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:

• http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/Chihuahua%20(dog) - has been viewed 94 638 times in 201012. This article ranked 5446 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.
• http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/Chihuahua - has been viewed 19 185 times in 201012. Despite being at the bare name
• http://stats.grok.se/en/201012/Chihuahua,%20Chihuahua - has been viewed 11 114 times in 201012.

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:

• Victoria (Australia), Australia
• Carinthia (state), Austria
• Salzburg (state), Austria
• Tyrol (state), Austria
• Amazonas (Brazilian state), Brazil
• Bremen (state), Germany
• Hidalgo (state), Mexico
• Mexico (state), Mexico
• Al Jazirah (state), Sudan
• Blue Nile (state), Sudan
• Kassala (state), Sudan
• Khartoum (state), Sudan
• Lakes (state), Sudan
• Northern (state), Sudan
• Al Qadarif (state), Sudan
• Red Sea (state), Sudan
• River Nile (state), Sudan
• Sennar (state), Sudan
• Unity (state), Sudan
• Upper Nile (state), Sudan
• Warrap (state), Sudan
• White Nile (state), Sudan
• Amazonas (Venezuelan state), Venezuela
• Barinas (state), Venezuela
• Bolívar (state), Venezuela
• Lara (state), Venezuela
• Mérida (state), Venezuela
• Miranda (state), Venezuela
• Vargas (state), Venezuela
• Trujillo (state), Venezuela
• Portuguesa (state), Venezuela
• Sucre (state), Venezuela
• Washington (U.S. state), United States
• Georgia (U.S. state), United States

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

• Agree with move. For users of en Wikipedia, this is most common. It has nothing to do with what is more important (how can you even judge that anyhow), but what users go to most often. We need to follow naming policy and use the most common name. TCO (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Chihuahua 'is' the wp:primarytopic. The dog is called after the state.^walk victor falk ^talk 19:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And the state is named after Chihuahua (city)? And Boston after Boston, Lincolnshire. By that logic the one that got the name last would be the primary topic, wouldn't it? TopoChecker (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)comment by banned editor[reply]

• Oppose for the same reason as Victor. Ratemonth (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[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]

• Oppose I disagree with the premise that most people think of the dog; I came here expecting the city or the state to be under discussion. As against the city, we should follow the natural disambiguation suggested by WP:NCGN#Mexico: The cities that share names with states have been placed at Placename, State], with the state taking the Placename location: for example, Oaxaca, Oaxaca, (city) and Oaxaca (state). So here Chihuahua against Chihuahua, Chihuahua. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[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: If those page view statistics are true then the viewers of the dog page are going directly to the dog page and there is no confusion. They are not viewing this page first.Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[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]

• Oppose, the name is fine as it is and there is no need for a change. Vsmith (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[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]

• Perhaps all books about chihuahua dogs are best-sellers while other chihuahua books languish in the warehouses of vanity presses. That's a possibility. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[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]

• Thank you for pointing out that. Restricting to full view search gives 34,300 results for "chihuahua -dog" vs 574 for chihuahua dog. Apologies for my sloppiness. Serves me right, since those figures are even better. I find it extremely unlikely a whole book about chihuahuas without mentioning the word "dog" at least once. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose', as it does appear from book results that this is the primary topic Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The dog article is a vital article, which figures prominently into WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Considering PRIMARYTOPIC makes allowances for vital articles that don't even get the most pageviews, and in this case the vital article also gets the most pageviews... well. --JaGa^talk 05:55, 19 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. --JaGa^talk 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]

• It is quite likely that a web page would say in passing e.g. "she had a chihuahua" without using the word "dog". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:04, 19 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. --JaGa^talk 21:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, someone had to write it. It fell upon me. A core purpose of an encyclopedia is to be didactic. By having a disambiguator, users can learn there is another topic, from which the name of the dog is derived.^walk victor falk ^talk 12:33, 21 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. --JaGa^talk 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]

• You mean outside of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? --JaGa^talk 02:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What is outside of primarytopic? ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:43, 24 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]

• I would support giving more priority to disambiguation pages. Then there is less talk about what is primary, less wrong links. TopoChecker (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC) comment by banned editor[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]

• Comment how did this ever end up at Chihuahua? It failed at the 2008 move request, any move after that requires a new consensus discussion, since a previous discussion to move to the current title failed. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 08:05, 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. --JaGa^talk 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]

• Restarting discussion after the previous move discussion's originater was banned.

  The chihuahua (dog) is the dominant meaning for most people outside Mexico. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Dominant meaning" (whatever that is) is 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) 10:56, 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. --JaGa^talk 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]

• I have re-opened the old discussion in response to complaint; I have chained this new discussion onto the old discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per difference of coverage levels in English-language academic sources, which mention the dog far less than the state, the city or the university contained within that city. (And agreed with Dpmuk's advice to closing admin.) Orderinchaos 02:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How are the covering levels found? What about non-academic sources read by the general public? Google search for "chihuahua + dog" is likely to be low because many people call the animal merely a chihuahua. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I paired it with "breed", "canine" and "dog". Even with those searches, I was getting mostly random hits which mentioned the university but not the dog. Orderinchaos 15:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most people when mentioning a chihuahua animal treat the word "chihuahua" alone as disambiguating enough and see no need to add any of "dog" or "canine" or "breed". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Academic publications, however, are always precise, hence why I used the various search terms when checking them. Orderinchaos 10:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the dog or disambiguation. -Fennec 04:11, 29 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.