Talk:Nono, Córdoba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Nono, Córdoba, ArgentinaNono, Córdoba – Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Argentina. Cambalachero (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Avoid unusual double disambiguation. Kauffner (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:How2title... 1-it is a named entity with one obvious name... Nono, -Nono has other uses, 4-this is not the primary topic for Nono, 6-use the Principal Naming Criteria to decide:
  • 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.)
It's a draw on recognizability, but the proposed title beats the current title on naturalness, precision (current title is 'overly precise), conciseness, and consistency. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As B2C says, the proposed title is more natural, precise, concise and consistent. This could probably have been listed as an uncontroversial move. Jenks24 (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the precision criterion of the Principal Naming Criteria. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2011 (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.