Talk:Santa Praxedes, Cagayan

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Requested move

The request to rename this article to Santa Praxedes has been carried out.

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) 01:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Praxedes, Cagayan → Santa Praxedes – Adding the province name is unnecessary disambiguation especially since the municipality is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (the municipality is actually the only topic with that precise name). The only two significant reasons to oppose this move is for consistency (almost all Philippine municipalities adopt the comma convention) and the WP:MOSPHIL guidelines. However, the MOSPHIL guidelines for place article titles no longer has consensus support, and consistency is not prioritized over the WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE criteria of the article titles policy as evidenced by the following successful similar RMs:

seav (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there doesn't seem to be much discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philippine-related articles, shouldn't there be an RFC before changing it? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The recent discussion happened on a different talk page. Basically, no one wants the current MOSPHIL guidelines but there was no consensus to change it to one of several competing proposals. —seav (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To further add, naming conventions are both prescriptive and descriptive. There is no need to modify guidelines before modifying articles, as shown by various precedents where:
- WP:USPLACE adopted the AP stylebook city list following RMs like the ones for Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City;
- Australian place names convention abandoning the comma convention following article title renamings; and
- WP:NCROY adopting article titles like Elizabeth II (instead of Elizabeth II of England) and Napoleon (instead of Napoleon I of France).
Having RMs like this current proposed RM would actually help decide what the Wikipedia editing community wants as its guidelines. —seav (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then a RfC hasn't happened, but one is planned? I personally would probably oppose these moves in a RfC, so I guess I should oppose now? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. --RioHondo (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:UNDAB (an essay based on WP:AT including WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE). --B2C 18:42, 25 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.