Template:Vital article

	San Juan, Puerto Rico was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed June 22, 2007 Peer review Reviewed July 16, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 20, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Puerto Rico B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the ((WikiProject banner shell)) template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities: National capitals B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the project's national capital taskforce.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

Archive 1

I'm going to put this GA on hold until the following have concerns have been addressed, most of them being just wording problems:

Lead

• "San Juan (IPA: [saŋ hwaŋ]), named after Saint John the Baptist (Spanish: San Juan Bautista) is the capital and largest city of Puerto Rico. The latest census estimates place the city's population at 433,733, making it the 42nd-largest city under the jurisdiction of the United States." - Shouldn't there be a comma somewhere here? Because if we remove the brackets and their contents it would read: "San Juan, named after Saint John the Baptist is the capital and largest city of Puerto Rico..." so shouldn't it read "San Juan, named after Saint John the Baptist, is the capital and largest city of Puerto Rico..."? Done
• "San Juan was founded by Spanish colonists in 1521" - Shouldn't 1521 be wikilinked? -Done
• "Today San Juan serves as Puerto Rico's most important seaport" - A bit of a POV here - Try and say "according to X, San Juan serves as Puetro Rico's most important seaport" or you could say "[...] most important sea port, as..." -Tweaked line a little, please review it to see if it's still POV in your opinion
• Reads: "The city of San Juan was called Puerto Rico meaning "rich port", and the entire island was called San Juan. The capital and the island's names were later accidentally switched." No citation; I'm not sure if the above quotation is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.212.239 (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

• Something wrong with the position of note 5 - Notes should be after punctuation marks, see WP:FOOT Done
• "A year later, the settlement was moved to a site then called Puerto Rico (meaning "rich port" or "good port") after its similar geographical" - No need for brackets here, it would read and look so much better IMO if you used commas instead of brackets and also re-worded it a bit so it would read, "...then called Puerto Rico, Spanish for "rich port" or "good port", after..." Done
• "San Juan was an important settlement of the Spanish Empire" - Stepping into POV territory again, who said that this was the most important port of the Spanish Empire. Tweaked line to avoid POV
• "For these reasons San Juan became a target of the foreign powers of the time." - Wouldn't mind a reference for this...please?Done
• "San Juan's great fort" - How is it a "great fort"? POV again. Done

Demographics

• Not really needed to pass this review, but if your planning to take this article to FA then what I'd like to see in this section is a graph to go alongside the table so one can just take a quick look at this section to see the increase in population.

• I seriously don't think that you should refer a demographic as 'Some other race'. I think it should be changed to simply 'Other' to be more professional and less offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanhasanose (talk • contribs) 03:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sports

• In the list of sporting events, why is the use of full stops inconsistent? Done
• Try and use a table for teams section, see Washington#Professional Sports and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania#Sports, it looks much more neater. Done

Notable "Sanjuaneros"

• Considering this is the English Wikipedia, shouldn't the section be "Notale Resisdents" and then have a sentence saying that "Sanjuaneros" is the name for people from Puerto Rico as there doesn't appear to be any other mention of this word apart from the Section header. Done

Other then those points it's a well made article and you should be pleased of how well it's been written. Just a quick note on why I'm addressing these POVs (Points of View) - The fact is that such claims within the article shouldn't be there (or at least written like that) because it will potentially draw critism towards Wikipedia - A way 4u1e and myself found a way around this on the Tom Pryce article was to cite the person who made the comment, in Pryce's case it was David Tremayne, that way any critism can be diverted from Wikipedia to them. A small role play IMO may help clear this up:

• Reader: Hey look, according to Wikipedia, San Juan has the most important seaport in Puerto Rico...
• "Wiki-Critic" Brother: No it isn't, because Wikipedia isn't reliable.

Now, if you said "according to X..." it would be much more different:

• Reader: Hey look, according to [Beep], San Juan has the most important seaport in Puerto Rico..."
• "Wiki-Critic" Brother: Oh...

See, that shut him up ;-).

Anyway, I'll be keepign my eye on this article and hopefully in a weeks time I'll be passing this article ;-). --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed and well done review, I took the liberty of adding a few checkmarks to the points I have already attended and my comments are written in bold to avoid confusion, thanks for reviewing again. -凶 17:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Straightforward, clear, and concise. We appreciate your time. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for seeing to my concerns, I will now grant this article good article status. One thing you could do for future reference is rate this GA review, see my sig. --Phill ^{talk Edits} _{Review this GA review!} 08:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This a GA but it would be nice if a lot of more info and details of the city be added.The City is rich in content why not add more details about its economy,government or anything else?EdwinCasadoBaez 05:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the statement about San Juan being the oldest city in the United States and would consider removing the statement about it being the second oldest in the Americas unless some proof is given to back up tha claim. The current citation given is a link to a Puerto Rican tourism website and nowhere on that webpage does it claim the city is the second oldest in the Americas. Somebody will need to back that claim up or it be edited out. I removed the statement about the United States because it categorically is not true. It may well be the oldest European settlement in the US/a US territory but it is absolutely not the oldest continously inhabited city/settlement in the US or its territory. Even St. Augustine, Florida on the mainland which also claims an "oldest title" is referred as the oldest EUROPEAN-founded city in the continental US (see article). There are several cities in Hawaii or even Guam such as Lihue which had been inhabited for centuries before Europeans arrived in the Americas, another examples is Taos Pueblo a settlement/town which has been inhabited for thousands of years up to the present. I am only writing so much about this because this claim keeps reappearing here and has not been proven. --84.153.50.69 19:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old San Juan is indeed the oldest European founded city in the US, St. Augustine is the oldest city in the continental United States, Puerto Rico is outside the continental space of the US. -凶 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I should have been more clear with the St. Augustine reference. I was not disputing that San Juan is an older European-founded settlement than St. Augustine; I actually only wanted to bring attention to the fact that the St. Augustine article mentions that the city is the oldest European-founded in the continental US. The San Juan article claimed to be the oldest city in general. The current wording (founded by Europeans) seems okay to me.--84.153.50.69 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the following "Puerto Rico's capital is the oldest European-established city of the United States, followed by St. Augustine, Florida, and the second oldest European-established city in the Americas, after Santo Domingo, in the Dominican Republic." By using "of the United States" and not "in the United States", I sidestep the political status debate, which has no place in the first paragraph of this article (even though I could make a case regarduing "in", instead of the more neutral "of").

This is an important historical fact that San Juan and Puerto Rico celebrated in 1971, when the city turned 450, and which it will again celebrate in 2021, when it turns 500, according to Mayor Santini. Pr4ever (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction of St. Augustine into this article makes the article sound awkward. The reason is that this article is about San Juan, not St. Augustine. As an example, in an article about George Washington we wouldn't say George Washington was the first president of the USA with John Adams being the second president of the USA (but, in an article about John Adams we might say John Adams was the second president of the USA with George Washighton being the first president of the USA, though even that would still have a trace of awkwardness as we can see. In other words, a possible exception might be if St Augustine was the oldest city and San Juan was the second oldest.) Thus St. Augustine has no place in this article, and certainly not in the lead. On this basis the previous version is the more encyclopedic version of the two, and I have restored it. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message.[reply]

If your objection is to the mention of St. Augustine, would preserving "the oldest European-established city of the United States and the second-oldest European-established city..." be acceptable? Otherwise, we should do away with both references, since being second in something is no more relevant than being first in something else. I won't reedit yet, awaiting your response and hoping we can reach a consensus. Pr4ever (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pr4ever's claim but believe there should be some corrections done. First, we should avoid using the term "oldest city" (whether in the US or in the Americas), and refer to San Juan as a settlement and not a city for it could be argued that by the time San Juan became a city there were many other European founded settlements that had become cities in the Americas and in the USA, not leaving behind the ambiguities that can arise by defining the size required to become a city. Second, I would prefer the use of "oldest under U.S. jurisdiction" for Puerto Rico is an insular dependency of the U.S. and not an integrated part of it. I found a citation that actually expresses the information the way it should -"Established in 1521, San Juan is the second oldest-European-founded settlement in the Americas, after Santo Domingo, and the oldest under U.S. jurisdiction."^[1] javierpuertorico (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2010

Considering also javier's recent comments, I see 4 distinct problems with the edit I objected to, as follows:

(1) Per WP:Lead, entries made in the lead should be a summary of information found later in the article. "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Problem: This oldest city/settlement topic is never mentioned in the article again.

(2) Also per WP:Lead, entries made in the lead should be expanded later in the article (that is, the summary in question in the lead should be found later in the article disucssed together with additional supporting, ancilliary, information of related topics.) "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article...Editors [should] avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article." Problem: The information provided goes into over-specific descriptions that could be accomodated later in the article.

(3) In general, the introdution of St. Augustine-anything in the lead, tends to dilute the effect of the oldest city/oldest settlement in the Americas presentation, making this part of the lead sound cumbersome, almost fabricated. The article is best left with the 2nd oldest in the Americas: it's more effective. To exarcerbate this, I do not believe most people can tell the difference between "in the US" and "of the US". If there is a difference, that, too, should be explained later in the article - with citations, otherwise the alleged difference will start approaching WP:OR. This is another reason to leave the lead as it was. Problem: Difference between "in the USA" and "of the USA" never stated.

(4) As if this wasn't enough, St. Augustine is also claiming "oldest" in the USA title. Now, this article (as the edit suggested) gives the impression of also claiming oldest in the USA title for San Juan. Unless the reader is a member of the US Supreme Court deciding an Insular Case, the reader cannot see a difference between "in the USA" and ""of the USA". This is a lead tease. Problem: The edit gives the appearance of disputing the "oldest" title claimed by St. Augustine, Florida.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC) and I approve this message.[reply]

I find acceptable the citation that Javier found and suggested. It is factual, short and sidesteps the political status debate, as no one is in disagreement that Puerto Rico, in whatever shape or form, is "under U.S. jurisdiction". Any objection to including it in the article? Pr4ever (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous one from Magaly Rivera was objectionable to some; the one from LonelyPlanet is a good source, and I too would find it acceptable. If we can stick to as close to verbatim as possible it would be beneficial, for others may object to a different form for political or other reasons. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone happen to know (or have a reference that has) the Köppen climate classification for San Juan? I believe it's Af, but a proper reference would be great. CloudNine 14:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "subsidizez" word shouldn't be there,since the great majority of the Metro systems in the World are actually subsidized,even the NYC Subway.--BoricuaPR 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what are you suggesting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.241.87 (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting it should be erased cuz it's just dumb...--BoricuaPR (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Mom used to say, "para un buen entendedor, con pocas palabras basta",,,, roughly, "if you are intelligent enough, you won't require much explaining." Thumbs up to Mom! CallmeDrNo (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that SJ is the island's (sic) manufacturing center. It also states that rum is produced in SJ. Does anyone have any evidence of that. Last time I checked, Bacardi's plant was in Cataño and most of the SJ Metro Area's manufacturing activity is actually located in Carolina, Bayamón, Cataño and Trujillo Alto, not actually in San Juan.Pr4ever (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty big for such a conference to be held in a small city like San Juan, should it be added to the article somewhere?

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8#Annual_summit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.206.154.2 (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small city? San Juan is one of the largest cities in the Caribbean, you should take some time to actually read the article... - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, compare it to other cities that have held the G8 summit like London, Tokyo, Munich, Toronto, Moscow... When I said small I meant compared to them. I live in Puerto Rico next to San Juan and I know the city's size... >_> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.243.71.248 (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, city size isn't exactly relevant to the organization of these summits, economic stability and location might be, next year's summit will take place in La Maddalena, which is actually smaller than San Juan (especially in terms of population and economy) and nowhere near being considered a "big city". - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The G-7 2nd annual economic summit was held in Dorado, not San Juan, in 1976.Pr4ever (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the people of Dorado would appreciate San Juan taking credit for an event held in Dorado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapler80 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this is pronounced sang-hwang... Ranma9617 (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Juan's baseball clubs are not listed, despite being discussed in above paragraph.98.246.115.71 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it makes no sense, seeing as how Dubai and Caracas picked San Juan as a sister city, so there's no reason to place all sister cities as Citations. Why? 'Cause the older link is defective and is out of date. JMBZ-12 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are needed because this is not WP:CK. If there is 1 single citation that includes all of SJ's sister cities that would be ideal. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Well, I did find a source on sister cities for San Juan, such as Dubai and Caracas. If it's deemed unsourceful, then I will change it back. JMBZ-12 (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, since I cannot find the source for sister cities of San Juan that was picked by Dubai and Caracas, I will have to undo them back to it's original place. JMBZ-12 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has taken it upon himself to take San Juan, the oldest non-Native American founded city in the US out of the country. If the unidentified contributor wants to debate this issue, he should do so here and not through non-factually-baed edits. Pr4ever (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the history, it was/is not only unidentified contributors making this change. This (along with vandalism) was a contributing factor in applying full protection today. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 17:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the history page of the article, I am changing the protection to semi-protected. I am doing this with a cautionary note to the established editors of this page: Be careful when reverting apparent vandalism that you also do not revert factual good faith based edits that are in between the suspect edits. Also, Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States of America and not an sovereign country; this an indisputable fact, yet recently is constantly being changed on this page ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). The semi-protection should help with the i.p. vandals but the factually-based content and consistency of the article must be guarded by you, the established editors of this article! We can reevaluate the protection level in the future if needed. Buenas Suerte! —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 14:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article notes the eventual swap of names between the original name of the island, San Juan, and that of the capital, Puerto Rico. It states, however, that this change was established by the mid-18th century. I have to question this. I have seen a French map dating from the 1780's which labeled the city as Puerto Rico (as well as the island!). Additionally, I have seen an original document dated 1898 from the Catholic bishop of the island, who listed his title as "Bishop of Puerto Rico." In Catholic usage, a bishop's title is tied to a city, not a state or region, so clearly formal usage does not reflect such a swap until after the United States invasion. How can this reality be introduced to the article?Daniel the Monk (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the historical maps from this link (as early as 1660) [ http://www.pennymead.com/results.php?ct=4&sub=418&m=s ] refer to the island as Puerto Rico and the city as San Juan. Actually, it's usually referred to as "San Jean de Puerto Rico"-- so perhaps the bishop's title was just shorthand, but that's just speculation. Only one of the maps (Bowen, 1747) refers to the city as "P Rico"-- but perhaps this is also shorthand, colloquial, or a regional reference (like how Americans sometimes refer to the Netherlands as Holland). Hard to say for sure, but based on this evidence I would say the name swap was fairly well accepted by the mid-18th century, so no change to the article is needed.

	An image used in this article, File:Montage San Juan.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph, 46nd should say 46th. It used to be 42nd before the new census, and someone changed the number without changing the suffix.

I can't change it because the article is semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.238.139 (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Regarding Santa María Madgalena de Pazzis cemetery, 'Madgalena' should be 'Magdalena' and linked to the page about that cemetery. Bogdan Migulski 19:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to add a picture of the city's skyline in the montage, like the buildings in la Milla de Oro, Hato Rey or inCondado or maybe even both in the same picture. San Juan is known as the "Capital of the Caribbean", so it should have a better/ more interesting picture of the skyline of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Csbuser (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Notable people from San Juan" has the text "Due to space limitations it is almost impossible to list all of the people of San Juan who have distinguished themselves, therefore a category has been created to this effect: See also: Category:People from San Juan, Puerto Rico"
However, the "See also" section just after it has this article link: List of people from San Juan, Puerto Rico. So, there is also a list of them. Should it be just moved a bit up or what? 85.217.32.182 (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Januray 14 of 2013, Mr.Santini has closing his time in the office of Mayor Of San Juan. Please remove the name of Jorge Santini and add the name of the Hon. Carmen Yulin Cruz, Current Mayor of the Puertorrican Capital City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.67.250 (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

San Juan population is 442,447 161.253.50.148 (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 04:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing from the recently created city timeline article? Please add relevant content. Contributions welcome. Thank you. -- M2545 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is undoubtful that Santo Domingo was founded in the 1490s. But, Havana, Cuba, was founded in 1519, so it appears to be older than San Juan, Puerto Rico, which was founded in 1521. Then San Juan is not the second oldest capital city, but the third or perhaps even the fourth-oldest capital city, as Mexico City was (re)founded in 1521 over the ruins of Tenochtitlan (founded by the Aztecs in 1325, and destroyed by the Spaniards in 1521). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.101.44.46 (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change
subdivision_type = Country
subdivision_name =  United States
subdivision_type1 = Territory
subdivision_name1 =  Puerto Rico

to
subdivision_type = Country
subdivision_name = United States
subdivision_type1 = Territory
subdivision_name1 = Puerto Rico

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG
WP:INFOBOXFLAG

82.30.110.20 (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 82.30.110.20 (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend including a 'crime' section, as San Juan is within the top 50 cities with the highest murder rate in the world - that's notable. 148.64.28.93 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you should add for example that Hurricane Maria was the "deadliest natural disaster in over a century".<NBC><News> I also believe that you should add the fact that a little less than 3,000 people were killed.<NBC></News>

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)). Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• San Juan, Puerto Rico → San Juan
• San Juan → San Juan (disambiguation)

– This is clearly the primary topic for this entity. The web search results show that the Puerto Rican city dominates the search results. I understand there are other cities named San Juan, but I think this is the most notable one that bears that name. Interstellarity (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and speedy close per WP:USPLACE, which is explicitly stated as applying to US territories as well. If you wish to deprecate USPLACE (a WP:PERENNIAL proposal) or restrict it to US states only, you can propose it on WT:NCGN, but we shouldn't be opening individual RMs that contradict the guidelines. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This falls under WP:USPLACE. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As current consensus, WP:USPLACE also applies US territories, including Puerto Rico and the four other permanently inhabited US territories. As stated on WP:PERENNIAL#Remove state from US placenames, one of the arguments for keeping WP:USPLACE is that "Appending the state is common usage and sufficiently natural that it may be considered part of American English". And of course, Puerto Rico articles should be written in American English under WP:TIES since it is a US territory. In addition, applying the WP:USPLACE#Major cities guideline that references cities listed in the AP Stylebook: take a recently published Associated Press news article like this one, and it begins with "San Juan, Puerto Rico", not just "San Juan". Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=San_Juan indicates that last month, there were 628 visits of San Juan, and 139 outgoing clickstreams to the proposed primary topic could be identified, so even if it's at the top of the list it's not likely to be sought more often than all the other San Juan topics when a reader searches for this term. We should try putting it at the top per MOS:DABCOMMON to see if this affects the statistics. --Joy (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose based on the sheer number of topics sharing this title, some of which are regionally quite significant places. BD2412 T 01:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about rather than move this page, we could move the dab page and have San Juan redirect here? Interstellarity (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I can see where the proposal's coming from, but it's by no means as clear-cut as (e.g.) San Francisco or Santo Domingo. On account of the Argentine places (city and province) in particular. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator's argument that San Juan, Puerto Rico, is the primary topic.
  

The argument regarding WP:USPLACE applying here is faulty because the naming convention at WP:USPLACE that "According to the comma convention, articles on populated places IN the United States are typically titled "Placename, State" when located within a state or "Placename, Territory" in US territories", is itself faulty: the convention uses "territories" implying UNincorporated territories, yet UNincorporated territories are, by definition, not IN the United States, making the statement at WP:USPLACE self-contradictory. That is, for a territory to be IN the United States it has to be part of it, i.e., it has to be INcorporated into the United States, which the territories are not.^[1] The United States consists only of the 50 States and DC.^[2] The territories (or, more precisely, the "UNincorporated" territories) are possessions of the United States but aren't part of it.^[3][4][5][6] Mercy11 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is the some of the most egregious wikilawyering I have ever seen. Since USPLACE mentions "Placename, Territory" explicitly as a convention to follow, the clear intent is to cover territories. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

USPLACE is not universal when we have a primary topic. Look at Pittsburgh, Miami, Dallas, Los Angeles, Dededo largest city in Guam, San Diego, etc... USPLACE take precedent if the place is not the primary topic. Otherwise it's simply whether consensus is gained. No matter the outcome here, San Juan, Puerto Rico absolutely should be placed at the top of the disambiguation page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose - based on I'm not convinced it is the primary topic with so many other placenames. WP:USPLACE really doesn't help because that really only matters if the placename isn't the primary topic. As mentioned above Pittsburgh, Miami, Dallas, Los Angeles, Dededo largest city in Guam, San Diego are primary topics and have no state or territory mentioned. It's simply whatever consensus is gained by wikipedia editors. While I'm not convinced that the Puerto Rico city is the primary topic, I do firmly believe that San Juan, Puerto Rico should be at the absolute top of the disambiguation page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fyunck(click): If you read USPLACE carefully, you'll see that certain designated "major cities" on the AP Stylebook are explicitly excluded, which includes Pittsburgh, Miami, Dallas, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Dededo was decided as a result of a one-off IAR consensus at RM; however, as it stands, territories are included in USPLACE, so you can participate in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Should WP:USPLACE apply to US territories? if you want to change the general rule. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But those are excluded because of simple consensus. The rule is not hardfast. There are a bazillion Dallas's so we simply had enough editors that wanted it to be alongside no state. The same could easily happen to San Juan just as it did to Dededo, Honolulu, Pago Pago, Fagatogo, Saipan, San Francisco. Actually when it comes to US territories and their capitals and largest cities, San Juan is weird that it isn't at its own article. Even if it isn't at the non-state location, you have things like Rapid City, South Dakota where "Rapid City" redirects to directly there. Same with Baton Rouge redirecting to Baton Rouge, Louisiana. San Juan could easily be done the same way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We want to avoid conflating two questions. The first one is: Is San Juan, Puerto Rico the primary topic of "San Juan"? The second one is: Assuming no ambiguity, is "San Juan" or "San Juan, Puerto Rico" the preferred title? If it is not the primary topic, then the article will be titled "San Juan, Puerto Rico" period, regardless of what USPLACE says. If it is the primary topic, then it will be titled "San Juan, Puerto Rico" (with a primary redirect from "San Juan") if we follow USPLACE, and otherwise "San Juan" if we don't follow USPLACE.

  By the way, the naming of Honolulu and San Francisco was not decided by simple consensus, but a lengthy RfC-style process in 2008: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive 19#Proposed fixing of the convention for US cities.

  For the territorial cities, I don't have a strong preference on the merits, but we should either make practice match policy or policy match practice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree on your first paragraph. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per WP:USPLACE, which absolutely applies to US territories. I do not believe SJ, PR is overwhelmingly the primary topic either; WikiNav says only 50% of clicks from the dab page were to here in August and 66% in September. Reywas92^Talk

  Reywas92 do note that those percentages are out of the sum of identified outgoing clicks. There's also the filtered requests which are not shown, which is a long tail that has potential with this long of a list. There's also the difference between incoming and outgoing which isn't calculated in because we don't know what happened to those readers, did they not want to click through, did they not find what they were looking for, were some of them actually bots, or here because of a misclick or typo, etc. --Joy (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose U.S. bias in selecting the PT of "San Juan", If you were Filipino, you wouldn't say that. And the Philippines speak English while Puerto Rico uses Spanish. And in Spanish, Argentina's is pretty prominent. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]