Talk:Traffic in Metro Manila
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 July 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Too many non-free images that can be replaced with freely licensed ones
editThanks for creating the article, but please be informed that most of the images in the article are non-free photos from various sources, many that can be replaced by free images from Commons if possible. There are too many non-free images, in violation of WP:NFCC, which limits the use of non-free images here. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@Maxgrcia: Please reply. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 15 August 2017
edit- 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: not moved - as Andrewa says, nom kinda shot himself in the foot DrStrauss talk 18:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Traffic in Metro Manila → Traffic congestion in Metro Manila – The current article name as of my writing here, "Traffic in Metro Manila", is highly misleading. Based on most dictionaries, "traffic" is defined as "vehicles moving on a road or public highway" (per iPad's built-in electronic dictionary). Additional evidence is in the ff. articles: traffic and traffic congestion. This article should be renamed "Traffic congestion in Metro Manila" which reflects more accurately to the content and essence of this article. "Traffic in Metro Manila" reflects the common but erroneous usage of the term "traffic" to our society (I myself included, as I use "traffic" instead of "traffic congestion" for the convenience of my conversation to my friends). But here in Wikipedia, we should make the article name reflect to its content, without using colloquialism. This discussion might need some more additional comments. Thanks! JWilz12345 (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC) JWilz12345 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. AS nom has themselves said, this is the common name. We do not try to correct English usage. Andrewa (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2017 (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.