Talk:Aguascalientes (city)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

aguascalientes is one of the most popular places in mexico for its fair of san marcos. I'd say keep it as it is, to stick with the format of the Wikipedia entries on Mexico. The articles on Mexican cities are identified exactly like U.S. cities -- by city and state.

I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place to write this (having never written on a talk page before), but what is the intended meaning of "conventual" in the history section? I was editing it and had no idea what that was supposed to mean. User:burntorange72 —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Football team[edit]

Actually the state count on his attractive one football team of first division "necaxa" one professional baseball team "rieleros" and one professional basketball team "panteras"
What's the intended sense here? This reads like bad machine translation. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"At present, the state has one first-division football team ("Necaxa"), one professional baseball team ("Los Rieleros"), and one professional basketball team ("Los Panteras")."
So now you know. Go on, stick that sentence into the article and make a Babelfish very happy. (Necaxa royally stuffed Man Utd down in Brazil a few years, of course.) –Hajor 05:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I figured it was something like that, but was not sure. It has been done. We apparently already have a fairly nice article on the soccer team; I made space for the basketball team and the baseball team in case anyone ever wants to make them. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article has been added to Category:Municipalities of Aguascalientes by Eagle (talk) (desk) at 21:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC). I am putting all Municipalities of Aguascalientes in one category[reply]

Governer[edit]

Could anyone please provide the name of the governer of Aguascalientes?

The governor is Carlos Lozano de la Torre

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aguascalientes City. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics[edit]

I'm a bit incredulous regarding the presently featured demography of Aguascalientes. On the page we can find the claim that 78% of Hidrocálidos are of European descent and only 15% are mestizo. Just looking around the city, this seems completely implausible to me--but I've yet to find any demographic information regarding race in Aguascalientes. Does anybody know where this information came from? Or better yet, where we could find some accurate demographic information regarding race in Aguascalientes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwd52 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs section on air quality / pollution[edit]

Article needs section on air quality / pollution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 22:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aguascalientes City. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aguascalientes City. 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:

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) 14:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aguascalientes City. 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:

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) 06:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aguascalientes City. 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:

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) 01:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 January 2023[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 for all except Chihuahua, Oaxaca, and Querétaro. There is a rough enough consensus that — except for Chihuahua, where documentary evidence has been provided to the contrary — that in common parlance the cities are generally referred to without the word "City" suffixed (as opposed to, say, Mexico City). Moscow Mule also brings up a rather interesting point about "Ciudad de Mexico" vs. "ciudad de Tlaxcala", which also helps tips the scales in favour of moving them.

This closure is without prejudice to a further move request for the cities with expanded formal names (e.g. Querétaro); that form of disambiguation – as more WP:NATURAL than parenthetical disambiguation – also got an amount of traction in the RM. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a further request to just double check the entire thread, I was persuaded the reasons for exempting Chihuahua also applied to Oaxaca and Querétaro. I'm also not averse to further singular RMs happening at any point if such documentary evidence can be provided for the other cities. Sceptre (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(NB: Puebla (city) and Veracruz (city) already comply with the proposed format. Sinaloa, Sinaloa, redirects to Sinaloa de Leyva: a solution that sidesteps the issue by using the full, formal name but which, unfortunately, isn't available for all of the others on the list.)

– In consideration of arguments given on Talk:WP:NCGN#Mexican state capitals (Pinguinn: "neologisms that are not used outside of Wikipedia"), the past and recent RMs on Talk:Veracruz (city) (Srnec: "not usually called "Veracruz City" and that title misleads people into thinking it is like Mexico City"; Moscow Mule "Aeroméxico flies to Queretaro, Aguascalientes, Campeche, Chihuahua etc. (not to Querétaro City, Aguascalientes City, Campeche City, Chihuahua City). American Airlines flies to Mexico City, Querétaro City, Oaxaca City, and Zacatecas City"; Tbhotch: "Who calls it San Luis Potosí City?"), previous RMs on Talk:Puebla (city) (MX: "Puebla City is not commonly used"). At some point all these were at [[City, State]], but that was rejected as "absurd" at Talk:Chihuahua City in 2014, followed by a mass move to the current format. A parenthetical "(city)" disambiguator would reflect real-world usage and avoid the very real danger of (per B2C on Talk:Veracruz (city)) influencing other sources "to the point where it could become a commonly used name". Moscow Mule (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BD2412 T 19:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as per nom. This parenthetical is used without issue for cities in most countries, and I see no reason why Mexico needs to be different. 162 etc. (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that's the case, actually. I'm struggling to think of any situation where a city and state have the same name, the state has primary topic, and the city is disambiguated parenthetically. You say "for cities in most countries" but I'm not sure that's the case at all. I think consistency demands an "oppose". Red Slash 22:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably worth noting that nobody's been able to think of even one example of a city that is parenthetically disambiguated from its containing state. Probably goes to show that this move is not WP:CONSISTENT with how we title articles on Wikipedia. Red Slash 21:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those Japanese cities that share their names with their prefectures. Akita (city), Chiba (city), Fukui (city), et al. Moscow Mule (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Especially considered vis-à-vis Mexico City, the current titles are misleading. —  AjaxSmack  03:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Mexico City is completely WP:CONSISTENT with the current titles. The actual name of the city is, of course, "Mexico" (see road signs in Mexico that direct you towards "MEXICO", not referring to the country but to the capital city), but the country has primary topic, so it's naturally disambiguated to "Mexico City", just like "Querétaro City" et al. Red Slash 22:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. The constitution of Mexico City says (eg) "La Ciudad de México es una entidad integrante de la Federación" while those of (eg) Tlaxcala and Querétaro have "La ciudad de Tlaxcala de Xicohténcatl es la Capital del Estado" and "La ciudad de Santiago de Querétaro, será la capital del Estado". The upper case vs. lower case distinction indicates that there's something going on there: capital letter for a formal part of the name; lower case for a common noun. Economy of space on highway signs shouldn't, I think, influence the decisión here (and there's a not insignificant subset of people from the provinces who hate it when people from the capital use an unqualified "México" to mean the city). Moscow Mule (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point here--quite clever, honestly. This is where we get into the nitty-gritty of Spanish natural disambiguation versus English. In Spanish, they'd not call Querétaro City "Ciudad de Querétaro" but rather "Santiago de Querétaro", which is the official name and is darn-near unattested in English (or even in Spanish outside of formal documents). So it would be referred to as "the city of Santiago de Querétaro", yes. Red Slash 00:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interestingly, for Queretaro specifically, apparently Santiago de Querétaro has been seeing an uptick in the last two decades. I'd be interested to see how many of those are legitimately English-language documents instead of bilingual ones, though. Red Slash 00:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go asking me for sources, but my understanding was that a lot of cities had their names tweaked to remove religious connations in the (post-)Revolutionary period (Vera Cruz > Veracruz, around that time; Villa Hermosa of San Juan Bautista > Villahermosa; presumably Stgo de Qro was affected, too). Then with the end of the PRI hegemony in the 1990s (particularly in the Bajío), one of the first things the PAN government (not sure if state or city) did was to try and reassert Querétaro's colonial/C19th "religious" name. I never heard it living there in the 80s. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There you go: el Ayuntamiento aprobó unánimamente la propuesta de rescatar como nombre oficial el de Santiago de Querétaro. 12 Sept 1996. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's downright fascinating! I had to scroll down a bit, but I loved reading how the state government apparently felt that the state itself needed some natural disambiguation, too. Thanks for the history lesson! And that's very cool that you lived in Querétaro! It's a beautiful place, for sure. Red Slash 17:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And there are, of course, road signs that say Ciudad de México instead of the short form. Here, specifically, in stark contrast to an unqualified "Puebla". Moscow Mule (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While we prefer natural disambiguation to parenthetic disambiguation, none of these current titles are natural. That is, they are not commonly used names for their respective cities. WP is supposed to reflect established common usage, not establish it ourselves. Because we are so heavily referenced, we have to be careful to not create neologistic names for topics, because others will follow suit. This is why we have parenthetic disambiguation, and using (city) as the disambiguator in these ambiguous city name situations is as appropriate as was established with preferring Cork (city) over the Cork City neologism years ago. —В²C ☎ 13:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, that's a blind assertion that the names are not established. I've expressed below why the situation with a city that needs to be disambiguated from its state is very different than that of a city that needs to be disambiguated from wood--primarily because the context in real-world conversations requires disambiguation far more, so these naturally disambiguated titles for the cities proposed here have proliferated organically. In addition, as explained below, natural disambiguation isn't always required. When you're flying into JFK, you're quite likely to say "I'm going to New York", and that A) doesn't mean New York City is a bad article title and should be New York (city), and B) allows for the possibility that you may not even be consciously distinguishing between the city and its state (something that is not the case for Cork (city), etc.). Red Slash 22:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NATURAL asks us not to use "obscure or made-up names"; OP's nomination illustrates that "Aguascalientes City" et. al. do appear to be made-up. 162 etc. (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It asserts it, but IDK if it actually illustrates it. I'd need to see, you know, sources. I've provided some below to illustrate that these names aren't actually made up. Red Slash 22:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Making a more awkward Wikipedia-specific neologism with unneeded parenthesis does not improve anything. -- Infrogmation (talk)
    That’s an argument against using parenthetic disambiguation anywhere a neologism can be conjured by editors. That’s contrary to community consensus which doesn’t consider the parenthetic disambiguation to be part of the name of the topic, and therefore the parenthetically disambiguated title is not itself a neologism. We have to be consistent with this or we won’t be able to stabilize our titles. And, yes, often the way to title stabilization means changing titles. As long as the change brings the titles in line with policy, guidelines, and conventions, we are improving title stability. If we leave these titles as they are, then we’re providing basis for using neologisms for titles elsewhere. —В²C ☎ 22:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When were parenthetical disambiguators deprecated to that extent? Using Infrogmation's standard, today's Recent Deaths would have Brian Lee (manager) at Brian Lee the Manager and James Flynn (producer) at James Flynn the Producer. Of course the (word_in_parens) isn't parsed as part of any neologistic name. Moscow Mule (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL and WP:CONSISTENT. Don't take down a fence until you can explain why that fence was erected in the first place. Cork (city) is a terrible example because the city of Cork lost primary topic not because of its surrounding state, but because of the wood. The city of Querétaro (et al) lost primary topic status because of the state that it's in--just like New York City or even Mexico City (which lost its primacy to the country that takes its name from the old Aztec capital).
Now, let's look at this refrain: "The name isn't used enough to be natural!" (Keep in mind that, per WP:NATURAL, the title doesn't need to be the most common, or even equally common; it just can't be obscure or made up.) The first page of Google results is a decent place to start. Just searching "queretaro city" got me: this this this this this and and this, and that was just on the front page. These are pretty high-quality sources for common usage. Seriously, just go to Google and look at all the varied results for "Queretaro City" that pop up. The name is used in English.
I should also note that of course just plain "Queretaro" is the most common name. Same thing with "New York", really. Most people, when there's no risk of lack of clarity, just use the short form. Often, people don't even bother distinguishing between the two. ("When I visit New York, I always love to go shopping in Manhattan"--the speaker may not even be consciously aware of a distinction between New York (state) and NYC.) The reason, of course, is that the common name of Queretaro City is actually Queretaro. But when disambiguation in English is required, Queretaro City is used enough to not be "obscure" by any means.
I did this for Queretaro because it's my favorite Mexican city that's disambiguated this way, but you can find scads of similar hits for "colima city" (there are some false hits there, but keep scrolling, there are tons of them, including literally the U.S. Embassy), "Oaxaca City", and most if not all of the others.
Again, for us to choose natural disambiguation, we don't need to show that this is the most common name in English, or even equally common--that would be ridiculous, since obviously the base name is prevalent. We just need to show that it's a legitimate, existing form of natural disambiguation that is neither "obscure" nor "made up". I believe I've shown that this is indeed the case. Red Slash 22:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re quoting only the last sentence of NATURAL. It starts with “an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called”. Google ngrams confirm that New York City is commonly called that[1], but Querétaro City is not commonly called that[2] You’ve demonstrated it’s not “made up”, but finding a few isolated sources using “Querétaro City” only demonstrates how obscure, not to mention that it is not commonly used, and therefore unNATURAL it is. —В²C ☎ 00:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NGrams are one piece of information, for sure, but not the only one; books are very high-context, and they usually wouldn't need to disambiguate--naturally or otherwise--from the containing state. (A ratio of ~220 to 1, then, isn't surprising.) I love Queretaro, but let's move north to Chihuahua City. We've got results from tourist/history sites in abundance (especially when disambiguating but sometimes even not), geography sites (even puppy sites!), multiple uses from the biggest English-speaking city in the area's newspaper--including some dating from 1921!--and plenty more stories that I got paywalled away from , hotels, the U.S. Department of State (notice the importance here of disambiguating the city and state), other news sites and businesses and industry groups from around the world, cultural sites, even Urban Dictionary and, of course, the city of Chihuahua itself. It's a common enough title. There's no competing natural disambiguator. And the sort of title that's currently proposed is completely inconsistent with how we title city articles across Wikipedia when the city's located inside an eponymous state that holds primary topic. Red Slash 17:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Searching Google for "Queretaro City" is a red herring. Of course a web search with extra terms to refine a search will render hits about that story. But that says nothing about whether "City" is commonly used appended to the name. I can search for Star Wars really cool movie 1970s and millions of hits come up for the movie. But that doesn't make it a common, or more importantly, an encyclopedically appropriate title. It's just misleading. —  AjaxSmack  17:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ajax, please forgive that I've re-indented your comment for clarity. I note that your example search did not use quotes, whereas mine did, making the comparison less than helpful. (Please compare "Chihuahua City", which you can scroll down through for miles to "Star Wars really cool movie 1970s", which has five results, none of which actually include that exact phrase, lol) Red Slash 17:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, AjaxSmack was using an exaggerated example. But here's something interesting. In your search you're getting "Chihuahua city" (city starts with lowercase 'c') results as well as "Chihuahua City". Try limiting it by case, like this. You still get web page hits, but not really anything that qualifies as a reliable source. And even some of those are false hits. For example, not that tripadvisor is an RS, but the tripadvisor page is on the popular travel site and is one of the top results, however the only use of "Chihuahua City" (both caps) on that page is in the name of a hotel, where every word is capitalized because it's a proper noun. In short, the use of "Chihuahua City" in actual reliable sources is truly obscure; certainly not commonly used. --В²C ☎ 04:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to my other reply for a lot more sources, many of which do keep that capital "C", including a program run by the city itself which uses "Chihuahua City" repeatedly. "Obscure" isn't really the word I'd use. Red Slash 06:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see references to the organization named “Chihuahua City Invest” at that link but no references to the city itself as “Chihuahua City”. Apologies if I missed it. Please specify where if I did. Thanks. —В²C ☎ 21:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Why Chihuahua City" button on the top of the page. Red Slash 06:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Red Slash. I didn't notice the quotes in your search string. However, "Star Wars Movie" (with quotes) still yields 4,760,000 results for me. Useful for web searching, but not an accurate title for an encyclopedia article. —  AjaxSmack  01:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Google isn't at all case sensitive. You'd probably get a million results literally from the phrase "the next Star Wars movie" alone. We're really getting into the weeds here. The closest English-language newspaper to Chihuahua City repeatedly calls it "Chihuahua City" when it needs to disambiguate, and it has done so for over a hundred years. The name is accurate and is indeed used. Red Slash 06:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're making my point for me. Many of the sources in the Google search results for "Chihuahua City" also have a lowercase "city". I'm not opposed to lowercase "city" as descriptive; it's the uppercase "City" that gives the [WP:OR|ORish]] imprimatur of an official name that I oppose. —  AjaxSmack  01:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Chihuahua city" would be a compromise, then. I hope I'm not giving the impression that I'm unmoved by your point; it's a reasonable one, with a logical basis. I think the additional clarity that the two-word title brings is worth it, though, and I do believe that sources show that it's a natural and common-ish way for disambiguation to occur. (And "common-ish" is sufficient per WP:NATURAL.) I think your larger point, both here as well as elsewhere, is something that absolutely should be discussed at WT:AT in general, perhaps by launching an RfC that would say something like:
"Recognizing that Wikipedia's usage choices help shape and standardize usage worldwide, is standardizing a particular form of natural disambiguation as a name for a place a bad thing, and if so, is it bad enough for us to jettison WP:NATURAL altogether?"
I think I would say "no", but that's a discussion to be held, for certain. But until then, I think that forming a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to override WP:NATURAL would be a bad idea. Red Slash 17:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Their names do not commonly have "city" appended, so WP:NATURAL does not apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell that to the nearest English-language newspaper, the El Paso Times, which has been using Chihuahua City for over 100 years Red Slash 06:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally. ONE reliable source that uses it. But finding one such source is far from clearing the common use hurdle required by NATURAL. —В²C ☎ 19:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, what do you want from me? How many newspapers are necessary to satisfy this? (How many English-language newspapers are even aware of the fact that Chihuahua is the name of a city within the state of Chihuahua, let alone realize that disambiguation might be necessary? You're going to see distinctions like that more in local papers.) The El Paso Times isn't some random paper; it's the only major English-language newspaper that's anywhere near Chihuahua City. I doubt the New York Times, if they hear a story about something that happened in Chihuahua, would even stop to wonder if it took place in the city or merely in another part of the state. But people who actually have reason to care about disambiguating appear to use the "Chihuahua City" format to do it, just like they do with pretty much every other city across the entire world that has the same name as its containing state and which has not cleared primary topic over that state. Just like with Panama, Mexico, Guatemala, Djibouti, Luxembourg, or a kajillion other cities that have given their name to the state that they're located in, Chihuahua and these other cities should have the WP:CONSISTENT title which includes "City" at the end. Red Slash 00:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, at best (and I’m being generous here) you’re forming an argument to exclude Chihuahua City from the list to be moved. That leaves the others. But yes, to have a city disambiguated at Cityname City it needs to be shown that that city is commonly referred to like that in RS. —В²C ☎ 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Finding data for each of these is going to be a pretty exhaustive task. Maybe let's do these one at a time to see which ones shouldn't be moved and which ones should. Red Slash 00:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely not just one; "Chihuahua City" is used in the San Antonio Express News[3][4], for instance, and I see it at the Christian Science Monitor[5]. A quick search at newspapers.com shows a great many matches largely in Texas and California but elsewhere as well, including various stories in the Albuquerque Journal, Las Cruces Sun-News, Austin American-Statesman, Argus Leader, and others. [6][7][8][9] ╠╣uw [talk] 12:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching a bit further shows lots more: USA Today [10][11][12], Dallas News [13][14], Wall Street Journal [15], the US State Department [16], Michelin Guides [17], etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nom. Extensive reference has been made to WP:NATURAL and WP:CONSISTENT. The prime examples on NATURAL are French language and French people — presumably in opposition to French (language) and French (people) (which usefully exist as redirects). That seems entirely logical ("natural") and uncontentious: I can't imagine any discussion between those two generating the amount of controversy that these city names have, here and elsewhere. The sticking point here is "commonly called [that] in English reliable sources", and I'm still not convinced that Aguascalientes City et al. meet that standard. But I'm relucant to engage in a back-and-forth war of examples and counter-examples. My "airlines" argument is at the top of this section, and there are others on Talk:Veracruz (city).
The next item down in the "Disambiguation" section on WP:TITLE after NATURAL is "comma-separated disambiguation for place names": ie, Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, etc., which is where all these articles were up until the 2014 moves. Seeing as how one of the main effects (purpose?) of NATURAL is to deprecate parenthetical disambigs (eg, Aguascalientes (city)), perhaps consideration could be given to putting the articles back there? Entirely NATURAL, entirely CONSISTENT with all the other Mexican cities requiring disambiguation (Nogales, Veracruz; Minatitlán, Colima; Delicias, Chihuahua, etc., etc., etc).
One of the 2014 objections on Talk:Chihuahua City was that Chihuahua, Chihuahua, was "hard to type accurately": not that that should be a deciding factor in where to place articles (a lot of the time I copy and double-paste: not much typing involved), but if it's a genuine concern (and, in particular, San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, is at best unwieldy), and if some readers are thought to freak out at a repeated name — which I assume was the idea behind the "absurd" comment on the 2014 Chihuahua move ("has this article developed a stammer?"), although in my experience most people are amused by the repetition, in a So Good They Named It Twice kind of way — then grant these articles special dispensation to use the standard state abbreviation: Aguascalientes, Ags., San Luis Potosí, SLP, and so on. WP:IAR.
Also, more consideration should be given to the effects of having these articles at their current locations both within Wikipedia and outside of it. As Red Slash (to whom I tip my hat for his thoroughness in defending his position and courtesy in responding to others) freely admits above, "of course just plain "Queretaro" is the most common name". However, take a look at the ngrams for Aguascalientes City vs. two other name formats: there's a sharp upturn in usage in the mid-2010s. And with reference to the Tripadvisor page for Queretaro City that Red Slash cites, up until Dec 2016 it (or at least the blurb about "balnearios and and 600 hot springs") was located at Queretaro, Mexico, after which web.archive.org has no further captures of that page. I strongly suspect Wikipedia is changing wider rest-of-world usage, thanks to other sites that use us as a reference. And internally, having the article at [[XXXXX City]] has to give WP editors less versed in the behind-the-scenes workings (the ones that actually write articles, God bless them) the notion that that's how we want to refer and link to those cities in article text — with all the knock-on effects of that replicated elsewhere in the Real World — unaware that they're second-best choices forced on us by technical or policy considerations. Great power we have then. But we all know what comes with that. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, all respect to you, as well, @Moscow Mule. No hate, nothing personal, we're all trying to do what's best.
There are at least three different natural options we could choose from:
  1. the "X City" one that's consistent with Djibouti City, Luxembourg City, Panama City, etc.
  2. "Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes" which sounds silly to me but is okay, especially if we use Aguascalientes, Ags., which is a clever adaptation and probably an improvement over the fully-written-out state name
  3. For at least some cities, like Querétaro, we could use the official name ("Santiago de Querétaro")
Your well-stated point about WP shaping usage is very well taken. That's possible. Honestly, whatever we do will shape usage, especially for people who aren't even aware (as I've mentioned several times) that disambiguation is even necessary. How many people who speak English are aware of Veracruz, the city? Probably quite a fair few; it's got significant historical importance. How many people are aware that if they hear about XYZ happening in "Veracruz", that that's highly ambiguous between the not-too-huge city and the rather large state? Many many people aren't even going to be aware that disambiguation is required, or rather, that there's anything to disambiguate. So if they see that we title the page Colima, Colima, that will slowly shape usage worldwide. If we go for Santiago de Querétaro, that'll shape usage (and people may not even realize that the city is commonly called just plain old "Querétaro"). And yes, if we stay with Aguascalientes City, it'll probably shape the way the city is naturally disambiguated out in the world. It's Wikipedia--it shapes usage whether it wants to do so or not. It might be better to say that, as we do have to pick one way to do it, we standardize usage more than shaping it. Were it not for Wikipedia, you might have twenty different ways for someone to distinguish the city of Oaxaca from its state; our leadership will inevitably lead to people standardizing behind one. That's been the case throughout Wikipedia's history. (Check the ngrams for Rio de la Plata!)
I appreciate your efforts and your clearly thoughtful consideration of the issues here. Big hat tip to you. I think you're wrong, but this is a legitimately respectful disagreement from both sides. I really do think that WP:CONSISTENT and WP:NATURAL should control, but I do see your point. Red Slash 00:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your three "City" examples are interesting. While Panama City is a common name for that city (nb es:Ciudad de Panamá, de:Panama-Stadt and Britannica), Djibouti City (fr:Djibouti (ville), es:Yibuti (ciudad), de:Dschibuti (Stadt) and Britannica) and especially Luxembourg City (fr:Luxembourg (ville), de:Luxemburg (Stadt), es:Luxemburgo (ciudad) and Britannica) edge much closer to Wikipedia creations. By using capitalized "City" for everything, we mislead readers by conflating Mexico City and Panama City (common) with Aguascalientes City and Luxembourg City (uncommon). —  AjaxSmack  01:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I alluded to that above, but it seems like your beef is with WP:NATURAL in general. Which, maybe you're right, and WP:NATURAL is wrong in cases like this! But I would discuss that at WP:AT, and say that in the meantime, WP:CONSISTENT and WP:NATURAL mean that the articles should stay. Red Slash 17:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NATURAL is clear that for natural disambiguation you have to use a name that is commonly used in RS to refer to the subject. I don’t see AjaxSmack saying anything contrary to that, so I don’t understand why you say they have a beef with it. If you look at the RM discussion that resulted in the 2015 move of Luxembourg (city) to Luxembourg City you’ll see that the nom/support argument was that it is a very common name for the city (no opposition but only three participants, including you). Whether you all were right or wrong about that can be debated, but the interpretation of NATURAL there was consistent with what Ajax, Moscow Mule, and I are saying it means here. В²C ☎ 07:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with WP:NATURAL at all; there's nothing in that paragraph that says that misleading, less common names should be used simply because they are natural. It doesn't approve of Wikipedia creating or promoting less-common "natural" names. That's why I included results from Britannica and other local-language Wikipedias above. It looks as if Wikipedia is creating its own standard in some cases and then using this as a rationale to do the same in the cases dealt with in this nomination. For me per WP:NOT, it's also important these names be considered not only from raw web search data, but by looking at how names are given in quality sources and real-world English. An example that sums it up for me is the move of Amazon.com to Amazon (company). "Amazon.com" is somewhat common, somewhat accurate and NATURAL, but is misleading, so the title was changed. —  AjaxSmack  19:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have two thoughts in response to this: first off, I definitely did not remember that I was part of the discussion for Luxembourg City or I probably wouldn't have used it as an example (I think you can cut me slack on that, it was... almost eight years ago ), although the name has quite one-sidedly been affirmed in multiple discussions that I did not take part in. Second off, it's refreshing to see discussions about Mexican cities getting more love and attention right now than the ones about a European capital.
Okay, and then one actual response--I think it's fair to say that this move request has raised a lot of interesting points about Wikipedia's responsibility to use the most common titles (WP:NATURAL be darned) in order to show people the way things are actually called in the real world. I've often made that argument, e.g. at billion, or at Kosovo, or at maize, or at car, or (God help us) WP:USPLACE... and I've won a few (woohoo Kosovo!) and lost a few, too ("billion" still irks me a little). I think that we should generally, as best we can, reflect what things are actually called. So I get your position, I really do.
The reason why "Chihuahua City" (and the others) should stay is because that is how people already naturally disambiguate Chihuahua, the city (and the others). It's literally the exact same reason as New York City, which--I don't need to remind you--is usually just called "New York", and is officially called just "New York", and in a world where the state of New York were called, IDK, "Buffalonia", we would have the article on NYC at New York. But when people DO disambiguate it, whether orally or print, the most common way to do so is through the natural disambiguation of adding "City", just like with all the other worldwide examples I've given. No sources have been provided to counteract the loads of sources I've provided that show that, for at least some of these cities, "X City" is a very common way to disambiguate them when disambiguation is necessary. The United States Department of State does it. The biggest English-language newspaper that's close to any of these cities does it (and has for over a century--Wikipedia isn't to blame!). Chihuahua City itself does it. I've sourced all of these. I don't know what else you want. Red Slash 21:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’ve established that Chihuahua City is not as much of an aberration as the others on the list, but still no where near the vicinity of, say, New York City NATURALness. Whether it’s sufficient to meet the NATURAL threshold requirement of “commonly used” is a matter of opinion about both NATURAL and this particular case. I say no. —В²C ☎ 20:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to meet New York City's bar. What the proposers need to show is why Mexican cities should be treated differently than Philippine cities, African cities, Central American cities, Canadian cities, Middle Eastern cities, and more. I don't think any reason has been proposed for why cities in Mexico need parentheses to be disambiguated when literally every other city across the world with the same problem of needing to be disambiguated from its containing state uses natural disambiguation. Red Slash 19:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As my final (hopefully) take on this, I would remind the closer that it's not just for WP:NATURAL that the proposed move fails on, but also on an even more core article-title criterion: WP:CONSISTENT. I repeatedly asked the supporters of the move for an example of even one article across all of Wikipedia that follows their proposed scheme, where:

1. A city and its containing state (in the broad term of "state", including the country) have the same name, 2. The state has primary topic, and 3. The city is described at an article not titled X City.

I asked, I asked, I asked, and not even one example has come forth. (The only example listed anywhere in the discussion is Cork (city), which is a red herring because it's being disambiguated from wood, not from a state.) However, the examples that follow the current status quo are numerous:

1. Quebec City 2. Mexico City 3. Guatemala City 4. Djibouti City 5. Panama City 6. Luxembourg City 7. Kuwait City 8. Cebu City

And this is ignoring cities like Oklahoma City where you could argue that the name is actually Oklahoma City and not "Oklahoma". I only found one exception: the City of San Marino, not San Marino City--but note that even that isn't listed as San Marino (city).
All told, consistent naming practices are important at Wikipedia, and there's no reason for Mexican cities to be treated different than African, Canadian, European, Middle Eastern or Asian cities. If you won't accept WP:NATURAL, accept at least WP:CONSISTENT. Red Slash 19:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cork (city) is not a red herring. The wood has nothing to do with why it’s not at Cork City. The reason it’s not at Cork City is because it’s not commonly called that. What are red herrings are any of your counter-examples using Name City that are common names for the respective cities, like Quebec City. As to genuine counter-examples, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. This proposal is about these cities. We’ll get to fixing the others soon enough. —В²C ☎ 06:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it's not at Cork City is because... a vocal Irish caucus stood up and said, "No, you don't". Unfortunately, w:en doesn't appear to have a similarly vocal Mexican caucus. Cork (city) isn't as unlike Chihuahua (city) as Red Slash claims. Cork is a dab page (material, bottle stopper, places in Ireland &c) in the same way that Chihuahua is: dog, desert, places in Mexico and Uruguay, &c: the state doesn't have primary-topic position. Wikipedia has a lot of Japanese cities disambiguated from their surrounding prefectures as [[XXXX (city)]] — Yamagata (city), Wakayama (city), Fukushima (city) — in the exact same way that Chihuahua (city) would stand with repect to Chihuahua (state). WP:CONSISTENT is nice, but it shouldn't be allowed to trump — or skew — predominant real-world usage. Moscow Mule (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two full weeks after I made my first plea for a single real-world example, someone has finally responded and said that apparently Japanese city articles follow the plan of the proposer (how analogous prefectures are to states is a question best left to someone more informed than me to answer). So, it appears that every country in the world except one follows the pattern I listed above, the pattern that this RM seeks to break. Red Slash 19:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil was lucky, or correct, back in the early wp days when they decided their cities — and not the states, as it appears Mexico did — would get primary-topic position. Otherwise we'd be including São Paulo City and Rio de Janeiro City in the list of examples. Argentina side-stepped the problem by putting (eg) the capital of the province of La Rioja (ditto Mendoza, Córdoba, Santa Fe et al.) at La Rioja, Argentina: not WP:CONSISTENT with other Argentine cities (and probably not great as a disambiguator from the province), but far less contentious than the current discussion here. Not a La Rioja City in sight. Moscow Mule (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an open question which is more notable, the city or the state. It took Wikipedia over a decade to decide that NYS didn't have primary topic over NYC. Honestly, some of these (Colima?) could probably be settled the same direction as Brazilian cities. Red Slash 19:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much a red herring. Obviously, it's not at Cork City because it's not called that. The reason it's not called "Cork City" is that in normal speech, you don't have to disambiguate Cork from the wood in the same way you do have to disambiguate cities from states. That is why it's not a valid comparison. A casual look at the first subsection of Quebec City will show you that the actual name of the city is "Québec" and that it only takes on the word "City" for purposes of real-world natural disambiguation from the province it's located in that somewhat confusingly shares a name with; this is just like Aguascalientes City, and very different from Cork. Red Slash 19:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a need to disambiguate from County Cork which is also sometimes called just Cork, including in the WP article about it. Perfectly analogous to these cases. —В²C ☎ 19:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. To be consistent with Kano (city). I see no reason why cities can't have parenthetical disambiguation like any other type of articles. It is also more natural to have State of New York or New York state, but we don't do it in those cases because that's not the common name. Following the same logic, we shouldn't do it here. Vpab15 (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I understand and appreciate the arguments on both sides, but it seems clear that the "X City" form is indeed demonstrably in use and meets the requirement for not being, as WP:NATURAL puts it, "obscure or made-up". My search through various reliable sources (as noted) shows that it's repeatedly used across many such sources. As such, I don't see a sufficient basis for considering the parenthetical clarifier to be preferable for these articles, particularly given some of the other pertinent rationales that have been raised (such as consistency with our titling of many other like articles in other areas). ╠╣uw [talk] 13:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer: What was noted was evidence for “Chihuahua City” not being “obscure or made-up”, and we can certainly agree to disagree about that one. But that argument has not been made for the others. —В²C ☎ 18:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer: absolutely NO evidence in favor of moving any of these cities has been offered, period. Red Slash 04:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    B2C: I think you misunderstand where the burden lies: a claim should be supported with evidence when it's made, not merely asserted and assumed until someone else takes the time to verify it. Again per Newspapers.com, we can check "Oaxaca City" and see that it appears in hundreds of English language news articles from across the US and Canada. Below is a sampling from the first few pages of results:
Extended content
  • "Oaxaca City, Mexico — With its towering cathedral, stately trees and many cafes..." —The Los Angeles Times, 25 July 2016 [18]
  • "Beyond Monte Albán and Oaxaca City, Oaxaca's artisan culture is one of its strongest selling points." —The Spokesman-Review, 7 March 2021 [19]
  • "...teachers have occupied a plaza in Oaxaca City since May." —The Los Angeles Times, 25 July 2016 [20]
  • "Works of six contemporary printmakers from Oaxaca City, Mexico" —Albuquerque Journal, 20 October 2019 [21]
  • "The state in Southern Mexico — particularly its capital, Oaxaca City..." —The Olympian, 8 June 2018 [22]
  • "Visitors pose in front of a mural at the Contemporary Art Museum of Oxaca in Oaxaca City, Mexico. [The Seattle Times]." —The Desert Sun, 17 August 2014 [23]
  • "...indigenous people in colourful clothing come from the valleys and villages southeast of Oaxaca City..." —The Daily Herald-Tribune, 5 December 2014 [24]
  • "Balloon vendors abound in front of the 18th-century cathedral in downtown Oaxaca City." —Star Tribune, 3 August 2014 [25]
  • "...basketball team on Oct. 2 outside Oaxaca City, Oaxaca, Mexico." —South Florida Sun Sentinel, 17 October 2013 [26]
  • "...he left his parents in their home village to go to Oaxaca City..." —The Californian, 25 May 2019 [27]
  • "The barricade in Nochixtlan blocked the main highway linking Oaxaca City, the state capital, and Mexico City." —San Angelo Standard-Times, 14 August 2016 [28]
  • "Mexican artist and activist known as 'El Maestro'... died Sept. 5 at his home in Oaxaca City." —Portland Press Herald, 10 September 2019 [29]
  • "Tlacolulokos comprises Cosijoesa Cernas, 25, and Dario Canul, 31, based near Oaxaca City in southern Mexico." —The Los Angeles Times, 24 September 2017 [30]
  • "Oaxaca City is moderated by a higher elevation." —Quesnel Cariboo Observer, 8 March 2019 [31]
  • "Oaxaca City's Macedonio Alcala pedestrian street at sunset." —The Spokesman Review, 19 July 2020 [32]
  • "'...people were calling for help,' recalled Sanchez, speaking softly in her home here, 56 miles northeast of Oaxaca City." —Los Angeles Times, 6 August 2016 [33]
Again, the form is demonstrably not obscure or made-up. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t be silly. The only evidence supporting that a given name is not natural is the inability to find evidence supporting that it is natural. That means the burden of finding evidence regarding whether a given name is natural must always be on those whose position is the name is natural. That’s not unfair or unreasonable because if a name is truly natural then finding supporting evidence should be trivial, by definition. Whether presenting a few cherry-picked examples of usage of the name constitutes sufficient evidence that that name is natural is a matter of opinion. I note that the ngram usage ratios for Name/Name City for Oaxaca, New York and Oklahoma are 60:1, 20:1 and 10:1 respectively. Also the obscure reference at natural is but a condition. If the rule said “be nice, don’t kill” that doesn’t make slugging someone is compliant with the rule. In this case the rule is “use commonly used names; not obscure names”. That doesn’t mean all you have to do to comply is show it’s not obscure. Not obscure is a necessary but not sufficient condition to meet natural; it has to be commonly used. —-В²C ☎ 20:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And evidence shows it to be commonly used. Here's a bunch more, easily found:
Extended content

Newspapers:

  • "Oaxaca City celebrates life drawn from landscape and past ages" —Star-Phoenix, 2 February 2009 [34]
  • "Local news media reported damage to some buildings in the state capital, Oaxaca City." (AP) —The Naples Daily News, 24 June 2020 [35]
  • "...many hills surrounding the valley of Oaxaca City" —The Independent Record, 1 April 2010 [36]
  • "...pyramids and plazas near Oaxaca City." —Arizona Daily Star, 25 April 2010 [37]
  • "There's loud, glittering and elegant Oaxaca City, with a bustling colonial center." —Standard-Speaker, 9 May 2010 [38]
  • "...on their way from Guatemala to points north - Acapulco and Oaxaca City." —Calgary Herald, 24 February 2007 [39]
  • "...six contemporary printmakers from Oaxaca City" —The Santa Fa New Mexican, 3 January 2020 [40]
  • "We're a half-hour's drive south of Oaxaca City (pronounced waha-ca)..." —Edmonton Journal, 21 February 2009.
  • "Robert Irvine sends four chefs to their first virtual stop, Oaxaca City, Mexico..." —The Ottawa Citizen, 29 April 2022 [41]
  • "...who lives in Tlcolula de Matamoros, 20 miles east of Oaxaca City" —Sun-Journal, 10 April 2021 [42]

Scholarly articles:

  • "Women's Work and Social Network Use in Oaxaca City, Mexico", Bulletin of Latin American Research [43]
  • "Cognitive Models of Fetility Decine in Oaxaca City, Mexico", Population and Environment [44]
  • "Studying Housing Areas in a Developing Nation: Lessons From Oaxaca City, Mexico", Housing and Society [45]
  • "Migrants To And In Oaxaca City", UAS [46]
  • "Portraits of a Lady: Visions of Modernity in Porfirian Oaxaca City", Mexican Studies [47]
  • "Domestic Service and Women's Agency in Oaxaca City, Mexico", City & Society [48]
  • "Gender, Poverty and Social Capital: The Case of Oaxaca City, Mexico", The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty [49]
  • "Negotiating dualisms: Women, locality and employment opportunities in Oaxaca City, Mexico", Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography [50]
  • "The Renaissance of Oaxaca City's Historical Archives", Latin American Research Review [51]
No need, I think, to beat that horse any further. Given everything above, I don't consider the proposed changes necessary or desirable. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the end all NATURAL says is that even if a natural disambiguation exists, it is merely “sometimes preferred” to parenthetic disambiguation. In these cases I think parentheti disambiguation is helpful and desirable, though I agree it’s not necessary. However, no title meets the necessary bar vs any viable alternative, so that’s moot. —В²C ☎ 15:03, 18 February 2023 (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.

Move review for Aguascalientes City, et al[edit]

@Moscow Mule, 162 etc., AjaxSmack, Ortizesp, Rreagan007, Infrogmation, Necrothesp, Vpab15, and Huwmanbeing: An editor has asked for a Move review of the multiple Aguascalientes City move discussion above, so RM-involved editors and others here may want to participate. --В²C ☎ 05:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aguascalientes_(city)&oldid=1216966149"