Talk:Playa Grande, Guatemala

merge with Playa Grande Ixcán

The correct name of the municipality is Playa Grande Ixcán. I created a page by that name. I suggest that this page be deleted.r3 00:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Strong consensus on alternative name. Andrewa (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playa_Grande → Playa_Grande (Ixcán) — user:Hipoomi requests this move, noting "other Playa Grandes exist". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Playa_Grande (disambiguation) → Playa_Grande

Note Please consider Playa Grande, Ixcán or Playa Grande, Guatamala also in this discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand this request. This isn't a disambiguation page. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I really messed up the move request; I've fixed it hopefully. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I just created the Playa_Grande (disambiguation) page earlier today, and that may satisfactorily addresses this issue. The article name Playa_Grande should be used for the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, if there is one, and it should be a DAB page only if no primary topic exists.

It's not clear to me which (if any) of the two major articles (this one or Playa Grande, Costa Rica) is the primary topic. This one has more links, but that seems to be because of the transcluded template Template:Quiché Department; if you normalize for that template, they both have only a small number of incoming links, and both nearly the same; that suggests that an incoming link count not a very good criterion to apply in this case.

Looking just at last month's traffic, Playa Grande, Costa Rica got almost 3x the traffic this article did (see [1], 704 hits on Playa Grande, Costa Rica; compared to [2], only 246 hits on Playa Grande); and since this article's name is not qualified, many of those 246 hits may have been from readers looking for the other article, so the 246 number is presumably an inflated number. If you must determine a primary topic, it would seem to be Playa Grande, Costa Rica.

Given the low traffic overall, however, I'd be reluctant to call this dispositive, and I think it's a better call to conclude that there is no primary topic, and the DAB page should be moved to (and continue to redirect to) Playa Grande, and this article be given a qualified name. I suggest that the name should be Playa Grande, Ixcán or Playa Grande, Guatamala, however. TJRC (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The convention for place names is to use the comma form of disambiguation. There is no specific naming convention for Guatemala, and so the article should be moved to Playa Grande, Guatemala. There is no reason to disambiguate by department. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as an administrative division, you are right we should probably use the comma. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification, Skinsmoke, you caption your !vote as "Oppose," but if I read your comment correctly, you actually support the move; but just differ on what the target should be named, correct? That's essentially the position I have, but I labeled it as "Support." TJRC (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.