This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Actually it is not a proper name, so I think you should move it back.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Maunus: If it is not, then what is the name of the state in English? Maybe Tarascan Empire, like Inca Empire, Aztec Empire? If "state" is not part of the name, it should be "Tarascan (state)" - but I doubt that "Tarascan" is a noun and not an adjective. Eldizzino (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
It's kind of an ad hoc term, there is no established proper name for the political unit "Iréchecua Tzintzuntzáni" in English. It was not an empire so that is not possible. The few sources about it does use the description "Tarascan state", but I don't think I would consider it a proper noun in the sense of being the name of the Tarascan state.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Maunus: An expert for the state or for capitalization rules for geographical names? Does ad-hoc-ness matter for capitalization? Eldizzino (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
An expert in the Tarascan state. And yes ad hoc-ness matters for capitalization because proper names are by definition not ad hoc. If published texts on the state do ont capitalize then there is on reason why we should.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Maunus: So, Pollard is out. Have you ever heard of the Chicago Manual of Style? Have you ever read the sections relevant for capitalization of geographical names? Look around in Wikipedia, the CMoS rules are used for almost all geographical objects, no matter how ad-hoc a name is. Eldizzino (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No Pollard is not out. Pollard is the main authority we follow. Also on the capitalization. If the editor's of her books an article do not capitalize then neither do we. And please ditch the condescenscion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style does not say that Pollard should be followed. And If the editor's of her books an article do not capitalize then neither do we. makes not sense - the state is not a book. Eldizzino (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
As for the Chicago Manual it says "Under 7.40 in the 14th edition, words such as “city” and “state” “are capitalized when they are used as an accepted part of the proper name.” and it says "Governmental entities: Where the government rather than the place is meant, the words state, city, and the like are usually capitalized." ."Tarascan state" is not a proper name (in the same way that Denmark is a proper name and "the Danish state" is not) and it refers to the place not the government and hence is not capitalized in full accordance with Chicago style.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If what you claim would be true and "Tarascan state" is not a proper name - why is the content not located under a proper name for that entity? There is no content for the link "Danish state" but a whole article is located at Denmark? Could it be that this article is the only one in Wikipedia about a territorial entity that is not located under the proper name for that entity? Happy to see more examples. Eldizzino (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Have you ever heard about title case? Wikipedia doesnt use it but the journal American Antiquity does, as you can see if you look at the abstract where it is not capitalized in the running text.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If you "take that as yes" then quite honestly you are an idiot since 1. that is clearly not what I mean and 2. she capitalizes it in title case, which wikipedia doesnt use, but not in the actual text as I mentioned.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, happy to be an idiot by your definition. Could you enlighten the readers and say what you mean if not "the last S is a capital S"? Eldizzino (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Speaking of imperio, the Spanish article is called es:Imperio purépecha. (Tarascan and Purépecha seem to be two names for the same language). And the infobox calls it es:Imperio de Tzintzuntzan. Those who consider this entity to be an empire will be happy to see the English article Purépecha Empire, which seems like it should be a redirect to this one. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Strong Oppose'. 1. It was not an empire, in any sense of the word. 2. the literature calls about it calls it "the Tarascan state". 3. What Spanish Wikipedia calls it is irrelevant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment I think, more irrelevant than the Spanish Wikipedia is what a single Wikipedia editor thinks is true ("It was not an empire, in any sense of the word"), because that is WP:OR. I gave a google search link, you didn't comment on the results from there. So, here are some of the book sources:
"During the Late Postclassic period the Tarascan Empire was the second largest in Mesoamerica" in Chapter 30 named "THE TARASCAN EMPIRE"  (Tarascan Empire 15 times, Tarascan state 7 times)
"Driving Adventure: Michoacan: Touring the Tarascan Empire" By William J. Conaway  (a tourist guidebook, not written by a specialist, not about the precolombian state = not RS)
"The Tarascan empire was at that time the second largest empire in Mesoamerica" 
"Tarascan empire" in The Sounds and Colors of Power: The Sacred Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico MIT Press  (Tarascan Empire 4 times, Tarascan state 7 times)
"Tarascan Empire" in Preindustrial Copper Production at the Archaeological Zone of Itziparatzico, a Tarascan Location in Michoacan, Mexico  (uses Tarascan state (not capitalized) 19 times and Tarascan Empire 12 times)
No it is not OR when what a single wikipedia editor happens to be the on who has actually read the literature about the topic and bases their opinion on knowing what the fuck they are talking about instead of just doing a google search. It is sometimes called "the Tarascan empire" in a non-technical sense, but Pollard and other authorities are clear that it was not an empire because it was not expansionist and did not incorporate different ethnic groups. That is why she calls it the tarascan state, and why the majority of sources follow her. "Tarascan state" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and it is the accurate title, so There is no basis for renaming this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 Tarascan Empire 3 times, Tarascan state 13 times.
 Tarascan empire 2 times, Tarascan state 3 times.
Google Book hits: "Tarascan state" 546 hits, "Tarascan empire" 323 hits.
Google Scholar hits: "Tarascan state" 385 hits, "Tarascan empire" 229 hits.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
With that many hits for Tarascan Empire/Tarascan empire your stick to the above "It was not an empire, in any sense of the word"? Eldizzino (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Pollard, H. P. (2008). A model of the emergence of the Tarascan State. Ancient Mesoamerica, 19(02), 217-230.
Pollard, H. P. (1980). Central places and cities: a consideration of the protohistoric Tarascan state. American Antiquity, 677-696.
Pollard, H. P. (1993). Tariacuri's Legacy: The Prehispanic Tarascan State. University of Oklahoma Press.
Pollard, H. P. (1982). Ecological variation and economic exchange in the Tarascan state. American Ethnologist, 9(2), 250-268.
Pollard, H. P. (1991). The construction of ideology in the emergence of the prehispanic Tarascan state. Ancient Mesoamerica, 2(02), 167-179.
Maldonado, B. E. (2008). A tentative model of the organization of copper production in the Tarascan state. Ancient Mesoamerica, 19(02), 283-297.
Haskell, D. L. (2008). The Cultural Logic of Hierarchy in the Tarascan State. Ancient Mesoamerica, 19(02), 231-241.
Hirshman, A. J., & Ferguson, J. R. (2012). Temper mixture models and assessing ceramic complexity in the emerging Tarascan state. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39(10), 3195-3207.
Versluis, V. A. (2001). The iconography of the protohistoric Tarascan state of Western Mexico: the material expression of the state ideology. UMI Dissertation Services; Bell & Howell.
Fisher, C. T. (2009). Landscape and the Tarascan state: labor, intensification, and land degradation. Polities and Power: Archaeological Perspectives on the Landscapes of Early States. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 80-98.
Gorenstein, S., & Pollard, H. P. (1980). The Development of the Protohistoric Tarascan State. photocopied report to the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: Troy, New York 1980).
Haskell, D. L. (2003). History and the Construction of Hierarchy and Ethnicity in the Prehispanic Tarascan State: A Syntagmatic Analysis of the Relación de Michoacán (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida). Note that it is only capitalized when in title case.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
CommentUser:Maunus claims Note that it is only capitalized when in title case. Now looking at the data, one sees it different, right in the first line: "A model of the emergence of the Tarascan State.". Eldizzino (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
CommentIt is sometimes called "the Tarascan empire" in a non-technical sense - this assertion seems to be WP:OR by User:Maunus. Eldizzino (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Whereas your misrepresentation of random google results is what exactly? Actually, don't bother to answer. I've presented sufficient arguments and evidence here that a closer will see that there is no basis for changing the title or capitalization - and so I shall not waste further time argueing with you.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Could you enlighten the readers and provide evidence for 1) there were "random google results" used by me and 2) "misrepresentation" of these? Eldizzino (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
CommentUser:Maunus claims without source provided, (WP:OR?): "did not incorporate different ethnic groups". Now looking at , a source s/he provided one another occasion, one finds: "This was the Tarascan state [...] peopled by ethnic groups of matlazincas, tecos, mazahuas, otomíes, chontales, nahuas". Eldizzino (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.