not any where sufficiently likely to be looking for the state to make it the primary topic. Based on the stats, I think moving the article about the dog to Chihuahua is warranted, but putting the dab page there is fine too. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; the dog is clearly primary in English-language sources. In the Spanish Wikipedia, I could be persuaded otherwise, but not here. Powers T 13:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In trying to find out the primary topic, several methods are available. Traffic is a weak metric. Recently there was a requested move to replace Basic Instinct by an album that barely charted in the top 50, based on numbers that showed ten times more page views. By the same token, had wikipedia existed in 1997, Titanic would have been about the film instead of the boat (which still leads at 17.6 khits vs 4.2 khits). More solid figures are provided by books, as they reflect better and more well researched information. Here we find ina google book search 442,000 ghits for chihuahua -dog vs 28,600 chihuahua dog. A clear indication that the primary topic of books about chihuahua is not the dog. walk victor falk talk 20:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books have the weakness, that one does not know which ones were read how often or lets say at least how many copies of a certain book were sold. The Titanic, the dog, the state exist for several years. The statistics show the dog page is visited more often than the bare name Chihuahua since 2008. That means, that despite the fact that the state is at the bare name, it gets less traffic than the dog. If Chihuahua becomes a dab page I would expect the page views for the state to go even more down, maybe going evn very close to the city. TopoChecker (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]
  • Doesn't your google search assume "chihuahua" + "dog" both appear on all pages that refer to chihuahuas as dogs? If many pages using "chihuahua" consider the additional use of "dog" redundant in context, that search is meaningless. (In fact the whole first page chihuahua -dog is about the dog.) Station1 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The vital article is Chihuahua (dog) so the vital article standard supports it being called that.Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you restate that? I don't understand what you mean. Powers T 16:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The vital article is "Chihuahua (dog)" just like Mercury (element) is a vital article, nothing else should be called "Chihuahua (dog)" but that does not mean you drop the qualifier (dog) or (element), rather the opposite, the qualifier must be kept.Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that's the case. The reason the (dog) qualifier is on that list is because that's where the article is. If we moved the article, the (dog) bit would be dropped on the list. What WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says is that subjects that appear on that list can be considered strong candidates to be at an undisambiguated title. It doesn't mean that the list of vital articles proscribes specific article titles, complete with disambiguator. The reason Mercury (element) has a disambiguator is because Mercury (planet) is also a vital article, so we can't use "it's a vital topic" as a reason to make one or the other the primary. Powers T 02:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The reason the (dog) qualifier is on the list is that's what the title was when it was approved as vital, it should therefore be the title used.Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The vital articles list only serves to identify the vital articles. If a vital article's name is changed, the list is changed. The list doesn't lock in article titles. --JaGatalk 04:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but the expanded (10k) vital article list isn't in any way "approved" or "official"; anyone can add to it (especially since it's more than 3000 articles under its target at the moment). Powers T 12:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But not a book. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Google hits and page view statistics are useful but not the only thing that should be considered when deciding what is WP:PRIMARY. A major subdivision of a large country has more claim to be the primary topic IMO than a breed of dog. Popular does not always equal primary. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when even in such a clear cut situation it can be ruled out by "IMO"? Is wikipedia for the readers or for editors of geography related articles? Why place a breed of dog below a country subdivision? Why not follow the rule of PRIMARYTOPIC. Why not at least put both on equal footing and create a dab? TopoChecker (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[reply]
  • Per WP:TITANIC and WP:IAR. That's the problem wp:primarytopic as written now, it mentions only quantitative factors. I think it is difficult to write about qualitative considerations in a way that doesn't make it prone to wp:gaming, but that does does mean editors should refrain from qualitative judgements, or we could as well let a bot rename articles automatically.walk victor falk talk 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're citing an essay you just wrote. But anyways, I'm personally a big proponent of changing PRIMARYTOPIC to cover these "more encyclopedic" considerations. But the question is, does the state article have more encyclopedia-ness than the dog breed? I don't really see it. We aren't talking about some band called Chihuahua or some other pulp culture ilk. It's a dog breed. There's nothing unencyclopedic about that. --JaGatalk 21:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They learn that when they read the first sentence of the lede: The Chihuahua is the smallest breed of dog and is named after the state of Chihuahua in Mexico. Even if the that info was not in the first sentence, article titles only serve to identify the topic, we shouldn't load titles with extra information to be instructive; that's the article's job. --JaGatalk 17:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Unfortunately one of them has to have an extra disambiguator. The question is which. Your argument that it is a vital article is invalid, nothing whatsoever says that a vital article have special title rules. walk victor falk talk 18:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be easy to fix if nothing were at primary names in the first place, then you could not link to the wrong article, if you were required to fit a disambiguous disambiguator all the time. Why not have that as policy? It certainly would solve battles between UK and US usage if all those articles had (US) and (UK) on them, instead of accusations of British or US bias. In this case we wouldn't have to argue between politics and biology topics as to which is more encyclopedic. 184.144.170.159 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support English language usage certainly indicates the dog is more primary. 184.144.170.159 (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. When there is extensive discussion about which term is the primary topic, it's usually a good indication there is none. (And note that "primary topic" means "topic people who search for this term are most likely to want information about", not "topic I find most important" or "topic other topics of the same name were named after".) Ucucha 01:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There is no rule that geographic subdivisions have to take precedence over dog breeds. The dog is demonstrably more well-known and more searched for than the state. The suggestion that Chihuahua should be a disambiguation page instead of being the dog's page is a very reasonable, and in light of the facts perhaps a too conciliatory, offer. Quigley (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly what I was thinking. I'd say the popular breed of dog with its overwhelming majority of pageviews is definitely primary over a large state in a Spanish-speaking nation - especially considering the state doesn't figure largely into English-speaking culture (compare to, say, Mexico City or the Yucatán Peninsula), but in the name of compromise, the disambig is probably best. Regardless, the state article shouldn't be in this spot. --JaGatalk 07:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per User:victor falk and Septentrionalis. In addition, are we not rewarding ban evasion and effectively encouraging future ban evasion by not closing this RfC that was opened in bad faith? -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 02:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Victor and Mattinbgn. The state, which has a population comparable to New Zealand and significantly more than some other countries, is clearly the primary topic. Academic searches confirm sufficiently for me that the dog breed doesn't rate outside of Google, which is often not a reliable measure of actual importance. Orderinchaos 07:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support How one views "Chihuahua" is somewhat influenced by the reader's location. Those in the US may know about the state, readers over this side of the pond will only know of the dog.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ban evasion. No need to move, just because it is in anothar article does not mean that must be in all articles. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 18:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As a UK resident I've never heard of the state but have heard of the dog. Both google news and plain google return almost exclusively the dog when I search for them. Although I realise this will be biased to the UK I think this supports the move on the principle of "least surprise". Readers who are aware of the state are probably also aware of the dog so won't be surprised to end up at a disambiguation page, however readers who aware of the dog may not be aware of the state so will definitely be surprised to end up up the state page and will probably be much less surprised to arrive at a disambiguation page. Dpmuk (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm not from the UK and am very familiar with the Mexican state. That said, I find it rather obvious that the primary article at the English wikipedia should be the dog, with a dab hat. I also would not be the least bit surprised to see the situation reversed on es.wiki, but thats not a concern for us on en.wiki. -- ۩ Mask 02:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breakpoint

[edit]
Re-discussion chained onto old discussion after I re-opened the old discussion in answer to a message to me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support. Primary meaning in English is the breed of dog. Andrewa (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. By the way, there was no need to close the previous RM just to give everyone a chance to say the same they already said. Ucucha 13:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the dog may not be primary, but the Mexican state certainly isn't either, at least not in English. The base name should be a disambiguation page. Powers T 14:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as before, the state is the primary meaning. The above was basically "no consensus" and should have been closed as such. Vsmith (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chihuahua is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; the dog is named after the Mexican state. Also per Wikipedia:NCGN#Mexico (Chihuahua vs Chihuahua, Chihuahua). As for the "other side of the pond" issue, Jersey links to the Island in the English Channel; However, if you ask any English speaker outside of the UK what "Jersey" is, they would more than likely say a piece of clothing or a breed of cow -- both of which were named after the Island.
    • First, I would likely support making Jersey a disambiguation page. Second, Jersey is an English-speaking area, and that has an effect on what users of the English Wikipedia are likely to be searching for. In the Spanish Wikipedia, I have no doubt that the Mexican state is the primary topic for "Chihuahua", but I don't think you can state that definitively for the English Wikipedia. Powers T 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this is redundant I still support as I did above. Chihuahua (dog) is probably primary, but making Chihuahua be a disambig is a good compromise. I see no good reason to have the (state) article in this spot. --JaGatalk 18:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for exactly the same reasons as above in the discussion above which was closed against a rough consensus at ANI. We seemed to have caused inconvenience for many editors who now have to !vote here again for no apparently good reason - the prolific sock involved isn't going to stop no matter what happened to the RM so the project would've have gained more by not alienating many editors in good standing that now have to vote again. I ask that the closing admin consider the discussion above when closing this one so as to now miss the !votes of editors in good standing that may miss this new (pointless) discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*This move request has been listed at WP Mexico in order to generate more discussion -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 19:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

GDP?

[edit]

The small box on the top right with the summary info lists the GDP of Chihuahua as US$ 20,287,214.21 mil. That would mean that the GDP of this one Mexican state is 50% larger than that of the US. A little research (chasing the links provided as justification for this figure) suggests the error is in translation. The original source document gives the GDP of Chihuahua as 259,676,342 in "Miles de pesos". It appears the author of this portion of this article interpreted "Miles de pesos" as "millions of pesos" and applied basic math to get the rest. Unfortunately this is not correct. "miles" in Spanish doesn't mean "millions", it means "thousands". This would change the converted figure to US$20.3 Billion (instead of Trillion). A much more realistic figure for a relatively small (population wise) state. That said, the article is locked so I cannot correct this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.179.18 (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Chihuahua (state)

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Chihuahua (state)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "inegi":

  • From Tamaulipas: "Mexico en Cifras". INEGI. Retrieved April 7, 2011.
  • From Quintana Roo: "Relieve". Cuentame INEGI. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
  • From Veracruz: "Mexico en Cifras". INEGI. Retrieved April 9, 2011.
  • From Zacatecas: "Mexico en Cifras". INEGI. Retrieved April 9, 2011.
  • From List of Mexican states by population: (in Spanish) Website of the National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Data Processing
  • From San Luis Potosí: "Mexico en Cifras". INEGI. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
  • From State of Mexico: INEGI (1997). Estado de México Guía Turística]. INEGI. ISBN 970-13-1194-9.
  • From Yucatán: "Mexico en Cifras". INEGI. Retrieved April 9, 2011.
  • From Tabasco: "Mexico en Cifras". INEGI. Retrieved April 7, 2011.
  • From Sonora: "Mexico en Cifras". INEGI. Retrieved April 6, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chihuahua (state). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chihuahua (state). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chihuahua (state). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Chihuahua (state). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox flag RFC

[edit]

Should this article have a flag inside the infobox? There is a discussion about it at WikiProject Mexico, where you can join and discuss it. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chihuahua_(state)&oldid=1195082014"