Talk:Pagudpud

Requested move

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: Moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte → Pagudpud – The municipality is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name "Pagudpud" (it is actually the only topic here in Wikipedia with the precise name of "Pagudpud" as of this move request). Please also see the discussion on the talk page for more information. —seav (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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 "Pagudpud" 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 "Pagudpud" by itself is recognizable already since it is a popular vacation destination because of its beaches. "Pagudpud" by itself is also naturally used as evidenced by Google Books results. Per the precision criterion (also WP:PRECISE), "Pagudpud" by itself is already precise enough. Making it more precise by adding the province name is superfluous. Per the conciseness criterion, "Pagudpud" by itself is no longer than necessary. And per WP:CONCISE, "Pagudpud" 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, Ifugao → Banaue and Sagada, Mountain Province → Sagada. —seav (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support per reasoning above. --RioHondo (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2014 (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.