Talk:Bacolod-Kalawi

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines 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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bacolod-Kalawi, Lanao del Sur. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 October 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Local consensus is clear, after extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 03:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bacolod-Kalawi, Lanao del Sur → Bacolod-Kalawi – as per the article titles policy, the proposed title is more concise yet still precise and is the common name of the municipality that is the subject of the article. This request also follows and should use the same reasoning as several previous Philippine municipality WP:RM precedents such as Talk:Aparri#Requested move, Talk:Santa Praxedes#Requested move, and Talk:Pagudpud#Requested move. seav (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the consistency at Category:Municipalities of Lanao del Sur and WP:TITLECHANGES. As you are seeking to re-title a large swathe of articles, you should propose it openly at a central location. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency is just one of the 5 criteria for a good article title, but the short title I am proposing meets the rest of the 4 criteria. My opinion is that a single criterion, that of adherence to consistency, is not enough justification to oppose the move. In addition, if we are talking about consistency, this move request is actually consistent with many, many other move requests on other municipalities in the Philippines that have been successful in the past several years. —seav (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not the other four. NATURAL is irrelevant here, and the change hurts RECOGNIZABILITY. COMMONNAME supports the longer name. All the sources (terrible sources as they are) introduce "Bacolod-Kalawi" with or under "Lanao del Sur". I find the same with google searches. CONSISTENCY? It doesn't look as good as I remember on October 3 does it, but that is your WP:GAME, you have been systematically moving pages to undermine the past consistency. Yes, I am aware that you are a long term active title minimalist working quietly to rename swathes of articles, hundreds per month in recent times[1]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: redundant disambiguation. Of the 40 Administrative divisions of Lanao del Sur, only 11 have this disambiguator, so WP:CONSISTENCY is breached by the current version, and the other 4 characteristics of a good title are not harmed by its removal (WP:CONCISENESS would obviously be enhanced. Kevin McE (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Kevin McE, "Of the 40 Administrative divisions of Lanao del Sur, only 11 have this disambiguator, so WP:CONSISTENCY ..." Check the histories. It is because the nominator has been moving them. eg1, eg2. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: unnecessary disambiguation, over-PRECISION, etc. No need for unnecessarily long titles. No benefit from such titles. Let's be consistent with not using unnecessarily disambiguated titles. --В²C ☎ 21:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per В²C, this one doesn't require disambiguation regardless of the others. We could add unnecessary disambiguation to every single title, see User:Born2cycle/Unnecessary disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unnecessary" is a very extreme word, and merely goes directly to the very narrow view that titles are just page identifiers and may as well be minimised. Many good things are "unnecessary". Consider recognisability. Consider how sources introduce the topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PRECISE says: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." (my emphasis in bold). If you want to call IAR, go ahead, but provide good reason. If your good reason is not specific to this article, but would apply to countless other titles, you might consider pursuing a policy change. --В²C ☎ 01:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - As we have discussed elsewhere, the language of PRECISE is pretty poorly composed. It should say "Titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article.". It needs fixing. It should not be for PRECISE to argue ANTIPRECISE.
      That said, this is not a PRECISE contention (the short form meets PRECISE), but RECOGNIZABILITY (longer is more recognizable), CONSISTENCY (pre sneaky pages moves, they were all longer) and COMMONNAME. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2018 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.