Jump to content

Talk:Negros

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Negros (island))

Is Region XVIII official?

[edit]

Is Region 18 official? Remember that there are 4A and 4B. So if numbered properly, NIR will be Region 17. But also note than when Caraga was named Region 13, it was the 16th region since NCR, CAR and ARMM don't have numbers. Following that logic, NIR should be Region 14. Heritageph (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Know what, I've been wondering about this as well... But when you review all wikipedia articles relating to NIR (like region), it would refer to it as the 18th region... I hope this has been confirmed by the government... I think this is expected since this is only an executive order, and not act of congress, so hindi naka-clarify yung mga details and it's a bit ambiguous.... Alcohkid (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have supplied valid references for such when I added the numeric. Also, the Philippine Statistics Authority's Philippine Standard Geographic Code (PSGC), for purposes of assigning region codes, assigns Codes 1-12 to the currently corresponding regional numerical names, 13 for NCR, 14 for CAR, 15 for ARMM, 16 for Caraga, 17 for Mimaropa, and now 18 for NIR. Xeltran (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is, if this region were to be given a proper designation, it should have been Region VI-B not Region XVIII, following the example of Southern Tagalog Region so as not to break the numerical sequence of the regions also. Western Visayas should be then Region VI-A. Unless a major reorganization is coming to fix the sequence. I don't see it coming though under this student government.:)--RioHondo (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also the discussion Negros Island Region (NIR) - references to Region XVIII. David A. Short (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC);[reply]


I am beginning to wonder what is actually meant by Negros Island Region is now officially Region XVIII. It could in fact mean one of two things:

First, it could mean Negros Island Region is now officially the 18th region (a reference to the region's creation).

Second, it could mean Negros Island Region is now officially Region No. 18 (a reference to the region's numerical designation)

Given this ambiguity, it is possible that the original statement is being misinterpreted. Either way, without either an executive or legislative issuance, the name cannot officially include Region XVIII.

David A. Short (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC);[reply]

Less we resort to an edit war, I think the present version is already acceptable. It should be noted that the Philippine Statistics Authority calls the region as "NIR" and not "Region XVIII" (click me), and its website was even updated at least a week after the news reports about "Region XVIII" came out. I suggest that we rely on official, primary sources for now til we see a final IRR or a similar document stating that "Region XVIII" is an official, primary/other name for the Negros Island Region. In any case, anything that the Technical Working Group has agreed on so far has no effect unless it's approved by the president (or by the DILG Sec at the very least) in the form of a signed IRR. See my comments at Talk:Philippines too. Xeltran (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged island and region

[edit]

Now that the Negros (island) article has been merged to this article on the region for reasons explained here by Seav, and seeing that Negros in the Philippines is not its primary topic (See previous discussion), I have moved this article to simply Negros (Philippines) so that it can be used for both the island and its coterminous region.--RioHondo (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Languages in regional articles

[edit]

 Discussion ongoing...
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolvement of the Negros Island Region

[edit]

To all Negrense Wikipedians out there, I just wanted to say the bad news is that the Negros Island Region is "dissolved" by our current president. Sorrowful and enraged we may all feel, but let us all hope and fight together that a new Unified Negros Federal State will become 100% possible in the near future, because we Negrenses have continually fought for the unification of Negros as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straight-Outta-Negros-0013 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 August 2017

[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: moved DrStrauss talk 15:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Negros (Philippines) → Negros Island – More natural/organic article name and do away with the non-parenthetical disambiguation "(Philippines)". There are no other article in Wikipedia referring to an island called "Negros", the closest being an island in Papua New Guinea named Los Negros Island Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move to Negros. I don't consider that this or any other entry on the DAB page Negros is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Further, turning it into PTopic would be guaranteed to accumulate links from the misspelling of Negroes, and they would never be found and corrected. If the misspelling links to a DAB page, User:DPL bot will find them, and sooner or later WP:DPL members will fix them.
Comment #1. WP:MALPLACED is not relevant. That relates to the error where FizBuz redirects to FizBuz (disambiguation) (which is against WP:DABNAME).
Comment #2. Negros (Philippines) looks to me like a WP:INCOMPDAB. Narky Blert (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to challenge a couple of statements:
  • From the items on the dab page, six are former or current administrative subdivisions of the island of Negros, and they are either PTM (Negros Oriental), ancient (Negros (historical province) 1850–1890), or short-lived (Negros Island Region 2015–2017). The rest are a small parish in Spain and a small island in Papua New Guinea. None of those rises to the importance of 4th largest island in the Philippines with population of over 4M.
  • I don't really buy the argument that "Negros", being an irregular, outdated term and a racial slur by now, is a plausible target for Negro in English encyclopedia. Re disambiguation concerns, perusing links to "Negros" generated by DPL bot from user talk namespace shows that most editors wanted to link Negros (island) rather than Negro (in fact, I can't find any evidence for the latter), so they remain inconvenienced by the current setup. In fact, there are only 23 links to "Negroes" in the article space, showing that it's a rare link target. IMO we continue to inconvenience editors and readers alike by keeping this as a dab page, where the only competing item is of largely hypothetical plausibility; and a hatnote such as {{for|the racial term|Negro|other uses|Negros (disambiguation)}} would solve the issue gracefully. No such user (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2017 (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.

Requested move 25 August 2021

[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 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. Consensus the island is the primary topic. Possible confusion with the nonstandard plural of "negro" is very unlikely. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Let us try again: the Philippine island of Negros is the overwhelmingly primary topic for this title. It has a population of 4.6 M and is somewhat larger than e.g. Jamaica. All items on the dab page are either named after the island, or several orders of magnitude smaller. Its two extant provinces are WP:PTMs. Negros (historical province) existed between 1865 and 1890; Negros Island Region between 2015 and 2017 so no contest from them. In the previous RM, above, an assertion was made that it may be confused with Negro, today a racial slur, but I do not find it plausible, and is easily solved by hatnotes. No such user (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, the island is clearly the primary topic for all the island-related items, which are either parts of the island or particular historical periods of the island. None of the other listed items seem to come close in significance, one being a nine-word stub, one being a much smaller island which is only a partial name match, and one being a now-defunct company likely also named after the island. CMD (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the whole purpose of a primary topic is about what folks are looking for, not about technical issues. Besides you didn't address the common name argument. --Bejnar (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bejnar: CMD has already showed some points that I agree with. I do not need to repeat what he has already said. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 17:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Tambayan Philippines has been notified of this discussion. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Walrasiad and others. Except for readers from the Philippines, there is no clear primary topic, so the dab belongs at the base name. Certes (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC) !Vote withdrawn; see below. Certes (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "Except for readers from the Philippines" is pretty weak. They certainly count as readers too, right? It's highly unlikely people interested in the antiquated racial term will use the plural form to search it up, let alone an unusual form in English, and in the unlikely event they do, there'll be a hatnote. 4.6 million people is not a small amount. SnowFire (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Oppose per Uanfala's clickstream info above which shows that there is no primary topic. While the link to the island was the most often followed, it wasn't more clicked than all the other uses together, so the reader is best served by this dab page. PamD 05:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. Clear primary topic here: anyone searching with “negros” is almost certainly searching for the island. I urge the closer to discount opposition based on “no primary topic” for which “primary topic” is merely what that particular editor thinks of when they read “Negros”, and also discount opposition based on “the island is the primary topic only for readers from the Philippines”. The only relevant population here is those who search with the term “Negros”. Those might be mostly folks from the Philippines. So what? Regardless of where they’re from they’re almost certainly looking for the island. So that’s where we must take them. That’s what primary topic is about. Please also note the clickstream data referenced by Uanfala and mentioned by PamD is misleading because it addresses the tiny minority that make it to the dab page. The vast majority use search engines like Google which lists this article first when searching for “negros” (thus confirmation of PT by WP:GOOGLETEST). So anyone actually getting to the dab page is likely not looking for the island, but these would be the tiny minority exceptions among those searching with “Negros”. —В²C ☎ 07:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a primary topic argument that rests on long-term significance. But if we're going to decide whether the dab page should sit at the primary title solely based on usage, then I'd imagine the usage we're interested in is that of the dab page, no? – Uanfala (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The usage method is about likelihood of a given topic being sought by people typing in the term in question when searching. The Google test is very useful in these cases because the search order results reflect exactly that. Regarding long-term significance, an unusual/incorrect spelling of a plural form of an offensive term doesn’t qualify, IMHO. —-В²C ☎ 15:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the places in the Philippines have greater long-term significance, and I see hit counts on google and pageviews as indicative of that significance (though in a very indirect way). Usage, on the other hand, I understand to be usage on Wikipedia. If the dab page is at the primary title, and if among the links on it there isn't any single one that gets a majority of clicks, then that means usage-wise we have no reason to change the status quo (though again, we may have other reasons). – Uanfala (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pageviews for topics actually called "negros" shows that the island has more views than other "negros" topics combined. The Negros Oriental and Occidental topics are not known simply as "Negros", so they shouldn't factor much into the analysis. And while we can't ignore the nonstandard plural form of "negro", there's no evidence that it would sway the usage factor here. Dohn joe (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose it certainly looks like the plural form is used by our readers and the real world sometimes so it may be safest to disambiguate but I'm not sure. Normally I'd oppose to such as move completely but it doesn't seem like its a correct plural form. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose The primary topic of Negros is plural version of Negro, so i believe it is more reasonable to redirect Negros (plural) to Negro (singular). 36.77.95.92 (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Clearly the primary topic is the island. I don't see how an uncommon variant spelling of the plural of a mostly obsolete (and to many offensive) name for a racial group has greater claim to be primary topic than an island with over 4 million people on it. Mr248 (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PTOPIC. Google and Bing return the island first when "Negros" is searched for, while a search of academic databases like JSTOR return references either to the island, or non-English sources where "negros" means the colour. Further, an obscure variant spelling of the plural of an archaic word isn't sufficiently closely connected to challenge that status. BilledMammal (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2021 (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.

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

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Negros&oldid=1245207159"