Talk:Santa Cruz Province, Argentina

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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). This should not be controversial. --Bejnar (talk) 23:38, 8 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.

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: Technical close, discussion moved to

• Support -- The version with a comma is much mroe satisfactory, as with the outcome of the previous RM. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just so you know, on WP, the parenthetical disambiguation is used pretty much universally across all the countries of the world for first-level administrative subdivisions. So the guideline is contrary to practice in this instance. So I kind of oppose this change unless all the other countries' subdivisions are going to be implemented this way as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See
    WP:POINT. If you think that the current guidelines do not go according to the established usages, then propose to change the guidelines to reflect such usage. If it is so "universal", it shouldn't be hard. Otherwise, do not blame pages that, in the meantime, follow that is specifically written that way. By the way, if there was a successful move request before, then you can't simply move it back to the old name just because you think it's "right", you must consider it a controversial move and open a move request instead. I open this move request, rather than just reverting your move, just because of courtesy. Cambalachero (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • My "point" is that I think the guideline might at this stage be in need of amending, as you suggest. Right now the article is in line with all the other articles for first-level administration subdivisions, and there is no move to change them except for these ones. So no, I see no need to make an exception here from the de facto standard. I'm not clear on what you mean by "don't blame pages", as I'm not blaming anyone or anything, whether user or WP page. I think we just disagree on our approaches. I favour in-practice uniformity over following a guideline that is widely neglected or ignored. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really a multiple move request, see

See subsequent discussion at that talk page. Andrewa (talk) 05:51, 24 December 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.