Talk:Banaue

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banaue, Ifugao → Banaue – Per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. Disambiguation not needed as Banaue redirects here. – RioHondo (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What exactly in WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE is this a violation of? –HTD 15:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the example in WP:PRECISE, "Banaue" is precise enough to be unambiguous. And if you're going to mention the Banaue Rice Terraces, the municipality is certainly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Banaue" just like Pisa is vs. Leaning Tower of Pisa and Pearl Harbor is vs. Attack on Pearl Harbor. So adding the province name is being overly precise.

    Per WP:CONCISE, a person searching for the municipality will certainly recognize just "Banaue" and the term alone is already sufficient. Adding "Ifugao" already tips the balance of brevity vs. sufficient information to the verbose side.

    In addition, the conciseness criterion is defined: the title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Per the same arguments above, "Banaue" is already no longer than necessary. —seav (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:UNDAB. --B2C 17:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would vote for Support, but because Banaue falls under the "jurisdiction" of the WP:MOSPHIL naming guidelines, the proposed move would go against the stated guidelines and as such there is a strong reason for the move to fail. That said, there is an ongoing discussion at the WT:TAMBAY talk page regarding the naming guidelines and I exhort people to participate in that discussion. —seav (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment perhaps it should eb a disambiguation page -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no other topics with that name in the encyclopedia, and therefore nothing to disambiguate. bd2412 T 18:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's actually Banaue Rice Terraces, which is the thought that most Filipinos get when they talk about "Banaue". –HTD 11:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No disambiguation needed as the two topics are related. :) --RioHondo (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per B2C's link, I'd like to see if an interpretation of the WP:AT policy can trump local guidelines. —seav (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AT actually allows "local guidelines" to trump it, so any citation of WP:AT doesn't hold water. The only question now is if the proposal follows WP:MOSPHIL. It doesn't. –HTD 15:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguify Banaue, keep the article here as per WP:MOSPHIL. –HTD 11:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is a bad-faith move discussion while the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Naming of places is underway. This move discussion should be put on hold. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. The only way this prospers is if WP:MOSPHIL is WP:MFDed, and is either deleted or tagged as historical, thus we'd go to the default WP:AT policies, which allows local consensus. This should be deferred to a later date. –HTD 15:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite. In 2010. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom has been successfully moved to just Elizabeth II against the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) at that time. Please see Talk:Elizabeth II/Article title. Since then, the naming conventions has been updated to now allow Elizabeth II as a title. Take note that specific naming conventions are just guidelines while WP:AT is policy. If there is a convincing argument to ignore the guidelines in order to better follow policy, then it is valid. Thus, I think arguing for WP:MOSPHIL for its own sake is not valid. —seav (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lizzie is monarch of god knows how many Commonwealth realms. It's not a good analogy at all. –HTD 04:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is not whether Elizabeth II and Banaue are analogous. The point is whether page moves can be successful in spite of local conventions. You started the comment saying the move will only prosper if WP:MOSPHIL was deleted, but the Elizabeth II example shows that this is not the case.

          But if you insist (since you think adding "England" is silly since Lizzie is a queen of many realms), "William I of England" was moved to "William the Conqueror" and "Napoleon I of France" was moved to "Napoleon I" despite the WP:NCROY naming conventions at that time. William was only of England and Napoleon was only of France. ("Napoleon I" has since been moved to "Napoleon".) —seav (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is this a bad-faith move request? RioHondo thinks in good faith that this move would make Wikipedia better. You do have the point that putting this discussion on hold might be better, but accusations of bad-faith is too much. Please read WP:AGF. —seav (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • RioHondo has been involved in the central discussion, so he well aware that we're trying to reach consensus there. To work behind the scenes of this central discussion is counterproductive (to say it mildly). But to give him the benefit of the doubt, I have striked it out. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 21:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • P199, AFAIK, this is no different than Samar and Leyte which i initiated and which ended with a clear consensus to move the provinces despite going against the WP Mosphil guidelines on provinces taking precedence over islands. With a little bit of common sense and WP:BOLD decisions, we have successfully WP:IAR the Mosphil and corrected this flaw. :) --RioHondo (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • So your intention then is to circumvent WP:MOSPHIL after all? Wow. If that was your intention (to subvert the entire discussion process by citing WP:IAR as a basis for moving all these articles), then why are we talking about changing the convention in the first place if we're better off getting rid of it then? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You do know nothing comes out of discussions like this, and the only reason the discussion at WT:TAMBAY has lasted this long compared to the 2012 discussion, which was all talk, is because there are actual RMs this time around that get people more passionate about what the MOS should be. And yes, i think we have achieved that with the kind of publicity RMs like this make. :) --RioHondo (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Another precedent for moves against local conventions (more relevant than the Elizabeth II example) are page moves for Australian places a few years ago. In early 2010, the Australian place-name convention stated:

All Australian town/city/suburb articles are at Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital Cities will be excepted from this rule and preferentially made City. The unqualified Town should be either a redirect or disambig page. Local government areas are at their official name.

Despite that, page moves like Ballarat and Coffs Harbour were successfully moved due to reasoning per the WP:AT policy. —seav (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Other items with that name exist. Androoox (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please elaborate on your statement. As your argument stands, it's extremely useless. Lots of items are named "Paris", but that doesn't mean that the capital of France cannot get the article title "Paris". That's why we have a whole page called WP:DAB. —seav (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Requester wrote: "Disambiguation not needed as Banaue redirects here." This was invalidated by edits at that page. That is sufficient to support the 'oppose'. Androoox (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for finally elaborating. —seav (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.