Talk:Arizona bajada canals

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 6 October 2014 by reviewer Eastmain (talk · contribs).

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Current title should be changed

The current title has problems:

It contains quote marks, which are discouraged by WP:AT generally.
It is too long (not extremely long)
The title is not commonly used

What do you concisely ~~(not briefly)~~ name the topic, otherwise? --George Ho (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article's title meet parts of WP:AT (like WP:TITLEFORMAT) and WP:NCGN? If not, what new name do you propose? --George Ho (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Bajada hanging canals?--cyclopia ^speak! 14:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is weird. It suggests that they stop suddenly, like hanging valleys. How about contour canals of Arizona, or levadas of Arizona? Maproom (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, unlike many RFCs, this appears to really be a Request for Comments, rather than a Request for Consensus. I think that Arizona bajada canals would be good and neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the title changed, and with no apostrophes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, what does "What do you concisely (not briefly) name the topic, otherwise?" mean? What is the difference between concisely and briefly? That seems unintelligible. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I amended my comment by striking out "~~(not briefly)~~". I checked the Oxford dictionary of briefly: 1) "for a short time; fleetingly"; 2) "using few words; concisely". Merriam's definition of concisely: 1) "in a few words". ~~Okay; what's your opinion on the current title?~~ (Oops, I missed your comments.) --George Ho (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had to do a bit of OR just to find out what they were. OK first thing is not to get each other tied in knots arguing about trivialities. These name-choice arguments can be terrible. In this particular case there is the particular problem that there seems to be no definitive basis for selecting a name that the overwhelming majority of users are likely to search for. We therefore must not try to select any such name,or we will never get anything concise, and users still won't find our choice helpful. I recommend therefore that we select an article title that is simple, neutral and convenient, even if it is logically inadequate. Then we can add a few redirects to cover everyone else's favourite keywords.

"Levadas of Arizona", as suggested in the foregoing suggestion, would be fine, except that the term seems to be Madeiran rather than Arizonan,and it is unlikely to be used in reference by anyone. (We should link to levada and back, but that is another matter.)

Arizona bajada canals as Robert McClenon proposed, sounds about as good as anything we could expect. If someone wants to emphasise the archaeological significance, then I would not fight "Prehistoric Arizona bajada canals", but I think the shorter form is preferable. Note: Not "Arizonan", grammar or no grammar; people are more likely to search for "Arizona". plus of course a few (or a few dozen if anyone is feeling nit-picky) useful or at least harmless redirs. JonRichfield (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed 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: move the article to Arizona bajada canals, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric Bajada "hanging" canals of southeastern Arizona → ? – Shall I explain why the current title does not adhere to policies and guidelines? In the previous RFC, names were suggested: Bajada hanging canals, Contour canals of Arizona, Levadas of Arizona, and Arizona bajada canals. You may pick one title and explain your reason, or suggest another title not mentioned previously. George Ho (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My vote either Arizona bajada canals or Bajada canals of Arizona would be most helpful to the user (subject to some brilliant alternative emerging) A few redirs might be a good idea as well.

"Contour canals" would be too non-specific if accurate at all; except maybe over a flat plain, all canals run at least just off the contour if they are to convey water, which these canals do (or did).

"Hanging canals" suffers similarly; either too non-specific, or in places inaccurate.

Levadas of Arizona would be misleading at best (compare Levada article). JonRichfield (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion as long as the misleading "hanging" is removed. But I disagree with the statement "all canals run just off the contour if they are to convey water". The Llangollen Canal was built primarily as a feeder channel, and has locks, aqueducts and tunnels. Maproom (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the point of disagreement, slight though I am sure it is. Granted I should have said "at least" (since added in acknowledgement of your remarks) but locks for a purely feeder canal would be a bit artificial surely? And aqueducts and tunnels are there precisely to maintain appropriate inclines. But in either case it does not militate for inclusion of "contour" in the title, right? :) JonRichfield (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JonRichfield: either Arizona bajada canals or Bajada canals of Arizona. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:46, 11 November 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.

WTF is a "hanging" canal?

I have to ask, what the foulness is a hanging canal? I ended up here from an otherwise technical (as in electronics) website, hoping to get a better idea of what they meant when referencing "hanging" canals. No such explanation here; this article assumes the reader already knows. A quick search (DuckDuckGo) and the only relevant results are this article and the ones hosted on the linking website that sent me here. Noting that the author of that website is one of the authors of this article leads me to conclude that there is no otherwise such phrase as "hanging canal" in mainstream english, and that the author most likely invented the phrase. four tildes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.189.157.13 (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]