Talk:Tahquitz

Requested move 22 November 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved; there's an interesting discussion here regarding whether "long-term significance" should apply in this case, but there doesn't seem to be enough evidence agreed on to declare a primary topic. I'll note that the balance of this discussion seems to be in favor of possibly revisiting whether there is a primary topic at a later time; see below. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tahquitz (disambiguation) → Tahquitz – There is no primarytopic, but there has been a primarytopic grab recently at the redirect that should be the disambig page. Then the many wrong links can be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nom: the new article at the target title, which was created after you opened this request, makes that title ineligible to be moved to unless it is also renamed. How do you want to proceed? P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 11:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that interfering new primarytopic grab by moving it to Tahquitz (spirit). It's not OK by derail this no-primarytopic RM by such a grab. Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't my intent to "derail" the discussion. I agreed to renaming it if creating an article in the primary topic space was an issue. I really am just trying to be helpful. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.- In ictu oculi (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Instead, I recommend Tahquitz (spirit) be used as the primary topic since all other uses of the term are derived from it.@Ortizesp: and @In ictu oculi: When I originally created this (disambiguation) page I had in mind that I would go back an create primary topic page for Tahquitz, the Cahuilla Indian legend. While I don't have time to create a complete article right now, I can create a stub article. Let me know your thoughts on this approach. The stub article would be similar to the article on Muut. I also cleaned up the "wrong links" mentioned. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per OvertAnalyzer. Tahquitz (spirit) is the primary topic for the bare name -- the other articles either have a natural disambiguator ('Peak', 'Canyon', 'High School', 'mousetail' etc.), or are obscure and obviously referential to one of them (music titles). It's rare for the main article to not be about the original application of the name. Pluto is an example, but that's exceptional due to the huge space that the planetoid occupies in people's imagination, and the fact that the original deity is rarely mentioned. And when a name is found on many unrelated things, with no apparent connection between them, then the primary page might be best made a dab page. But when the articles are all named after a common source, and none predominate, it makes more sense for that common source to occupy the plain title. — kwami (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortizesp: and @In ictu oculi: Not hearing back immediately, I went ahead and started an article specifically for Tahquitz. If you have any concerns about this, we can consider moving the article to another name, but since Tahquitz (the legend) is the source for all the other derived names, I believe it should use the Tahquitz main article space. There is significantly more I could add, if I had the time, but working on other articles right now. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article's OK my me, but I moved it to Tahquitz (spirit) since it would otherwise interfere with this ongoing discussion. I say no primarytopic still. Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: I still lean towards making the "spirit" the primary topic. In Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC the "long-term significance" seems to apply. If you let me know when you are finished with the discussion, I will fix any remaining broken or misdirected links, regardless of what is decided. Thanks. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disambiguated all the incoming links. Most were for the rock, including at least one you just made. Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking with supporting the RM per nom. Have no idea what "primary article" would mean but seems clear that there isn't one. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary in the sense that it is the original use. All other uses of the word Tahquitz have used the name of the spirit and applied it to something else. Also, it is the only use of the word that doesn't include another noun as part of the full name. All other uses of the word Tahquitz include another word as part of their full name, such as; Peak, Rock, Canyon, Highschool etc. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last I looked, origin is not among the criteria for choosing a primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps it can be if it is seen as long-term significance. Tending to see the spirit as the ptopic in this, and someone else is too, judging by how Tahquitz (spirit) has been moved to the TOP of the dab page, as if it actually is the ptopic, so I must oppose this page move for now. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 10:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per kwami. The spirit appears to have long-term significance with other entries on the dab page named after it, so it does seem to be the primary topic for this name, which means this title should remain as is and Tahquitz (spirit) should be moved to the base name. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 10:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything, I'd think the rock and the canyon have the most long-term significance. Sure, they're named for the legend/spirit, but still, they're more significant. I've climbed the rock (nearly 50 years ago) and the canyon (this week), and the creek and falls are very nice; the legend/spirit provides the name but seems to be otherwise pretty much ignored, as far as I can tell. In the future, pageview stats here may be useful to see if anyone cares particularly about the spirit. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Might be a tough call for us, not so much for the natives? Climbing is cool! And page views? they seldom tell the whole tale. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 09:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pageview stats here will be more useful eventually. Let's hold off on the primarytopic grab until then. Keep in mind that many place names are primary over the person or thing they were named for, and that having no primarytopic is more appropriate when there are lots of possible choices. Dicklyon (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ...many place names are primary over the person or thing they were named for...
  - Examples would be helpful. The only close-but-no-cigar ones I can think of are films being primary over the books on which they are based. The geo names vs. the names' origin I've seen have always ended up as origin = ptopic. So an example or two might change my mind. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 05:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dicklyon: I support your suggestion to hold off, and leave things as they are for now, but I'm still not convinced page views is necessarily the best way to determine how to proceed, particularly since none of the articles have a particularly high volume of views. Are you aware of, or can you point to, any Wikipedia guidelines or policies that apply in this case? Thanks. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not very clear on what to do when a topic does not have a majority of pageviews but has more long-term significance than some other topics. Personally, I think that when the pageview and significance criteria do not align, that's a good sign that a disambig page with no primarytopic is the right solution. A lot of editors really want to pick a primarytopic for some reason; it just leaves the title less precise that it should be in many cases, in my opinion, as it would do here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per pageviews among topics all with long-term significance. "Lots of possible choices" does not make no primary topic more appropriate, and being referential to an older topic doesn't make the referent primary, but the pageviews support the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – easier searching on balance. Tony (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.