Talk:Punjab, India - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robertsky (talk | contribs) at 16:53, 10 October 2023 (Removing 15 threads, will be on Talk:Punjab,_India/Archive 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:53, 10 October 2023 by Robertsky (talk | contribs) (Removing 15 threads, will be on Talk:Punjab,_India/Archive 1)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Punjab, India article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Template:Vital article

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India: States / Punjab Top‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indian states (assessed as Top-importance).
	Punjab portal This article is supported by WikiProject Punjab (India) (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Punjab Top‑importance

	Punjab portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punjab, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Punjab on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PunjabWikipedia:WikiProject PunjabTemplate:WikiProject PunjabPunjab-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

South Asia Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Moved, 15 May 2010, from Punjab (India) to Punjab (Indian state), see discussion.
Moved to Punjab, India, 17 July 2010, from Punjab (Indian state) to Punjab (India), see discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: India in Global Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2023 and 14 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adirrao (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Adirrao (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2023

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

– The last time any discussion was held on the title of any of these pages was in 2010, but our practice of disambiguating first-level administrative subdivisions has changed from then to use the parenthetical in many cases (for example, this is how subdivisions in the United States and Australia are disambiguated). Using a parenthetical makes more sense, as comma disambiguation is usually used for settlements or more local subdivisions. These on the other hand are usually considered geographical features, so parenthetical disambiguation is appropriate. While these titles are slightly longer, they make it far more clear to readers that the articles are referring to administrative subdivisions rather than settlements/cities.

I am bundling these together as it does not make sense for the disambiguation style of Punjab in India and Pakistan to be different, and it would not make sense for Pakistan's subdivisions to have differing disambiguation styles either. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how that applies here? Using commas isn't particularly natural by that definition -- it's not an alternative name these regions happen to be called. The general trend for this sort of articles is to use parentheses. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Weak support - As far as I know (which isn't all that far sometimes) "Place, Country/Region/etc" generally refers to a city or locality, not a state or province. For Balochistan I would rather it be Balochistan (province) as that is unambiguous. Even better, the Indian Punjab could also be Punjab (state) and the Pakistani Punjab Punjab (province) (the latter is already a redirect), though I could see how those could be argued as confusing due to the state/province differentiation. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be fine with using that disambiguation as well for all of these. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Leaning support per noms. Aslo, I completely agree with @Estar8806 – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 16:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION and WP:CONCISE, "Punjab, India" and "Punjab, Pakistan" provide all the context that a reader needs, "(Indian state)" and "(Pakistani province)" seem like over-disambigation to me. The proposed change also assumes that the reader is coming to the page with the prior knowledge of India being divided in states and of Punjab being an Indian state. The article begins with Punjab is a state in northern India, because a reader who knows nothing about Indian Punjab has to be first provided with information of what Punjab is--a state in northern India. That is the job of the article body, not the title. A change from "Punjab, India" to "Punjab (Indian state)" makes the very introductory sentence of the article obsolete. The current titles are concise, precise and unambiguous, thus no need to move. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The current titles are not unambiguous as they are not in line with what readers would expect a "Name, Country" title to be. Also, you seem to be arguing that disambiguation should not provide information? That doesn't make sense; someone looking for "Punjab, the Indian state" is more likely to clearly understand that "Punjab (Indian state)" is what they're looking for compared to "Punjab, India". Disambiguating by what the thing is makes perfect sense. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CONCISE "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." The existing titles all achieve this, whereas the proposed titles merely add unnecessary complexity to simple, readily understandable, links. - Arjayay (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per above arguments. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per UnpetitproleX, WP:OVERPRECISION and per WP:PLACEDAB, which says:

The following general principles apply to such tags:
Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie. If using the country name would still lead to ambiguity, use the name of a smaller administrative division (such as a state or province) instead.

— Material Works 21:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

PLACEDAB also says With the names of cities, towns, villages and other settlements, the tag is normally preceded by a comma, as in Hel, Poland. This is often applied to low-level administrative units as well (Polk County, Tennessee), but less so for larger subdivisions or historical regions (Galicia (Spain); Nord (French department)). Any specific national convention takes precedence though. which is more relevant to this situation. I do not see how my move would be introducing too much precision; it's simply to move these pages to be in-line with how other similar articles are disambiguated. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The other articles are named differently because they are unambiguous. You are adding too much precision—there is no need to state whether it is a province or state, because the country is enough to disambiguate it. — Material Works 21:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not true! "Georgia, United States" or "Victoria, Australia" would be just as clear -- but we prefer parenthetical disambiguation over comma disambiguation. And as already discussed, I'd be fine with just including province/state and removing the country name as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

These are not good examples. Georgia (U.S. state) uses parenthesis because Georgia (country) can't have a natural disambiguator. Victoria (state) is not the only place named Victoria in Australia that has a Misplaced Pages article, though you could make a case for it being the ptopic.

Also, no, parenthetical disambiguation is not the preferred method, at least for place names. It's usually whatever is most natural, then comma, THEN parenthesis. See: Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Misplaced Pages's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title, from Misplaced Pages:Article titles § Natural disambiguation. — Material Works 22:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Again you are just wrong about this. Parenthetical is preferred for first-level administrative subdivisions; that's what the part of WP:PLACEDAB I quoted says. Comma is preferred for settlements and lower-level subdivisions. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories: