Talk:Tagalog

Requested move 30 June 2015

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: no consensus. What a mess. Try again in a couple of months and hopefully the discussion won't get totally ruined like this one has. Jenks24 (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• Tagalog (disambiguation) → Tagalog
• Tagalog → Tagalog language

– No WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Tagalog": "If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page". A reader searching for "Tagalog" may actually be seeking the people "Tagalogs" rather than "Tagalog (language)". So "Tagalog" where currently the language Tagalog is located should be moved back to "Tagalog language" (it was recently moved to the current title "Tagalog" because of this move request), and the base tiitle "Tagalog" should be reserved as a disambiguation page. Khestwol (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Procedural discussion

Extended content

The result of the move request was: Totally invalidated by an out-of-process move. Kwamikagami moved Tagalog to Tagalog language in the midst of a contested discussion, and changed the redirect to point to Tagalog (disambiguation). Instead of reverting this completely out-of-process move, respected administrator and experienced move request closer BD2412 noticed that a base name was redirecting to a dab page and "fixed" the problem, turning a totally valid and ongoing and contested move request into a fait accompli. What a mess. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 21:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC) I fixed the immediate technical problem, but I didn't close the discussion. If there is consensus that the language is the primary topic (or an absence of consensus to change this existing determination), then the status quo ante should be restored. bd2412 T 22:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC) You know I respect you a lot, BD2412, and I don't mean to be critical, because I certainly never would expect you to check for every single malplaced dab page to see if there was an ongoing RM. But if you'd noticed that, it seems to me that it would have been trivial to simply revert the out-of-process move and move that language page back to Tagalog. Now that you're aware of it, I would propose for you to do that very action, in fact. The move request could even then be re-opened with no problems. Red Slash 01:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

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 policy on article titles.

• Support per above and this comment. Khestwol (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose WP:COMMONNAME. The previous discussion in Talk:Tagalog has established the language as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Well no user supported that move request after the evidence was presented that "Tagalog" is also a Tagalog person. "Tagalog" is also the WP:COMMONNAME for a Tagalog person or something relating to Tagalog people. Therefore "Tagalog" should be a disambiguation page. Khestwol (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment In the United States and Canada, Tagalog mostly refers to a language. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support per WP:NATURAL and the English example in particular. Tagalog should be a dab page linking to Tagalog language and Tagalog people.--RioHondo (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The term "Tagalog" most commonly applies to the language as opposed to the people outside the Philippines since it is spoken by Overseas Filipinos in the United States and Canada. The focus on the ethnic group is primarily a Philippine-centric persepctive and this encyclopedia seeks to have a Worldwide view. That said Tagalog is a language internationally. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support, the move was a mistake and a bad precedent 76.120.162.73 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE see associated requested move at talk:Tagalogs -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support - I think the people are more relevant than last month's discussion implied. Red Slash 15:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment This is not an election or a vote. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make me spell it out, okay. Support per the second criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Red Slash 03:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Okay. But it has been established in the previous move that the language is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE now, "Tagalog" has been already moved to "Tagalog language" by Kwamikagami, and Tagalog has been redirected to "Tagalog (disambiguation)" "Tagalog (disambiguation)" (this page) has been moved to "Tagalog" by BD2412. Therefore, half most of the work has already been done for the closer of this RM. Khestwol (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment What Kwamikagami did was without WP:CONSENSUS and should be WP:REVERTED immediately. They knowingly knew that this is a WP:CONTROVERSIAL topic and what they did should be equated to WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Kwamikagami's out of process move has created a huge mess. The last consensus was that the language should be at Tagalog, with the people at Tagalogs and the dab page at Tagalog (disambiguation). We should return to the status quo before additional move discussions take place.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: now !voters from that same "last consensus" want to reverse that move and admit that move was a mistake and a bad precedent. So I think this RM should not be opposed when there is no good reason. Khestwol (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The last RM decisively put the language at Tagalog as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It should be returned to that status quo; this series of RMs is wasting a lot of everyone's time and energy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No opinion on the proposal, but the mess has been cleaned up in accordance with WP:DPL and WP:MALPLACED. These fixes can always be undone. bd2412 T 14:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a good step, and very helpful. Thanks, BD2412.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, this was also the proposal to use the location "Tagalog" as a disambiguation page. Khestwol (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy close This discussion is moot since some people have already moved the respective articles. Continuing this discussion is pointless. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as Shhhhwwww!! has noted, there was just consensus that the language is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And it still is. See discussion there, especially the statistics. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Actually the Tagalog language article stayed on the title "Tagalog" for just 9 days yet. For the longest time, the consensus was to use "Tagalog language" for the language, unless your own RM which was just recently and was closed hastily with just 3 support !votes. However, please also see the discussion at Talk:Tagalog#Requested move 5 July 2015 which happened after your RM, where now editors are opposing to using "Tagalog" for the language. Khestwol (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
For a broader input, ping all editors who commented on Talk:Tagalog#Requested move 5 July 2015 but not yet here: Eldizzino, Maunus, KiwikiKiWi, Kwamikagami. Khestwol (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "hastily closed", though I suppose with the backlog, a full listing period only may seem that way. "Tagalog language" may have been the longer title, but it wasn't chosen by RM. The first time there was an organized discussion about this group of pages, that was the result. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. No, primary topic. Tagalog can mean different things, and so the least confusing is to list them either at Tagalog or at Tagalog_(disambiguation) with an incoming redirect from the former. Eldizzino (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• NOTE to closing admin: This has became a bit complicated, but please also bring under your consideration the discussion at Talk:Tagalog#Requested move 5 July 2015. The simultaneous requested move discussion there was heavily opposed, and 6 editors who commented favored using the title "Tagalog language" for the language, and "Tagalog" for disambiguation. The requested move discussion was, however, closed procedurally as "not relevant", because that article was moved back by an admin. Khestwol (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note: The discussion in Latin should serve as a guide. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's an invalid comparison. Latin has nothing to do with Tagalog, and it has the title "Latin" since 2001. The Tagalog language article on the other hand had the title "Tagalog language" for all the time since its creation until a few days ago. It will be fairer to compare "Tagalog" with "German" or "Japanese", which are also disambiguation pages. "Tagalog", "German", and "Japanese" all commonly refer to both the people as well as the language. Khestwol (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment How do you know that? WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. Maybe it has been wrong all these years until a few days ago? Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Because "Tagalog" is precisely the enthnonym for the Tagalog people. As per the article: "The name Tagalog comes from either the term tagá-ilog, which means "people living along the river", or another term, tagá-alog, which means "people living along the ford" (the prefix taga- meaning "coming from" or "native of")." This is how the native Tagalog people self-identify as. In English-language sources, "Tagalog" has been used to refer to the language, but also commonly for the people. That is why it is comparable with other almost equally ambiguous terms, like "German" and "Japanese", which are disambiguation pages. Khestwol (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

True. I'm glad you understand this bit eventhough you're not Filipino. Tagalog literally means "those from the river" / "los del río" / "mga taga ilog" so it originally referred to the people. And even in the local language, there is ambiguity in the term which could be the people or their language. It would be a shame if you're Filipino and you don't know this @Shhhhwwww!!.RioHondo (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you RioHondo. How can Shhhhwwww!! not know this? Even in the Tagalog version of Wikipedia, the article corresponding to Tagalog language is titled tl:Wikang Tagalog, which translates to "Tagalog language"; not just "Tagalog". The title tl:Tagalog on the other hand is a redirect to tl:Tagalog (paglilinaw) ("Tagalog (disambiguation)"). "Tagalog", in both languages English and Tagalog/Filipino, can refer to both the language and the people, although originally it was a Tagalog-language endonym used explicitly for the Tagalog people. Khestwol (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• @RioHondo, I, for a fact know what Tagalog means in its original language. Yes, it means "river-people" but that is beside the point. It's original meaning has no bearing in English where it mostly means "the dominant language of the Philippines."

• @Khestwol, the policies of one wiki should not have any bearing on another. They are separate projects after all. This move is a reversal of a previous trend that incorporated the word "language" into its name. Whether Tagalog Wikipedia would follow suit is a separate issue. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Shhhhwwww!!: you should at least indent your comments properly so that they can be taken more seriously. RioHondo just said above that there is ambiguity in the term "Tagalog" as it can be the people or the language. "Tagalog" is ambiguous in not only Tagalog language itself but also in English language. Our own linguist at Wikipedia Kwamikagami, who is a native English-language speaker, has also testified at Talk:Tagalog#Requested move 5 July 2015 that "Tagalog" has ambiguity and must therefore be a disambiguation page, not the location of the language page. Khestwol (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose – the current title configuration in my mind is correct. As much as I abhor WP’s primary topic guideline as one of the most divisive and useless guidelines we have, Tagalog the language is clearly primary. Search of scholarly works such as Google Scholar and JSTOR overwhelmingly (90%+) return titles dealing with the language not the people. Even when searching for the specific string Tagalogs, the overwhelming returns are on topics about the language, not the ethnic group. Under the current configuration, no one will have any difficulty finding articles about the language or the ethnic group no matter how they search for it. I chose not to close this as I am biased having lived in Tagalogland for three years, but I would strongly recommend the closer, no matter what the outcome, move protect this article for some time to prevent this silliness in the future.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually, I don't know why Tagalog is being singled out here when articles like English are also disambiguation pages. Yup, 90%+ of Google books results also deal with the language. And globally, that's what English is, a language more than anything. (The people are more commonly referred to as British). Anyways, the fact that the title is being disputed means there is reasonable ground for the recreation of a disambiguation page at this title in dispute. That's what a dab page does, we don't have to complicate things for us and for our readers.--RioHondo (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree will RioHondo. Even English is a disambiguation page although overwhelmingly (90%+) it refers to the language. Our naming criteria should be consistent. We should not have double standards when it comes to Tagalog. The Tagalog language article was at Tagalog language for many years, and the closer of the RM should return it to the same status quo. Khestwol (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tagalog which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tagalog language which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2015

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: speedy close. Come on people, at some point this needs to be given a rest. This is now the sixth or so RM debating essentially the same point. And no, pace Wtmitchell, this is not a potential case for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, and therefore not independent of the previous RM about the language article. There is never a situation where a primary topic title should be a redirect to a title that is merely a disambiguated version of itself. If there had been a consensus that the language actually is the primary topic, the language RM would have been closed in favour of having the language article at plain Tagalog; if it wasn't, it's because the finding was that there isn't such a consensus. Also, @Shhhwwww!!: saying that the previous RM didn't go your way merely because "little to no evidence was provided" for your side isn't a justification for revisiting the issue yet again – it would have been your task to provide that evidence the last time round (especially since the evidence you are now claiming to be presenting is nothing more than exactly the same single Google link that actually was given the last time too. On the other side, @all of you guys who opposed the "primary topic" solution: The "primary topic" side undoubtedly had one point: we will be seeing lots of editors in the future who assume Tagalog to be the language article as a matter of course and create accidental links to the dab page instead. I trust you will all share the responsibility of dealing with this situation and take your share in cleaning up the mess occasionally. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Tagalog → Tagalog (disambiguation) – The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is at Tagalog language and the name "Tagalog" should WP:REDIRECT there. Published sources in Google Books show the language more than the people. The other move was only successful because little to no evidence were provided to prove this. Well, here it is. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: This has been discussed and adjudicated already at Talk:Tagalog language#Request for move 25 July 2015. Your "Google Books" search was flawed and the closing admin did not consider it convincing. It wasn't convincing then, it isn't convincing now. The closing admin was very clear that the opposition to the move had failed to make a convincing case that that the more than 2 to 1 of editors commenting to support the move could not be denied. It wasn't close. --Taivo (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That was a separate issue that was narrowly moved. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

When the closing admin rearranged both articles ("Tagalog" to Tagalog language and "Tagalog (disambiguation)" to Tagalog) that says everything about the subject and this RM is inappropriate, if not simply disruptive. --Taivo (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

And have you placed a notice for this at WP:LANG? --Taivo (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Undecided (leaning towards support): Let's not re-argue the recently adjudicated RM. However, there might be a makeable case for this new RM. The outcome of that previous RM could be summarized by saying that the Tagalog language article is not named Tagalog because of WP naming conventions. That is one of situations addressed at WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, which says that in such cases the term should redirect to the article or a section of it. See examples given there.. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was never even close to being demonstrated at Talk:Tagalog language. That was why Fut.Perf. moved this article as well. To accede to this groundless and disruptive RM is to state that the closing admin was wrong. And I'm sure that you will agree that the rational and explanation that Fut.Perf. gave at the recently concluded RM just hours ago was far above and beyond the explanations at 99% of RMs in Wikipedia. He was clear and his move from "Tagalog (disambiguation)" to "Tagalog" was thoroughly justified. Take a look at English. It is exactly analogous to Tagalog. "English" takes you directly to the disambiguation page, not to the language page. That is the relevant example. --Taivo (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I examined the examples at WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and none of those examples are analogous to this, where 1) both the ethnicity and language share a common name in English, 2) the language name is derived from the ethnicity name, 3) all English dictionaries list the ethnicity name as the first definition, not the language, and 4) there is no conclusive evidence for assuming that the language name meets any other definition of "primary topic". --Taivo (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I said that I an leaning towards support because of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, which described three cases where, when "the primary topic is different from the ambiguous term", "the term should redirect^{[emphasis added]} to the article (or a section of it)"; then gave some examples. As I see it, the evaluation results should not turn on the question of whether one of the examples given is closely analogous but on whether the should redirect criteria are met.

The cases described are:

1. "when the topic is primary for more than one term"
2. "when the article covers a wider topical scope"
3. "when it is titled differently according to the naming conventions"

This situation appears to fall within case #3, if it can be demonstrated that Tagalog language is a primary topic for the term Tagalog.

You say above that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was never even close to being demonstrated in the previous RM discussion. As I understand it, though, the closing decision in the 25 July 2015 RM did not turn on the question of whether or not that had been demonstrated, it turned on editorial consensus about the application of WP article naming conventions. Also, this RM is quite different from that closed RM in that it requests a move to a different target than that previous RM requested.

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that there is no single criterion for defining a primary topic, but describes usage and long-term significance as two major aspects which are often discussed. In his statement of support above, Shhhhwwww!! asserted essentially that the Tagalog Language article is the primary usage for the term Tagalog, citing published sources turned up by this Google Books search. Those results do suggest to me that this is the case. Based on that, I'm leaning towards support.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That Google Books search was flawed without a detailed analysis and the closing admin cited that it was not conclusive. Using Google Books is never conclusive by itself without a detailed, sometimes book by book examination. It is also highly selective and not always accurate. I've disproven the results of Google Book searches more than once in other situations in the past. The problem here is that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was never demonstrated and so any use of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is irrelevant. --Taivo (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, as this is a disruptive WP:POINTY move request, against a consensus that has just been established by an editor who is not happy about consensus. Request speedy close. Khestwol (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh! The irony. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose and Speedy Close repeatedly moving pages, back and forth between titles is very disruptive, plus it seems as though there is consensus across wikipedia on weather or not the language, the people or the disambiguation should be the primary topic, examples including but not limited to: English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian, Persian, Hausa, Zulu, Navajo, Kurdish, Polish, Russian, Kazakh, and many many others, the majority of pages in this area use the disambiguation as the primary, Tagalog should be no different. only a few exceptions such as Latin and Arabic use the language as the primary, but these have reasons why they are like that, this page doesn't have any reason to be moved. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy close @Shhhhwwww!!: your move "rationale" shows you still have absolutely no understanding of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The "primary topic" isn't at Tagalog language. The result of the RM was that there is no primary topic; "Tagalog" is ambiguous, hence the various disambiguators "Tagalog language", "Tagalog people", etc. Speedy close this ridiculousness and WP:TROUT the nominator.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 03:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion concluded that the language is the primary topic. It was overruled by the most recent discussion but that did not justify whether or not the disambiguation page should have the name "Tagalog". This discussion can clarify that. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Shhhhwwww!!, primary topic was never "concluded" as you like to claim because that was a flawed RM. Four participants is not "concluded", especially when further discussion demonstrated that "proven" was very far from the case and two out of three editors in the end did no so conclude. The closing admin also specifically said that "primary topic" was never demonstrated since a single Google Books search is not conclusive. --Taivo (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The first RM discussion was just as valid as the the most recent one. It's just the recent one had more participants than the first. The were both valid. It says right there in the closing remarks of the most recent RM. So I don't even get your reasoning. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The reasoning is simple: The last closing admin, who actually wrote a very long and detailed justification for his decision (unlike the first two closing admins), wrote clearly and unequivocally that "primary topic" had not been proven. There's no wiggle room there. An unanalyzed simplistic Google Books search is not sufficient evidence to determine "primary topic". --Taivo (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"No wiggle room?" The fact that it is unproven doesn't mean it is false. The language can still be the factual WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, evidence is just not provided sufficiently in that discussion so again I don't understand your argument. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You have not proven that the language is the primary topic, so you cannot use "primary topic" as an argument for moving this article and making Tagalog a redirect to Tagalog language. The language isn't the primary topic. Just your say-so doesn't make it the primary topic. Since "Tagalog" is ambiguous, then there is no justification for making Tagalog a redirect to Tagalog language. --Taivo (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not for you to decide but the closing admin. I don't even understand why you continue to comment here when your side already have a majority of the voters. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. There are the language and the people, and neither is the primary topic; there almost never is. --JorisvS (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

---

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.