Talk:Aparri

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Requested move edit

The following discussion is an archived 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: page moved. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply



Aparri, CagayanAparri – The municipality is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Aparri" (it is actually the only topic here in Wikipedia with the precise name of "Aparri" as of this move request). seav (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The statement above is the main reason for the move (so that the listing at WP:RM is short) but here is an extensive argument to further support the move.

In addition to being the primary (only) topic, the simple name "Aparri" best meets the article title policy. As stated in the policy, we have 5 criteria:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.)
  • Concision – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. (See § Concision, below.)
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. (See § Consistent titling, below.)

I think there is no debate that "Aparri" by itself is recognizable already, helped especially by the lyrics of a popular noontime variety show's theme song. "Aparri" by itself is also naturally used as evidenced by Google Books results. Per the precision criterion (also WP:PRECISE), "Aparri" by itself is already precise enough. Making it more precise by adding the province name is superfluous. Per the conciseness criterion, "Aparri" by itself is no longer than necessary. And per WP:CONCISE, "Aparri" is already recognizable, so having a longer name would then not meet WP:CONCISE.

It is only the consistency criterion that may favor the longer title since Philippine municipalities currently have the format "<municipality name>, <province name>" as suggested by the WP:MOSPHIL naming convention, but it should be noted that Philippine cities, which are at the same administrative level as municipalities, are at the base "<city name>" title format, unless disambiguation is needed. Furthermore, other place name articles in Wikipedia do not have a problem with articles not having the same title format, such as the communes of Chevry, Ain and Cleyzieu in the department of Ain in France. This is the practice in almost all countries of the world (with the notable exception of the United States and Japan).

In addition, there is precedent in this kind of move against naming conventions. For example, Chicago, Illinois was moved to Chicago before WP:USPLACE adopted the AP stylebook exception list, and Ballarat, Victoria was moved to Ballarat before the Australian place naming conventions abandoned the comma convention. Here in the Philippines, we have 2 recent successful municipality article title move requests: Banaue, IfugaoBanaue and Sagada, Mountain ProvinceSagada. —seav (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Support per above arguments. Pointless disambiguation whose sole purpose is to comply with a convention that no longer has consensus support. --RioHondo (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
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.

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Aparri. 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) 08:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply