Jump to content

Talk:Dededo

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

Comments

[edit]

Dededo's map is at http://www.guampdn.com/communities/maps/dededo.html WhisperToMe (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 June 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. In this closing, less consideration was given to arguments citing WP:USPLACE since, as was pointed out, it does not clearly reference Guam or other U.S. territories, and the format that guideline recommends has not been consistently applied to all places in Guam. It seems clear that "Dededo" is the WP:COMMONNAME of this subject, and that this subject is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term. As such, this article will be moved as proposed. However, a broader discussion on this question, either with a bulk RM or an RFC, will probably be wise in gauging the consensus of the community for the future. Cúchullain t/c 14:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Dededo, Guam → Dededo – Current title is completely pointless disambiguation as there is nothing else with this name, and there is no geographic naming convention for Guam that demands this. I suggest that if this is successful, all the other Guamanian villages that have no reason for being at a disambiguated title can also be moved. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC) Number 57 21:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the entire island is following WP:USPLACE. If you disagree, you should bring this issue to the appropriate project. One village is not the place to decide. HkCaGu (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An article talk page is the correct place to decide; as far as I'm aware, they are the only place requested moves should be held. In addition, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronesia/Guam work group is seemingly inactive, the last post on its talk page having been in 2013 (and as far as I can see, no-one has ever responded to a topic posted there). Number 57 07:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guam is a US territory, so follows WP:USPLACE -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Sovereign/Sentinel 14:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guam's villages are municipalities, formerly even each with its own ZIP code. Same as Puerto Rico, where all articles are "XXX, Puerto Rico". The Northern Marianas have four municipalities, three of them Saipan, Tinian and Rota. Villages there are part of an island. Therefore Guam villages can apply WP:USPLACE but CNMI and AS (one ZIP code only, labeled Pago Pago) cannot. Beside postal use and municipality statuses, common use also dictates the "XXX, Guam" format. HkCaGu (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while WP:USPLACE does apply, WP:COMMONNAME has more strength in this case. So what is the common name in reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RightCowLeftCoast: If we use Google News as a barometer, there were 13,200 news stories that used simply Dededo and 70 that used "Dededo, Guam". That seems reasonably conclusive. Number 57 11:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google results are meaningless. No local media (producing Guam stories everyday) will routinely use "Dededo, Guam", and no outside media (rarely producing Guam stories) will use "Dededo" alone. This is the same pattern pretty much anywhere in the U.S. It remains true that GU and PR are exactly the same in usage pattern of the "City, State" format as the 50 US, thanks to the influence of the USPS. This does not apply to MP, VI, and AS due to USPS nomenclature. HkCaGu (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The notes about USPS are interesting, but USPLACE isn't based on their conventions. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation. --В²C ☎ 01:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Precision is needed. I wouldn't know what "Dededo" is without additional words. --George Ho (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (a) That only makes sense if you only read the article title and don't bother looking at the article itself, and (b) that assumes that people know what Guam is. Number 57 23:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)→←−Omnedon (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:USPLACE. This article certainly falls under that. In addition, per WP:AT, an article title must identify the subject of the article. "Dededo" by itself conveys next to nothing. Plus, as has been noted, all the other Guam village articles are titled similarly to this one, so for reasons of consistency, this one should be left where it is. Omnedon (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (a) as stated in the rationale, the intention is to move all the others to remove unnecessary disambiguation once this RM is over, and (b) the article title is not the place to convey what the article is about – that is the job of the article text. The idea that if the reader doesn't understand the meaning of an article title it should be moved is very odd; I would imagine that many people have no idea what a Eukaryote is. Does this mean it should be moved to Eukaryote (organism)? No. Number 57 13:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try reading WP:AT. The second sentence: "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." And in a nutshell, "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." So you're incorrect that the title need not convey what the article is about; you seem to acknowledge that the proposed title does not (but that you don't think that matters). "Dededo" is not concise because concision involves communicating information, and "Dedcedo" by itself conveys almost nothing to most people. This has been discussed at length before regarding United States places. The current title is recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. Let's leave it alone. Omnedon (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, you cannot simply assume that if this one is moved, the others can be. This is a controversial move for which you currently have no consensus. The same would be true for the others. Omnedon (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So do you think Eukaryote needs further disambiguating? Number 57 14:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you believe your argument is not a straw man argument, then prove it. George Ho (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • This isn't a straw man. The claim is that words like "Dededo" need disambiguating because there is no context to what it is. If this claim is valid, then surely it applies to any other unusual word. Otherwise it isn't a valid rationale. Number 57 18:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • A city/town and a genus/species are different from each other. What's the comparison between them besides unusualness of a word? George Ho (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again: The claim is that a disambiguator is required because the word Dededo requires context to make it recognisable. If this was a valid rationale, surely it would apply to all other words that are not recognisable to the average reader without a disambiguator to provide context as to the word's meaning. This is clearly not the case given the wide range of undisambiguated topics we have on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why this is proving so difficult to grasp? Number 57 23:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You're missing key elements of the article titling policy. For example, a title must be recognizable by someone who is at least somewhat knowledgeable in the subject area. In terms of US places, "Dededo, Guam" makes the title vastly more recognizable than simply "Dededo". Someone who knows nothing at all about any place on earth will not recognize either; but that's not the target. This has all been discussed at length before. This article is subject to WP:USPLACE. Omnedon (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Contrary to the nominator's claim, we do have a geographic naming convention for this, and it's WP:USPLACE. Further, nearly all the other articles on villages in Guam do currently follow this convention and append the territory name; it would be strange to make this one particular article title inconsistent with its fellows by arbitrarily exempting it from the convention. Also contrary to the nom, there are many good reasons for the so-called "comma convention", as numerous discussions over the years at WP:PLACE have made clear. The community has repeatedly reaffirmed the appropriateness of USPLACE, and rejected the idea that strict minimum diambiguation should trump the many other considerations that have continued to keep the convention in force. The current title is fine; retain it. ╠╣uw [talk] 21:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    USPLACE does apply to US territories: see Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, etc. Most importantly to this discussion, USPLACE is also currently what we use for places in the territory of Guam (as you can see). Dededo is in Guam and should remain consistent with nearly all the other titles in its category that follow the convention. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think it is more accurate to say USPLACE has been applied to Puerto Rico and the USVI. The wording of the guideline itself is that it does not apply. Plus as I said in the RM rationale, I would like to see all the other articles in the Guam category with unnecessary disambiguation moved, so the fact that others are currently at unnecessarily long titles shouldn't be a reason for opposing. Number 57 14:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the other titles are not unnecessarily long. In any case, it seems to me that a single editor personally and stridently arguing with everyone who opposes of this move is in rather poor form. Omnedon (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • (a) the whole point of this debate is indeed that – to debate, and (b) I would say following Born2cycle around Wikipedia so you can oppose moves they support (which seems to be how you appeared here) is poor form , but there you go. Number 57 22:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Number 57, making accusations is not debate. Please remain civil. Omnedon (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am being civil. You chose to turn the focus onto behaviour rather than debate, so I think it's rather churlish to suddenly get upset when your own behaviour is scrutinised. Number 57 00:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • LOL. I guess you have your own idea of what is "civil". In any case, this place is certainly a United States place, and I haven't seen any valid argument that it somehow isn't. As I've mentioned, US place titling has been discussed at length several times over the years, and this means of titling is certainly well-supported. There's little point in talking about how other types of articles are titled when there are tens of thousands titled this way, and when this article clearly falls under the same umbrella. Omnedon (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Number57: We apply USPLACE to those places because they're US places. You seem to be straining for an interpretation that's contrary not only to how the convention is understood and applied by the community but contrary also to common sense. I say common sense because the notion that US locations outside US states aren't US places would lead to the rather bizarre claim that Washington, DC is not a US place. ╠╣uw [talk] 22:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • (a) It's clearly not "contrary to how the convention is applied" because it isn't applied to the other Pacific territories, and (b) Washington DC is in the United States according to the first sentence of the US article. Furthermore, on the claim that I am "gaming the system", WP:UKPLACE does not apply to British territories (several have their own naming conventions, including Bermuda and the Falklands), so why would it follow that USPLACE applies to its territories. Number 57 00:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • 57, your position's getting increasingly contradictory and difficult to follow. You suggest on the one hand that US places not within a US state are somehow not US places, but then say that the District of Columbia (also not in a US state) is a US place because it's mentioned in the lede of the United States article; however, the lede of that same article also says that "the country has five populated and numerous unpopulated territories", which by the metric you just introduced shows that they're US places, so I honestly have no idea what you're trying to show. Further, nothing here follows from UKPLACE because that's not the relevant convention for the article under consideration: USPLACE is.

            Suffice it to say that Wikipedia applies USPLACE very widely to US locations both in the nation's states and in its territories – and very significantly for this debate that includes the Pacific territory of Guam. This is appropriate since (as the US article states) it's part of the US. (Personally I would also contend that the two outlier territories that don't consistently follow the standard should probably be brought into line with the overwhelming majority of other US places that do, not vice versa – but that's a different discussion.) ╠╣uw [talk] 01:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

            • It's only difficult to follow because you seem to have misunderstood; I said quite clearly above "USPLACE applies to places "in the United States"", and not anything about it only applying to places within a US state. As I pointed out with the UK example above, territories are different to the country itself. Number 57 11:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already mentioned, the populated CNMI municipalities are "Saipan, MP", "Tinian, MP", and "Rota, MP". Sub-municipality neighborhoods do not have to follow "City, ST" convention. Same for AS. Now you can't compare UK territories with US territories. Although both groups are not legally part of the "kingdom" or the "US", they are very different. UK territories mostly don't use the UK's postal service, communication system, currency, most laws, etc. Meanwhile US territories are much more integrated with the mainland than UK ones. USVI driving on the left is a big exception already. Adding Census classification to USPS practice, USPLACE does and should apply. HkCaGu (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Generally agree with everything N57 has said this discussion. There are no naming conventions that cover Guam and "Dededo" has been shown to be both the common name and the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dededo. 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) 00:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Vicente San Agustin Benavente Middle School

[edit]

Intermediate schools are not generally considered individually notable DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I'm merging to its school district, Guam Department of Education WhisperToMe (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
yes, that's the usual way we deal with these. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Village?

[edit]

Why does this article describe Dededo as a village? It has 45,000 people (more than some places that wikipedia describes as cities) and well-developed infrastructure. Is there some protocol I'm unaware of that defines a place like this as a village, or should it be changed to town/city? Fditch (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the link in the first sentence, you'll see the reason: Villages of Guam. Cheers, Number 57 18:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dededo&oldid=1201418177"