Talk:Purépecha Empire

message: :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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Irechecua →  – The title of this article was recently moved without discussion from "Tarascan state" to "Irechecua"; however, irechecua seems to simply be the Purépecha word for "kingdom", and has minimal usage in English-language literature. Ngrams suggests that "Tarascan state" remains the most common name for the polity (), so I'm proposing a return to that nomenclature. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

text: tl;dr. I was referring to WP:SPA…obviously. Skimmed your meandering verbose WP:WALLOFTEXT and there certainly doesn’t seem to be anything good in that. DeCausa (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 February 2022 

message: Hi all – in the wake of my recent RM, I wanted to open up discussion about this article's title in a somewhat less formal way. I was overeager in rushing to the specific RM, and have since come to agree that it's inappropriate for us to use the term "Tarascan" in Wikivoice in the article's title; accordingly, I'd planned to withdraw my request, but since some !votes were cast in support of it, I didn't have the unanimous opposition I would have needed to be able to do so. Instead, I wanted to try to move the conversation out of the formalized RM space and into a more open conversation.
I'm still of the view that "Irechecua" is a suboptimal English title for the article – I also noticed that much of the opposition to my original proposal was based on the problems with "Tarascan state" as a title rather than outright support for "Irechecua", which suggests to me that I'm not alone in that perception. Therefore, the question I want to put out to the room is: what would your ideal title for this page be? My own preference at the moment is "Kingdom of Tzintzuntzan" – it's precise, it's used in scholarly sources, it's reflective of the state's endonym, and it's easy for laypeople to understand. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who made the seemingly ever controversial move to Irechecua, the reason I personally did not move it to Kingdom of Tzintzuntzan was because the capital was not always Tzintzuntzan, it was also sometimes Ihuatzio and Patzcuaro. The term Purepecha Empire or State would work in my opinion, as it does on Spanish wikipedia, but I can see the hesitancy there due to Purepecha apparently meaning 'commoner' in the Purepecha language. So I propose another idea, Uacusecha Empire/Kingdom/State, which was the name of the ruling dynasty, descended from Ticatame. Personally I'm also fine with Irechecua of course, but it seems not many are, so Uacusecha Empire is my proposition.261JAN (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

text: "Uacusecha Kingdom" has been used in a very few sources, but unfortunately WP:COMMONNAME prevents us from titling things just at our discretion. Fortunately, that same policy also supports our anti-Tarascan stance since it allows for alternatives if the most common title is problematic. Furthermore, I've become distrustful of Ngram since although "Kingdom of Tzintzuntzan" shows up frequently in books and papers it doesn't seem to show up at all on there. Although as previously discussed the capital wasn't always Tzintzuntzan, I still think it's fitting as an overall term. Anyway, what we do have, Purépecha Empire, is also a valid term making a sharp rise in the literature since the 2010s and is also the title adopted by the Spanish Wikipedia. Again, not perfect, but policy-wise it's the best fit. In any case, I imagine it's more frequent anyway than Kingdom of Tzintzuntzan. I still believe there should be a longer section discussing the names in which we can include all the alternatives. TangoFett (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm definitely amenable to Purépecha Empire as well; I've seen that term used fairly often myself and I think it would be recognizable. (As for the scope of the section: feel free to add any other alternatives you'd like. I opted not to create a comprehensive list of possible titles, since I feel like the open-ended format would better steer the discussion toward options with concrete support behind them, but if such a list would help people then I'd definitely welcome it.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

text: The way I see it, "Kingdom of Tzintzuntzan" (irechecua tzintzuntzani) would make the most sense if there were separate articles for the earlier kingdoms centered at Patzcuaro and Ihuatzio. I don't think this would be dissimilar from how we have an Ancient Egypt article and then separate ones for the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms. Understandably though, at least for the moment this isn't the case, and it might not even be the best approach given that to my understanding the same dynasty/government had continuity between the three capitals. So "Purepecha Empire" is probably the optimal solution, provided there's a line or two somewhere to discuss the endonym(s). It's relatively common, increasing in ubiquity, straightforward, and consistent with other articles on Wikipedia (for better or worse). The proposal of "Uacusecha Kingdom" solves a lot of problems and would also be internally consistent (reminds me of how we call it the Inka Empire) but I don't think is common enough (though there is some precedent) to work as the name for the article. The Uacusecha were part of the ethnic group today called the Purepecha though, and in those days they made up the majority of the nobility and ruling class of the kingdom, so ultimately I think it works despite Purepecha literally meaning commoner. Pooxel (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So, from the conversation so far, it appears that the "Purépecha Empire" title seems acceptable to everyone who's spoken up. Does anyone want to get the ball rolling on the formal page-moving process? I'm hesitant to do it myself – it feels a bit inappropriate given that I started the previous RM – but I'd love to see it happen while there's still a bit of momentum behind this conversation. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'll get on it. TangoFett (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Broader discussion on article title

message: :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. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Irechecua →  – Per previous discussions, this is the most policy-consistent and harm-reductive option available. To sum up the main points:
* The initial rename that attempted to solve this problem, Irechecua (while having historical basis & some academic usage), does not meet WP:COMMONNAME criteria and can't stay.
* Nevertheless, the previous title employs the word "Tarascan" which is generally considered to be a pejorative label by Purépecha communities: 1 2 3. WP:COMMONNAME likewise makes room for avoiding such problematic titles — even when the title is the most common — and this is further bolstered when taking the advice of Wikipedia:Slurs. It, too, can't stay.
* Ngram evidence (which is admittedly very limited in this scenario), while still having "Tarascan" at the top, shows a sharp rise in frequency in the late 2010s following changing social trends. As West Mexican archaeology in the English language still largely mirrors the Spanish literature, it's important to note that the Spanish Ngrams not only show Purépecha on top but it's 5 times as frequent as "Tarascan state" is in English.
**On the subject of Spanish academia — again, where the bulk of the research lies, this article's title in Spanish Wikipedia is already Imperio purépecha and has been for years.
Therefore Purépecha Empire, while the semantics of the endonym in this context could be debated, is nevertheless a form in common use by researchers and preferred by the subject ethnicity and the current article should be changed to this title. TangoFett (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 March 2022