Talk:Cruzinha

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved for now. I notice a few places named Cruzinha in Brazil on Google Maps, but without any other articles, I'll leave any potential hatnoting and disambiguation for others as necessary. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Cruzinha, Cape Verde → Cruzinha – And content at Cruzinha deleted. Whichever the reason why Cruzinha and Cruzinha, Cape Verde were protected and moved (I checked it and in either case, the move was incorrect per our guides, and the protections were extreme when it was just one account who made the changes), WP:DAB is clear: at least one blue link per DAB page; and per WP:TWODABS this is the primary topic and a hatnote in reference to Minas Novas' town (or whatever it is) is enough. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 16:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"One account" vs. "multiple accounts" is not the criterion by which protection or non-protection is decided; one account which is as persistent about the vandalism as this person has been is an entirely valid reason to protect a page too. (And incidentally, the protection is now back off; while I intended it to only be a temporary "few days" thing, I see that I accidentally left it set to "infinite" instead, so I've now unprotected it again since I never meant for it to be anything but a temporary stop to an immediate problem.)

In addition, it takes more than just asserting that the one in Cape Verde is "primary topic" over the one in Brazil for that to be true; you need actual evidence to prove that the one in Cape Verde is primary. While I can't directly write the article about the Brazilian one by myself, since virtually all of the available sources about it are in Portuguese, it's clear that it's of at least comparable, and quite possibly larger, size and importance to the one in Cape Verde — looking at the two on Google Maps it's clear that the one in Brazil has far more buildings in it and covers a larger geographic area, and thus in all likelihood has a significantly larger population. Obviously just looking at a map isn't entirely definitive in and of itself, but it does mean that in the absence of more substantially sourced evidence we can't just arbitrarily decide that either one is more "primary" than the other.

And furthermore, disambiguation policy does not require that all of the articles to be disambiguated already exist; as long as there's a valid reason to believe there's some genuine confusion and as long as there's a blue link on the line to some related topic, WP:DAB is met even if the article on the topic itself is still waiting to be written. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the Brazilian district, which doesn't even have an article in the Portuguese Wikipedia, is "primary" when it is searched--I searched it and I get Cape Verde's links, with only this link about Brazil's, which denotes a copyvio here.

Per DAB, "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." (bold mine), and TWODABS "If a disambiguation page does not appear to be needed because there are only two articles with the same title (one of them a primary topic), but there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future, the {{about}} hatnote should be used to link to the disambiguation page. At the same time, the {{Only-two-dabs}} template should be added to the top of the disambiguation page, which will inform users that the page has only two ambiguous terms, and may be deleted if, after a period of time to allow readers and editors the opportunity to expand the disambiguation page, additional disambiguating terms are not found." If this is page is not moved back to Cruzinha, that page will eventually be deleted if there aren't other terms that are created or added, and due to this, the term creates enough ambiguity to exist as a DAB. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Move. We now only have one article titled "Cruzinha", and it's this one. The Brazilian district can be linked via a hat note. However, this article needs a lot of cleanup.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Contested deletion

This — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.19.127.165 (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

latitude: -17.2861568 longitude:-42.34650320000003

—187.11.198.188 (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. This article is about a settlement in Cape Verde, and the coordinates are correct. The Cruzinha in Brazil for which you've given coordinates is not currently the subject of an article on the English Wikipedia; if one is written, the coordinates will be included there. Deor (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)