Talk:Ancestral Puebloans#Requested move 5 May 2025

More eyes are needed on a redirect/move of Ancestral Puebloans to a new title, Ancestral Pueblos]] without prior discussion. Diff: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancestral_Pueblos&diff=1288797214&oldid=1278388470]. The article talk page history has several previous discussions about renaming (moving to a new title) from Anasazi to Ancestral Puebloans, and another discussion about moving the article from Ancient Pueblo people to Ancestral Puebloans. There was no discussion I can find about moving it now to Ancestral Pueblos. Netherzone (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

This page's move history has been Anasazi -> Ancestral Puebloans -> Ancestral Pueblos, mirroring the similar Encyclopedia Britannica titles changes of Anasazi -> Ancestral Puebloans -> Ancestral Pueblo culture. The Wikipedia page for Puebloans was moved to Pueblo peoples. Since Pueblo peoples is the main article, renaming Ancestral Puebloans to Ancestral Pueblo peoples is a noncontroversial administrative procedure according to the principles underlying WP:C2D: Consistency with main article's name. An alternative considered was Ancestral Pueblo culture, in line with the Encyclopedia Britannica article, but that would slightly narrow the scope of the article and so was discarded. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Puebloans%2CPueblos&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not the dated and niche term Puebloan]. --Plumber (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Encyclopedia Britannica is not the ultimate authority, and they do not dictate Wikipedia's guidelines. There have been many discussions about the article title, which were not taken into consideration when you acted (and are now are changing multiple articles to your own preferred version without discussion). The majority of sources use Ancestral Puebloans. Example: [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Ancestral+Pueblos%2CAncestral+Puebloans%2CAncestral+Pueblo+culture&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3] File:Ancestral Puebloans Screenshot 2025-05-04 at 9.28.15 PM.png Your redirect renamed the article and moved it to another title without prior discussion and without taking previous discussions into account, which would have been both best practices and considerate of the community. You do not have consensus to make this change.

:*Oppose User:Plumber's unilateral decision to redirect/move/title change of this article without community consensus.

:Netherzone (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::The above user was repeatedly explained the move was not a unilateral decision. The above user is aware and is ignoring that discussion already took place at Talk:Pueblo peoples. Pueblo peoples was renamed from Puebloans. Renaming other articles about Pueblo peoples falls under the original discussion per WP:C2D. There are no factual disputes among editors — the Pueblo peoples pages was renamed because Puebloans is not the WP:COMMONNAME as an adjective nor as a noun. Plumber (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Please do not put words in my mouth, Plumber. Firstly, that discussion did not have much participation, it was closed due to "minimal participation". What I said was: {{tq|However as to the antecedents of the Pueblo people, the term "Ancestral Puebloan" or "Ancient Puebloan" is used more frequently used than Ancient Pueblo People, so I think that article Ancestral Puebloans (formerly called the Anasazi) should remain intact for now.}} Just look at the N-gram above to see how much more frequently Ancestral Puebloans is used - it's the common name for the ancestral people - there are many, many solid academic and popular sources that back this up. The places where these peoples lived were ancestral pueblos, not the people themselves the COMMONNAME for the peoples are Ancestral Puebloans according to sources, which is what we go by. Netherzone (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You displayed no evidence to back up your incorrect claims. Pueblo is the adjective and noun, while Puebloan is a dated term no longer in use even amongst anthropologists and archaeologists. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Puebloans%2CPueblos&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not the dated and niche term Puebloan]. Plumber (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::If anthropologists and archaeologists are no longer using the term, then why are there over a thousand hits on JSTOR for "Ancestral Puebloans" in recent research publications? Netherzone (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Please be serious. Those works were published when the term was in vogue in academia. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Puebloans%2CPueblos&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not the dated and niche term Puebloan]. --Plumber (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: this is a contested move, {{strikethrough|{{u|Plumber}} should move it back to its stable title}}, and then discussion about the proposed move can commence. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC) (EC) I forgot that there's a place to request reversion of an undiscussed move, so [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=prev&oldid=1288857873 I have filed there]. --Pinchme123 (talk)
• Comment: I thought it was Ancestral Pueblo peoples at one point, which would be the best name. It would be clearer than Ancestral Pueblos, which sounds like it's about the settlements/governments as opposed to the peoples themselves. Yuchitown (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The move happened after an RM discussion in 2015 (see a section above, numbered 3.1 in ToC). --Pinchme123 (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::There have been four RM discussions here and one on Talk:Pueblo peoples. The outcome in 3 of them favor [Pueblo over Puebloan, one favors the dated term Puebloan, and one favors the dated and derogatory term Anasazi. The latest outcome favors Pueblo over Puebloan per WP:COMMONNAME and the principles of WP:C2D. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Puebloans%2CPueblos&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not the dated and niche term Puebloan]. Plumber (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That's a reasonable title, but it might imply the Ancestral Pueblo peoples are more different to contemporary Pueblo peoples than is so. Given the recent DNA evidence confirming oral history links to Chaco Canyon, that may be a step too far. But it is an acceptable title using the WP:COMMONNAME noun Pueblo rather than the dated and niche term Puebloan. Plumber (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I have requested all of the following undiscussed moves to be reverted (these are the current, undiscussed titles): Ancestral Pueblo dwellings, List of Ancestral Pueblo dwellings in New Mexico, List of Ancestral Pueblo dwellings in Arizona, Template:Ancestral Pueblo Periods. This is all clearly the same terminology discussion, so it's best to keep it all in one place, yeah? --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The discussion already took place at Talk:Pueblo peoples. Pueblo peoples was renamed from Puebloans. Renaming other articles about Pueblo peoples falls under the original discussion per WP:C2D. There are no factual disputes among editors — the Pueblo peoples pages was renamed because Puebloans is not the WP:COMMONNAME as an adjective. Plumber (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::This is quite disingenuous for several reasons. First, the one other participant your Move Request garnered, {{u|Netherzone}} specifically stated their opposition to moving "Ancestral Puebloans" for specified terminology reasons. So C2D does not apply, as they are likely termed differently by content experts. Second, as you are very well aware, discussions on one article do not automatically hold for other articles, particularly when those other articles were not mentioned in the discussion. The fact that this article was mentioned, specifically as a case that would be opposed, shows that discussion (with only one other user participating) cannot hold for all these distinct articles.
• ::But also, it is really unfortunate you have stated {{tq|The above user was repeatedly explained the move was not a unilateral decision}} above. I am assuming this is your repeating statements on your talk when Netherzone brought his opposition there. The discussion you're talking about only included you and them, and their specific comment in the discussion opposed moving "Ancestral Puebloans", so it is completely inappropriate to characterize that as not your "unilateral decision".
• ::And then, in another comment, you state {{tq|There have been four RM discussions here and one on Talk:Pueblo peoples.}} Since you are aware of past discussions, you are also aware that they are chronological, with the last one (having occurred 10 years ago) holding precedent. This page has sat at "Ancestral Puebloans" for 10 years, changing this requires more than a poor pointing to C2D.
• ::--Pinchme123 (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Plumber, you did not have consensus to make these bold moves. Ancestral Puebloans has been the stable version for a long time. Please kindly read the talk pages and comments of others rather than forcing a discussion to go your way. That's how collaboration works. Netherzone (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::There was no consensus behind the incorrect claim Puebloan is used for Ancestral Pueblo peoples. One person stating an incorrect opinion while supporting a name change does not mean Wikipedia is bound to uphold that mistaken opinion. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Puebloans%2CPueblos&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not the dated and niche term Puebloan]. Plumber (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The consensus extends from the last Move Request, which found this consensus, followed by 10 years of title and terminology stability on this page. See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Claiming otherwise, especially without specific sources (you have provided non showing content experts explaining "Ancestral Puebloan" as unacceptable, while Netherzone has provide metaanalysis showing it's quite commonplace) is patently absurd. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::The only absurdity here is ignoring WP:COMMONNAME when [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Pueblos%2CPuebloans&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Pueblos is clearly the common name, not Puebloans]. No one would seriously argue the Ancient Greeks should be called the Ancient Grecians, citing Ode on a Grecian Urn. --Plumber (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Plumber, that n-gram link contains inaccuracies. To compare Puebloans to Pueblos is an unsound argument, since Pueblos can also mean dwellings, villages, structures, sovereign nations, ruins and more in addition to the people/cultures. It's an inaccurate comparison. Netherzone (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: because Plumber chose to contest the reversions at the Technical requests noticeboard for page moves, they are now at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests. It would probably be better to join that discussion there, to have the previously-stable versions reinstated, so that proper Move discussion(s) can take place. --Pinchme123 (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - the modern, and living people are referred to as Pueblo peoples (or Puebloans), the dead ancient peoples who were the predecessors were the Ancestral Puebloans according to hundreds of reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Yesterday, an editing spree occurred when dozens of articles were changed to one editor's preferred version without first gaining the consensus of the community. For example, templates were changed, multiple article's contents were changed and several articles were renamed/moved/redirected without prior discussion - even though a discussion was taking place on the editor's talk and in several other venues including this one. These changes also introduced ambiguities, such as changing the Tiwa Puebloans to Tiwa Pueblo peoples. Tiwa is a language spoken by Puebloan people across several pueblo villages (sovereign nations), AND there is no such place as Tiwa Pueblo. This is confusing. Please get consensus first before such mass sweeping changes, as this is creating a lot of work for other editors, and are introducing errors. This is a request that the editor undo the mass changes across the encyclopedia and use the article talk pages first. Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::These are in line with the discussion on Talk:Pueblo peoples per WP:C2D. Clearly you are unfamiliar with the Tiwa peoples if you honestly believe Tiwa Pueblo is a confusing term — it is a common term and the WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Puebloans%2CPueblos&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 the common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not the dated and niche term Puebloan]. I would recommend reading books by Joe S. Sando to learn more. Plumber (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::None of what you're saying applies to "Ancestral Puebloans". The move request at another page you keep pointing to was closed specifically as an undiscussed technical request. It alone would have very little weight in this discussion on those grounds, even if it wasn't also true that the participant who did chime in in support specifically stated they would not support this move. It also fails C2D because Pueblo peoples is not the main page for this or any of the others you moved. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::This page is about the ancestors of the Pueblo peoples. The common adjective and noun is Pueblo, not Puebloans. Drawing an arbitrary distinction between them contradicts the [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08791-9#citeas DNA evidence], oral testimony, and archeological and anthropological evidence found throughout the article.We do not call the Ancient Greeks the Ancient Grecians, for example. --Plumber (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Pinchme123 is correct, and it gets to the crux of the problem. Let me frame that by saying there is a content dispute, we all know that's business as usual on Wikipedia, and content disputes are in large part and rightfully settled through discussions leading to consensus. There is another problem which I reiterate because I'm not sure it is being heard by some, that being that after the content dispute discussion was raised in the past 24 hours, the editor went on to rapidly change dozens of articles and templates, and even renaming/redirecting/moving several articles to their preferred name or wording. This is not an ideal or community-minded way to go about resolving a content dispute, and the changes were made without consensus. It creates a lot of work for other editors and is a time sink. Netherzone (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Agreed, the content dispute can be resloved civilly, but not when one party resorts to these sorts of practices. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Yes, and I've been now followed onto Commons. Not cool. Netherzone (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I have created a move request below. --Plumber (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated|Ancestral Pueblo peoples}}

:Ancestral Puebloans → {{no redirect|Ancestral Pueblo peoples}} – The WP:COMMONNAME is Pueblo peoples, not Puebloans: [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Pueblos%2CPuebloans&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Google Ngram shows Pueblos is orders of magnitude more common.] Additionally, [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=ancestral+pueblo+peoples&so=rel there are 6,544 results on JSTOR for Ancestral Pueblo peoples,] but only [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=ancestral+puebloans&so=rel 1,334 results for Ancestral Puebloans]. Furthermore, [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08791-9#citeas DNA evidence confirms Pueblo oral history linking them to the Ancestral Pueblo peoples.] This move request was prompted by a discussion located in the preceding section. There have been multiple other move requests for this page: 1, 2, 3, 4. The majority of them favored the term Pueblo over Puebloan. The most recent move discussion from ten years ago cited the number of Google Scholar hits, but there are [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C32&q=Ancestral+Pueblo+peoples&btnG= 51,300 hits on Google Scholar for "Ancestral Pueblo peoples"] and only [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C32&q=Ancestral+Puebloans&btnG= 19,800 hits] for "Ancestral Puebloans". This page was once named Ancient Pueblo peoples, a similar name. Plumber (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• In case this request actually stays open, I'll formally chime in that I Oppose all moves from "Ancestral Puebloan" to "Ancestral Pueblo peoples". "Pueblo peoples" and "Ancestral Puebloans" are terminologically distinct in the literature, as shown by commenters above. In this context, "Pueblo peoples" (which was moved to this title as an undiscussed technical move) is not the "main" article for terminology related to "Ancestral Puebloans". I will also note that there has been no sources provided to support this move (again, "Ancestral Puebloans", not "Pueblo peoples"), but there was the last Move Request and 10 years of stability on the side of keeping this title as is. --Pinchme123 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC) To add to my vote, I have never once seen an experienced editor refer to past Move Requests in the collective, as if some majority of them hold sway. Move Requests are chronological and reflect changing consensus (or not). In the case here, the most recent Move Request affirmed consensus for the current title, which has remained stable for 10 years. That's 10 years of WP:EDITCON. Pinchme123 (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• No sources? [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Pueblos%2CPuebloans&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Google Ngram shows Pueblos is orders of magnitude more common.] Additionally, [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=ancestral+pueblo+peoples&so=rel there are 6,544 results on JSTOR for Ancestral Pueblo peoples], but only [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=ancestral+puebloans&so=rel 1,334 results for Ancestral Puebloans]. The most recent move discussion from ten years ago cited the number of Google Scholar hits, but there are [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C32&q=Ancestral+Pueblo+peoples&btnG= 51,300 hits on Google Scholar for "Ancestral Pueblo peoples"] and only [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C32&q=Ancestral+Puebloans&btnG= 19,800 hits] for "Ancestral Puebloans". Furthermore, [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08791-9#citeas DNA evidence confirms Pueblo oral history linking them to the Ancestral Pueblo peoples]. WP:COMMONNAME is clear. --Plumber (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Nowhere in WP:COMMONNAME does it have any reference to DNA or other markers to determine how scholars are using terms. We follow content experts on Wikipedia. The JSTOR results you've provided are deeply disingenuous and On JSTOR, the relevant searches are for full phrases, using quotations. Searching "Ancestral Pueblo people" (which picks up results of both "people" and "peoples") [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query="ancestral+pueblo+people"&so=rel returns 142 results]; searching "Ancestral Puebloans" (to be absolutely sure the results refer to people) [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query="ancestral+puebloans"&so=rel returns 255 results]. Expanding to "Ancestral Puebloan" [https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query="ancestral+puebloan"&so=rel returns 1330 results]. And with this response, I take my leave. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• That n-gram is not the right comparison, [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Ancestral+Pueblos%2CAncestral+Puebloans%2CAncestral+Pueblo+culture%2C+Ancestral+Pueblo+people&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 this one is], it compares Ancestral Puebloans with Ancestral Pueblos, with Ancestral Pueblo culture with Ancestral Pueblo people: [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Ancestral+Pueblos%2CAncestral+Puebloans%2CAncestral+Pueblo+culture%2C+Ancestral+Pueblo+people&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3] - showing that Ancestral Puebloans is in fact "orders of magnitude greater" and is in more common usage. Netherzone (talk)
• :WP:COMMONNAME and the principle of WP:C2D are clear. [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Pueblos%2CPuebloans%2CAncestral+Puebloans&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Pueblos is clearly the common name in English, with "Puebloans" being far less common. "Ancestral Puebloans" is even rarer, and is only half as common as "Puebloans"]. There are nearly five times more JSTOR articles on "Ancestral Pueblo peoples" than "Ancestral Puebloans", and 2.6x more Google scholar articles on the same. --Plumber (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose move from Ancestral Puebloans to Ancestral Pueblo Peoples which is the COMMONNAME and is in much greater usage in reliable sources. There have been many discussions on the article talk page throughout many years, and through consensus decided upon Ancestral Puebloans. It has been stable for ten years at that title, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Netherzone (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• The most recent move discussion from ten years ago cited the number of Google Scholar hits, but there are [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C32&q=Ancestral+Pueblo+peoples&btnG= 51,300 hits on Google Scholar for "Ancestral Pueblo peoples"] and only [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C32&q=Ancestral+Puebloans&btnG= 19,800 hits for "Ancestral Puebloans".] A new move is entirely appropriate. --Plumber (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That's interesting, however you need to put quotes around those search terms, otherwise it searches for each word independently. With quotes added I come up with 1,730 for "Ancestral Puebloans" [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C32&q=%22Ancestral+Puebloans%22&btnG=] and for "Ancestral Pueblo people" I get 265 hits: [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C32&q=%22Ancestral+Pueblo+peoples%22&btnG=] Netherzone (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Ok, I'm done traveling for the day and couldn't stay away, because something about this really bothers me. {{u|Plumber}}, can you please explain these series of notices to specific editors? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&diff=prev&oldid=1288959369], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RexxS&diff=prev&oldid=1288958308], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Montanabw&diff=prev&oldid=1288958549], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WBardwin&diff=prev&oldid=1288957082], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tillman&diff=prev&oldid=1288956972], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yuchitown&diff=prev&oldid=1288954994], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Intothatdarkness&diff=prev&oldid=1288959236], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uyvsdi&diff=prev&oldid=1288959990]? Each of these personally-noticed users appear to have participated in previous Move Requests (search their names in archives 3 and 4), and each opposed moving this page away from the now-proposed article title of "Ancestral Pueblo people" (or the very-similar "Ancestral Pueblo Peoples"). I do not see any personally-written pings to anyone else from any of the previous Move Requests in your edit history. I would also note that several of these personal notices specifically state "{{tq|Since you spoke up in favor on the term Ancestral Pueblo peoples}}" (many times with typos), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tillman&diff=prev&oldid=1288956972 in one] you state, "{{tq|Since you previously wrote favor on the term Ancestral Pueblo peoples rather than Puebloans}}". --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :If you wish to make a compelling case, talk about the Pueblos and WP:avoid personal remarks. Reaching out to participants in past discussions is standard practice in Wikipedia when new moves are discussed, especially since this comes after a period of several years. This is an important discussion, after all. No one in opposition to this move so far has displayed any proof in this section that Puebloans is the WP:COMMONNAME rather than Pueblos. Plumber (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Ancestral+Pueblos%2CAncestral+Puebloans%2CAncestral+Pueblo+culture%2C+Ancestral+Pueblo+people&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 Here is proof that the Ancestral Puebloans] is in fact the COMMONNAME [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Ancestral+Pueblos%2CAncestral+Puebloans%2CAncestral+Pueblo+culture%2C+Ancestral+Pueblo+people&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3]. It is also less ambiguous, and it has been the stable name of the article for ten years, as determined through several talk page discussions. And a reminder to please refrain from non-neutral canvassing, per WP:CANVAS and WP:INAPPNOTE. Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: I performed a few additional technical requests to revert undiscussed moves of Template:Ancestral Puebloan Periods, Ancestral Puebloan dwellings, List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in Arizona, and List of Ancestral Puebloan dwellings in New Mexico. For convenient reference, Special:Permalink/1289027077 has the discussion which took place at RM/TR. At your discretion, you might wish to add them to this RM (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves), or to create one or more separate RMs, depending on whether you anticipate that combining would avoid repetitive discussion of the same issues, or if separating would avoid trainwrecking over distinctions such as dwellings vs. people. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{admin help|answered=yes}}

(Pinging {{u|Plumber}} and {{u|Netherzone}})

User Plumber's activity on this Talk and elsewhere has been quite disruptive. I am leaving my computer for 2 weeks in a few hours and do not have the time to take a look, but their responses directly to me on their talk page give concern. They [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancestral_Puebloans&diff=prev&oldid=1288955437 archived an active discussion] about their undiscussed move that was reverted, while opening a Move Request to reinstate that discussion. This archiving also took off the last Move Request that was unarchived, which was being actively referenced in said discussion. After I reverted, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancestral_Puebloans&diff=prev&oldid=1288957360 rearchived most of the page again], including the last Move Request. When I warned them about this (making a mistake myself by linking to Ancestral Puebloans rather than this Talk), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APlumber&diff=1288958799&oldid=1288958599 they ultimately responded]: {{tq|I do not believe this warning applies to Talk Spaces, only to discussions in the main space. I have never before been warned for archiving a talk page in my nearly 20 years editing Wikipedia.}} (emphasis theirs, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Plumber&diff=next&oldid=1288962271 added here] after I had responded to their retort regarding my error). (How does one have a discussion in main space?) If they do not believe being disruptive on Talk pages does not warrant a warning for disruption, even after 20 years of experience, I'm not sure what to do. I don't know if this rises to the level of AN/I, though I suspect it does, but I also simply can't spend more time on this as I need to pack.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's your decision where to take this, if anywhere, when you get back. All I can say is requesting that single admin look at this is not appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Very well. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

There was overwhelming consensus to discuss a move that proved controversial, and the move was reverted. I created a new section accordingly. After an objection, the first section of this page was un-archived despite it being the 20th section of discussion out of 20. The other archives are all far shorter, in fact they are unusually short. This talk page is about the Ancestral Pueblo peoples, not about any specific user. --Plumber (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)