Talk:San Pablo del Monte, Tlaxcala

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vicente Guerrero, Tlaxcala. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5msVc9rGy?url=http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/sistemas/conteo2005/localidad/iter/ to http://www.inegi.gob.mx/est/contenidos/espanol/sistemas/conteo2005/localidad/iter/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2017

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:  Not done - long discussion which has gone stale. A modified proposal was mentioned, please submit that as a separate RM if necessary. (closed by non-admin page mover) DrStrauss talk 17:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

---

• Vicente Guerrero, Tlaxcala → San Pablo del Monte
• San Pablo del Monte → San Pablo del Monte (municipality)

– The city of Vicente Guerrero, Tlaxcala changed their name to San Pablo del Monte - Reference here [1]  Antuán (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Antuán: this link won't open for me: http://www.congresotlaxcala.gob.mx/archivo/trabajo/dictamenes/2016/D.CIUDAD%20DE%20SAN%20PABLO%20DEL%20MONTE.151216.pdf do you have any other evidence of this 2016 decision? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• It opens right up for me. The problem is that this was just a draft, and I cannot find a single piece of corroborating evidence that this happened (I have found definitive evidence of its publication in the official newspaper and thus its legal effect, see below). Raymie (t • c) 19:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence that the common name has changed and there even seems doubt as to whether the official name has changed. Andrewa (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Weakest possible support (change of !vote). The only way I can support this is to ignore wp:ball, in that as of yet all English language sites seem to still use the old name. But maybe wp:TITLECHANGES should explicitly allow the use of non-English sources in such cases. The resulting redirect makes the move practically harmless. So I'll plead WP:IAR and let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose no evidence forthcoming. Revisit when source found. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Raymie Amakuru Andrewa see es:Discusión:Vicente Guerrero, Tlaxcala. The Spanish page has been moved and an editor on es.wp Talk page saying no evidence also. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

For the same reason I'm having trouble. The link is a draft decree. There's no news coverage that actually says the Tlaxcala state legislature *did* that. Raymie (t • c) 20:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, wikipedians Raymie, Amakuru, Andrewa, In ictu oculi. The same discussion happened in the Spanish Wikipedia see: es:Discusión:San Pablo del Monte. The request of the change in the title was approve by an administrator and some others wikipedians in the Spanish Wikipedia. It can be enough to do the change here? -Antuán 02:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)\

In a word, no. English Wikipedia does not necessarily follow the article titles of other language Wikipedias. In fact, we don't pay much attention to usage in any other language sources unless we look for and fail to find examples of English usage. So in order to justify this move, we really need some English sources.

I should also say, what we want are secondary sources. In particular, an organisation's own English-language website, if it has one, is not good evidence of English usage. Andrewa (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This topic won't have any English-language sources. The problem is that there are no corroborating Spanish-language sources that this bill was passed by the state legislature of Tlaxcala. I say this as someone who has in recent years become something of a specialist on Mexico topics in this encyclopedia. Raymie (t • c) 03:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is one source and here is another. What am I missing?

Whether the bill was passed is not the issue. The question is just what the city is currently called in English. Andrewa (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

What Raymie says is true Andrewa, the change of the name was approve by the congress of the state of Tlaxcala, but the problem is that this fact isn't still "official" because now is in progress. The reason by which this request was accepted in the Spanish Wikipedia was that all in the state call this town as their common name "San Pablo del Monte", because no one call it Villa Vicente Guerrero, practically we based in the Article titles at least in the Spanish Wikipedia say something like "In general, articles should reside in the most commonly used name for the subject matter covered in the article" well I don't know if here is the same. -Antuán 06:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

On that, you have a point. "San Pablo del Monte" "Tlaxcala" turns up around 295,000 Google results compared to 60,700 for "Villa Vicente Guerrero" "Tlaxcala" (note: "Vicente Guerrero" "Tlaxcala" contains many false positives because, well, so many things get named for war heroes in Mexico). News articles use San Pablo del Monte over Villa Vicente Guerrero. The new SPM hospital was named San Pablo del Monte, not Villa Vicente Guerrero like the old one. The problem I have is that the legal name of the cabecera municipal has not changed, Villa Vicente Guerrero is still on the official INEGI books, and it is not simply a longer version of the more common name. Someone with more naming conventions experience would do well to take a look at this on common name grounds. Raymie (t • c) 07:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as soon as a Spanish-language newspaper says so judging by the discussion on es:Discusión:San Pablo del Monte the passing of the local name rather than the revolutionary general is going to happen. So what we are waiting for is a reliable source. WP:RS don't have to be English and usually aren't. @Antuán: @Raymie: I have supported, in fact proposed, moving Menorca from it's colonialist Napleonic name "Minorca" (groan) to the modern Spanish name used by British airports and travel books, and The Guardian yet there has been objection by editors to the rationale of excluding from Google Book results results relating to the Napoleonic wars, so you can see why in this environment it'd be not unreasonable to get a Mexican newspaper verifying the name change rather than act prematurely based on a council paper. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I'll be darned. I just found this decree published in the Periódico Oficial del Gobierno del Estado de Tlaxcala, the official gazette of the state — where, when published, it takes full effect. It ran on December 19, 2016 as Decree 284. The legal name has indeed changed! Support. Pinging users involved @In ictu oculi, Amakuru, and Andrewa: so they see the above information which completely changes what we are dealing with. Raymie (t • c) 07:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Repeat as above: Support, speedy move and add source to article, well that settles it. End of discussion. Then @Raymie: why are we leaving Menorca trapped in 1890 when The Guardian uses the modern name? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: I've added this information to the article. Has there been an RM on Menorca lately? I'd certainly support that one based on BBC and most recent New York Times use (there's one 2012 article that's an outlier). Raymie (t • c) 08:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: I think there may be a case for the move, but I can't see how we can possibly close it as move when the only English-language sources so far quoted use the old name! Can someone present some relevant evidence please? Andrewa (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: what in WP:RS says local language sources shouldn't be used? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS does not disqualify the use of local language sources because they can of course be used for verifying content. But they cannot be used to decide the article title when English sources exist, see WP:UE for the policy on this. Perhaps the English sources are too few to be useful, but if so this needs to be substantiated, and I think we should be skeptical when the claim that there were none at all was so easily disproved. The best thing would be to find recent English sources that use the new name, these would have precedence under WP:TITLECHANGES. But if all English sources still use the old name, then this RM is at best premature.

See Talk:FC Steaua București#Requested move 15 July 2017 for an example of a name that has changed in the local language, but not (perhaps not yet) in English. Andrewa (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Andrewa: The problem is that there are not many local sources. With a Google search restricted to after December 20, 2016 (the date on which the name change took effect), most of the English-language results that turn up are drawn from geographic databases that haven't been updated. There were only two English-language sources in the first five pages of results. Unlike the soccer club, San Pablo del Monte does not get enough coverage in English-language sources for it to matter. Raymie (t • c) 20:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this seems confrontational, but your latest claim is very different to This topic won't have any English-language sources. [2] Of course, if you don't specify a language, the Spanish ghits will dominate, and the fact that you found this out tells us absolutely nothing. What was the search you did? What were those two English sources that it found anyway? You say most of the English-language results that turn up are drawn from geographic databases that haven't been updated (my emphasis), have you looked at those others? Links please. Andrewa (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it was all of them. I wrote that expecting to see *something* in English. I tried limiting my search to English-language results and I get PueblosAmerica (an example of a database needing updating) as the top 3 hits, another geographic site zeitverschiebung.net, and that's about it before it went into Spanish. In radio I'm used to seeing way outdated geographic entries for radio station transmitters, often with 20-year-old callsigns or for stations that have been long defunct or were never built. For instance, there's a geographic point on a lot of sites called "KWLL-AM (Casa Grande)". The problem is that KWLL was nothing more than a construction permit and never became a reality. Another one in the same city has a set of calls that hadn't been in use since 1989. So you can see why I am really skeptical of those sites. I'm seeing nothing that suggests it's actually referred to as Villa Vicente Guerrero in English. Raymie (t • c) 21:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Raymie: Just noting that you do Support (it wasn't at sentence beginning so closer might miss it). Andrew A sorry English sources are irrelevant for something not covered in recent WP:RS English sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO these English sources are still more relevant than Spanish sources, in terms both of policy and of practicality. The Spanish sources would only become relevant if the English sources were not there. As they are there (and we haven't even tried looking beyond web searches for them - not all sources are available to Google!), English readers of Wikipedia are far more likely to have learned of this place from English language sources than from Spanish ones. Andrewa (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Raymie, I am happy to check these claims if you provide the links. But when I checked your claim about there being no English sources it proved to be false. I'm sorry to be blunt about that, and do not doubt your good faith, but if you do not provide the links that allow your claims to be easily checked, which you could easily do, I'm afraid I think that these claims should carry no weight whatsoever. Andrewa (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I will lose no sleep if this is moved. It would do no great damage. But I still think no case has been made for it, either in terms of policy or of practicality (in other words the policy is correct, as it most often is). Andrewa (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. We go with English sources where they are available, and this is the name that English readers will recognise.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This was the search query I tried: [3]. You'll see that the "English sources" are little more than pulling from databases that haven't been updated. I also just checked Google Scholar for results for "Villa Vicente Guerrero" (there were about 66) and most of them seem to be about other places, particularly in Tabasco and Jalisco (one English-language source was merely the namechecking of the old hospital). There are far more results for San Pablo del Monte (400). I also think it's worth noting that the same week as this decree was promulgated, the Hospital Comunitario Villa Vicente Guerrero was replaced by a new hospital (inaugurated by President Enrique Peña Nieto) which is known as the Hospital General de San Pablo del Monte. Raymie (t • c) 23:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

One link is better than none. The first ghit I get from that search is http://en.mexico.pueblosamerica.com/i/villa-vicente-guerrero/ which I guess is an example of what you mean by little more than pulling from databases that haven't been updated.

So I guess the argument is, this source and similar ones don't count.

This source does count. Readers will come here having consulted it. Writers in arenas other than Wikipedia will rely on it and follow its usage.

Probably this website should be updated, that depends on the policies of its owners. But the clear policy and practice of Wikipedia is, we do not lead the way or even try to. We follow English usage rather than trying to correct it.

Does that make sense? It is a common source of confusion. Our article should certainly make it quite clear what the official name is currently. But our article title should reflect current English usage where this can be determined, regardless of the official position. And there is no shortage of evidence, and so far, perhaps surprisingly, it all indicates that the name has not changed.

Where to from here? Well, WP:NAMECHANGES says that we should prefer recent sources in cases such as this. So the interesting sites are not those that need updating, but rather the ones that have been updated, if any. It's only if there are none of these that there is a problem with the move. But that appears to be a distinct possibility. Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary header

I want to kind of reset the discussion by stating I think what we all agree on so far:

• The official name did indeed change by decree of the state legislature, effective December 20, 2016.
• This encyclopedia follows generally accepted sources in English, and if it finds none, it falls back on usage in the native language.
• The recency of the name change and the general lack (but not total absence) of sources in English on this topic may mean there are no English sources using the updated name.
• Given this situation, an article rename may not be appropriate because English usage will lead to the encyclopedic change. (I still support the move, especially considering as in this case it can get difficult to separate references from this city from those to its municipality, especially given that the city formerly known as Villa Vicente Guerrero dominates the municipality in terms of size and especially population.)

I also think it's worth pointing out that in Mexico, the cabecera municipal (municipal seat) and the actual name of the municipality are usually one and the same, which further muddles the issue. There are some cases where that is not true (for instance, Ciudad Guzmán, Jalisco, is the seat of Zapotlán el Grande Municipality, and obviously Villa Vicente Guerrero between 1940 and 2016). Raymie (t • c) 02:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The official name did indeed change by decree of the state legislature, effective December 20, 2016. Yes. And this is very nearly irrelevant.

This encyclopedia follows generally accepted sources in English, and if it finds none, it falls back on usage in the native language. Possibly but probably not. I don't know what you mean by generally accepted sources, the phrase doesn't appear in any policy or guideline [4] and it seems to add an unnecessary extra level of complexity. We use any reliable source.

The recency of the name change and the general lack (but not total absence) of sources in English on this topic may mean there are no English sources using the updated name. Sort of. There's no demonstrated general lack... of sources in English on this topic. You assumed there would be a total lack of English sources. You were wrong.

Given this situation, an article rename may not be appropriate because English usage will lead to the encyclopedic change. I don't know what you mean by encyclopedic change, but in any case this understates the situation. We have found English sources that use the old name. We have found none that use the new name. That is the problem.

(I still support the move, especially considering as in this case it can get difficult to separate references from this city from those to its municipality, especially given that the city formerly known as Villa Vicente Guerrero dominates the municipality in terms of size and especially population.) As I have said from the start, I think there may be a case for the move. Please stop wasting time with irrelevancies, and let us try to build one. Andrewa (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I must admit I've learned a lot about our naming guidelines in this debate. I'm starting to think that while I'd want to move it now, it may be more in line with policy to revisit this move in a year or so, giving time for English-language sources to be able to use the official name. The recency of the name change (it's only been 7 months) and the fact that the few English-language sites aren't updating are a combination that leaves few options on the table. Raymie (t • c) 17:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bearing with me on this! As I have said, I'm not going to be heartbroken if the move happens now. Agree it is likely to happen in the future... perhaps less than a year. Changing my !vote to very weak support, and let us move on. Andrewa (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. My one other suggestion might be to write the lede as "San Pablo del Monte, known as Villa Vicente Guerrero from 1940 to 2016, ..." until such time that the article can be moved. (Yes, it had this name before 1940.) Raymie (t • c) 01:14, 26 July 2017 (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.