Talk:Jaguitas

Requested move 17 March 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  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Jaguitas → Jagüitas – The diacritical mark is needed. The references consulted shows it in the name of the place. The original move was done incorrectly by me. Yarfpr (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 16:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources in the article use Jaguitas, including the USGS and the US Census. Notably, the US Census source does use the diacritical mark on Jagüey and Jagüeyes, so it's not like they're leaving out diacritical marks altogether. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ahecht: Despite the fact that in most sources it appears without umlaut, the correct form is Jagüitas, not Jaguitas. In Spanish, not using umlauts changes the correct pronunciation of the word, including its meaning in some cases. For this reason, I recommend that the article include the umlaut in its name. In this way it's standardized with the rest of the articles that include diacritical marks in their names. Yarfpr (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll contact the GNIS records manager and ask them if they can research the correct thing. Let them do the research and see what they come up with. I tend to believe you but of course we need sources. I wouldn't want to have a "jaga" or "jaguita" The pronunciation is definitely different. A "Jaga" - spelled "llaga" is a scab and the pronunciation of "Jaguita" is "little scab". I don't think they'd name the town scab even with this Jaguitas spelling. the letter u is silent when it's next to the "i" . It should definitely have the umlaut but I'll email a higher power for a source. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: Jagüitas (hah-GWEE-tahs), instead of jaguitas (hag-EE-tahs), is the diminutive of jaguas (HAH-gwahs), the plural form of jagua (HAH-gwah), and jagua is Genipa americana, a species of trees. I started to look at different pages at the way they write the name of the place, and the truth is that there's no consensus because it appears both ways. However, considering that many barrios have names of plants and some geographical aspects of their area, the correct form is Jagüitas. At least I made my effort to guarantee the correct way to write it, but at the end of the day, the discritics aren't used in English, so if the final decision is to keep it written that way, I won't intervene in this type of cases again. ☹️ Yarfpr (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Some errors exist. I had someone of a municipality 'say that' the official record is incorrect regarding the # of barrios in the muni. I apologized and said we need some sources. I'm sure the sources exist it's just it's time consuming to find. We'll keep an eye on this one to get it right soon, I hope. Imagine the major tells you there aren't 11 barrios there are 10 and we have to tell him prove it! (because the US census says something different. I have a plot of land in P.R. and I've been paying taxes for it. I own land in Perchas 1 but the CRIM says it's called Parchas 1. I told them to please fix the typo on my land tax record. The told me "prove it". I told them there isnt a Parchas 1 in P.R.!!! hahaha. So should I keep payng taxes on a plot of land in a barrio that doesn't exist. I don't know when / where it went from Perchas 1 to Parchas 1 but damn!. I have to go.. Talk to you soon. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: OMG! Hahahaha, sadly you're right in everything you said. I apologize to you because I got a little shaken with my previous answer, but you're absolutely right. This quarantine has me crazy, LOL! Going back to the initial topic, the truth is that the name of the place is the least important as long as there're redirects that can be used to get to the article. That is, if at the end of the day the error is corrected or prevails, the important thing is that there're variations in the way of writing its name. At least that's what matters most to me right now. At least the other two articles I requested the review were corrected without any problem. TC! Yarfpr (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

As for the number of barrios, the same occurs in my municipality. If you ask any citizen how many barrios the municipality has, practically all the people will tell you that they're 12, but the truth is that they're 13. Even the anthem of the municipality says that they're 12, LOL! Yarfpr (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to Jagüitas. The literature in English overwhelmingly uses Spanish names, including their diacritical marks when applicable, for all geographical names in Puerto Rio. Thus we have the article Mayagüez as opposed to Mayagüez. To take this one step further, articles such as San Juan Bay are incorrectly titled. It should be titled following this format: Bahía de Ponce. This is because this is how it is most often used in the English literature. The precedents for this native Spanish-preferred naming were set many decades ago by the US and Puerto Rico governments in numerous references.

For example, if you query the USGS (US Dept of the Interior) at here for State=PR, County=Ponce, and Feature Class=Stream, you will see listings including "Río Portugués" and "Río Prieto", not Portugués River and Prieto River (Ponce, Puerto Rico) as they are currently (erroneously) titled in English Wikipedia. (I originally named both of those, plus some 12 others, by their Spanish name and an uninformed editor moved them to the current title. Some day I'll get around to changing them back to Spanish since redirects currently prevent a simple move and so they require help additional work by an admin). To be consistent, this name-them-in English trajectory would lead to never seen names such as Great Loíza River and the nearly nonsense De las Vacas River redirect. I've come across articles where the Puerto Rico geography article has been fully Anglicanized (For example, something along the lines of "River of the Cows"). That is totally absurd. There are many other government sites in addition to USGS. For example, the maps on Puerto Rico by the US Dept of Commerce (NOOA), such as this one and the US Dept of Agriculture uses this nomenclature as well. It is also seen in the U.S. Census reports, where barrios are never listed as "wards".

Within Wikipedia, a good article for direction on this is, imo, this one. Perhaps there should be an equivalent MOS article for Puerto Rico. This would also be required background reading for someone deciding on titling Puerto Rico geography article. Fortunately, the issue here is not so much English v. Spanish, but the use of the diacritical mark.

I am not sure why this section is named "Contested Technical Request/Move" when it could had simply been filed under "Uncontested Technical Requests/Moves" (though it's better to err on the side of caution, of course). Mercy11 (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Support This should be moved to Jagüitas. Some refs are correctly spelling it with the umlaut. Most importantly, an official plan for the municipality, written by then mayor of Hormigueros, shows it spelled with the umlaut. See here. https://jp.pr.gov/Portals/0/Planes%20Territoriales/PT%20-%20Hormigueros/Hormigueros%20Plan%20Final%205%20%20diciembre%202009%20(Documento).pdf?ver=2018-01-11-183211-907 Please redirect to its correct name.The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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.