Talk:Negros

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]

• But the word is also a non-standard but likely form of a plural of "negro". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
  No such user (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support
  talk) 14:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to
  WP:MALPLACED. The word isn't "non-standard." It's from Spanish. Whiff of greatness (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support. Do not support just
  Negros (island) is also permissible if sources do not use Negros Island.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support move to Negros Island or (better still) to
  Negros (island)
  (which already exists). Either is a more natural and descriptive title.

Oppose move to Negros. I don't consider that this or any other entry on the DAB page

WP:DPL

members will fix them.

Comment #1.

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 (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• I don't really buy the argument that "Negros", being an irregular, outdated term and a racial slur by now, is a plausible target for
  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.

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]

• Negros Island → Negros
• Negros → Negros (disambiguation)

– 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

• Pageviews: [1]. I also included
  No such user (talk
  )

• 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]

• Oppose The primary topic is a plural form of the historic term for people of black African ancestry or appearance. Misdirecting away from the primary target is not fixed by a hatnote or a disambiguation page. I note that the Tagalog page is at tl:Pulo ng Negros. Aside from which, "Negros Island" is the form used in the English language Sailing Directions.see here. --Bejnar (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such user (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Readers do search with plurals. That's why we have articles called Arabs, Greeks, Jews, Koreans, etc. Certes (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They might search for plurals for established ethnic groups. However, those looking for

    No such user (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Support per Chipmunkdavis. The plural form of a word does not always have to redirect to the singular form of the same word.
  LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:56, 26 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]

@

LSGH (talk) (contributions) 17:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support. As a Filipino, of course I think of the island whenever I read or hear the term "Negros" without any qualifying adjectives or terms. I also think that the spelling with an "e" is more common for the plural of the noun "negro". As for the assertion that the Tagalog Wikipedia had the page at "Pulo ng Negros" instead of just "Negros", I actually went ahead and
  WP:BOLDly moved the article to the plain title ("Negros") because the plain title had been a redirect to the longer title ("Pulo ng Negros") since 2013. —seav (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Island is not the primary topic. Much too obscure outside the Philippines. Plain title would by common use be assumed by general readers to refer to plural of Negro. Island is a suitable disambiguation. Walrasiad (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The
  Negros_Island 86, Negros_Occidental 30, Negro_(disambiguation) 27, Negros_(province) 24, Negro 23, and Negros_Oriental 16 (data for March, links with fewer than 10 clicks not included). – Uanfala (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per nom and User:Uanfala. A non-standard plural should not trump a far more sought after topic. —  AjaxSmack  17:02, 30 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
  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]
  • The plural form of Negro is Negroes, not Negros, and
    Negroes is correctly configured as a primary redirect to Negro. Negros as the plural of Negro is not even listed as a use of Negros on the Negros dab page, and you think it’s the primary topic??? Closer: please take note and discount accordingly. —В²C ☎ 23:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Negros is an accepted spelling of the plural. I don't think it's a primary topic, but it's common enough to prevent any other meaning such as the island from being primary. Certes (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Accepted spelling by whom? Not Merriam-Webster. —В²C ☎ 20:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A good question. I saw several editors refer to the word as a plural, did a quick check at wikt:negros#English and assumed it to be valid. However, major dictionaries don't list that spelling, so perhaps I was wrong. I'll strike my !vote for now. Certes (talk) 21:33, 4 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
  ]