Talk:Kurram District
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurram District article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
Archaeology Low‑importance | |||||||
|
Combine with Kurram River?
I propose to add the information from the article on the
Why it is part of project Afghanistan???
Kurram valley is completely in Pakistan and only shares border with Afghanistan. Why this is included in Project Afghanistan?? Anyone can answer please?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.192.9 (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Its because the Tribal Areas are a disputed area in Pakistan and the main inhabitants are Pashtuns who also belong to Afghanistan. Akmal94 (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Merge it with Kurram Agency
Yes, I think you are right that it should be merged with Kurram river page. In the same light this page should be merged with Kurram Agency page. The scope of the two articles being the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleedmansoor (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC) --Waleedmansoor (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Merged with Kurram Agency and other major changes
Merged with Kurram Agency and Kurram River. I think the structure is now there to expand it further. All contributions would be highly welcome.
Restart Flora and Fauna section.
The flora and fauna section removed on Feb. 5 2010 for the reason that it "said nothing" needs to be restarted. The section needed expansion and is important because it was the only valley in the northwest British India for which flora had been scientifically described as early as 1879 (before annexation, when it was a part of Afghanistan). Citations are available in The Imperial Indian Gazette and many scientific journals indexed. Of particular importance is the Artimesia spp. peculiar to the valley and therefore scientifically named after the Valley "Artemisia Kurramensis" in 1951. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshijee (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Merger and split
I really think that
On the other hand, there is a lot of overlap with
Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- http://www.kurram.net.tc
- Triggered by
\bnet\.tc\b
on the global blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—
Undiscussed moves
@]
- @Khestwol: Please check this and let me know what is your objection on these moves? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)]
- @Khestwol did not reply to my comment for six days, how is this still controversial? They just made a premature request to get the moves reverted, it's an administration change for these regions, no matter how many folks disagree, it will not change the material fact on the ground. They just cannot get over the fact that Pakistan changed the administration of these areas considering their longstanding POV. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)]
- @SheriffIsInTown: it looks like a lot of news sources are generally still saying "agency", even as of late May, see for example [1]. The version with "district" doesn't get a lot of hits. It looks like there's enough doubt that a requested move for the group would be in order. — Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 29 June 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. Consensus is clear, and although the policy questions are closer than the consensus would suggest, it is not impermissible to move articles to a recently enacted new official title, which is likely to be the title used in official documents and all references flowing from them in the future. bd2412 T 20:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Kurram Agency → Kurram District
- Bajaur Agency → Bajaur District
- Mohmand Agency → Mohmand District
- Khyber Agency → Khyber District
- Orakzai Agency → Orakzai District
- Frontier Region Bannu → Bannu Subdivision
- Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan → Dera Ismail Khan Subdivision
- Frontier Region Kohat → Kohat Subdivision
- Frontier Region Lakki Marwat → Lakki Marwat Subdivision
- Frontier Region Peshawar → Peshawar Subdivision
- Frontier Region Tank → Tank Subdivision
– Support as nominator: Pakistan’s parliament passed a
Erstwhile seven tribal agencies will now be called tribal districts and existing tehsils and six Frontier regions will be termed subdivisions.
Thus, please move these pages as an administrative change even if there is a dispute. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support: Finally, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for the people of Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) who were subjugated under draconian Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) for far too long. It is not only fair but also justified and appropriate that Wikipedia celebrates with the people of FATA by documenting the ground realities (i.e. the end of FATA, merger of FATA with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) properly. There is no room for "Agencies", reminiscent of FCR, in the new dawn and the future for the people of FATA. Thus, please, let these redirections prevail as the first step in the right direction, at least, on Wikipedia. Thank you. McKhan (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Support as per the reliable sources we have. The agencies have been abolished for replacement by districts/subdivisions. Mar4d (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per Khestwol (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)]
- I oppose also the proposal to move the Khestwol (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)]
- Comment - Re:Khestwol: This user has a longstanding POV regarding this matter which they have displayed by creating WP:COMMONNAME, the sources published before the date of official status change has no value in this matter.
- Their argument regarding confusion about Subdivision and Tehsil falls on its face as Subdivision is totally separate tier than Tehsil in Pakistan and we cannot use a reference of a Wikipedia article for decision making. This reliable source regarding another recent decision by the government uses the word upgrade when certain tehsils status was changed to subdivision thus the administrative tiers in Pakistan are Tehsil --> Subdivision --> District --> Division --> Province. The source says
The provincial government has formally created five more tehsils and upgraded another to a subdivision.....government had notified Suo and Urban Basha as tehsils of the Upper Kohistan district, Ranovali Pinkhad the Lower Kohistan district’s and Battar Kolai the Palas district’s and Dormerra Torghar district’s, while Kundai had been declared the Upper Kohistan district’s subdivision.....He said the newly-notified tehsils and subdivision would soon get the required staff members.
- Govt awards status of subdivision to another tehsil
- We (PTI government) believe in empowering the people through bifurcation of large districts and tehsils and these four tehsils and a subdivision have been created in line with that thought.
- These above quotes from the source clearly describe that there is a difference between a tehsil and subdivision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- "-wikipedia" (minus Wikipedia) was added to eliminate Wikipedia from the search results to be unbiased. Your proposed names get very little hits in the search results (some of them get absolutely no hits at all). Khestwol (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)]
- "-wikipedia" (minus Wikipedia) was added to eliminate Wikipedia from the search results to be unbiased. Your proposed names get very little hits in the search results (some of them get absolutely no hits at all).
- Comment: please show some evidence using Google Search, Google Books or News Search, or Khestwol (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)]
- Comment - Re:Khestwol: Look, we can never satisfy someone who have a specific POV and does not want to get satisfied. I already showed a source in my nomination that clearly tells that all tribal agencies are converted to districts and frontier regions to subdivisions. Despite removing Wikipedia from search term, Google Books ought to show nothing as the matter is still less than a month old. This is not a matter of WP:COMMONNAME at all as it is an administrative change proven by sources. Here is one additional source published two days ago, Trailblazing Ali Begum sets up Kurram District's first-ever election office for women. Let it go Khestwol, let it go, we are not turning the clock back on people of this region back to the tribal era. Let the new dawn prevail. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)]
- Please no Khestwol (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)]
- I already showed you, the source in nomination is a ]
- You failed to prove how your proposed names are more common than the current names. Some of your proposed names (including "Dera Ismail Khan Subdivision" and "Lakki Marwat Subdivision", see above) return absolutely 0 results. This proves they are not commonly used. Khestwol (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)]
- You failed to prove how your proposed names are more common than the current names. Some of your proposed names (including "Dera Ismail Khan Subdivision" and "Lakki Marwat Subdivision", see above) return absolutely 0 results. This proves they are not commonly used.
- I already showed you, the source in nomination is a ]
- Please no
- Support Post the constitutional amendment, both the Pakistani and foreign RS such as news outlets refer the agencies as districts so for the sake of consistency I would go with official name and support rename. --Saqib (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- The current names are still more common than the proposed names as demonstrated in my !vote above. Khestwol (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)]
- You demonstrated nothing in your vote above, your searches were faulty, they included word wikipedia and they included everything published to date but in this case anything published before 31 May 2018 exclusive of that day does not count as per WP:NAMECHANGES as that is the date when President of Pakistan signed that amendment. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)]
- You demonstrated nothing in your vote above, your searches were faulty, they included word wikipedia and they included everything published to date but in this case anything published before 31 May 2018 exclusive of that day does not count as per
- The current names are still more common than the proposed names as demonstrated in my !vote above.
- Comment: Khestwol’s searches are inclusive of everything to date, according to WP:NAMECHANGES, sources before the official name change do not count.
- Here are some of the sources published after the constitutional amendment (30 May 2018) referring them as districts and subdivisions:
- Trailblazing Ali Begum sets up Kurram District's first-ever election office for women
- Above 340,000 voters to exercise their right of franchise for the National Assembly seats NA-45 and NA-46 of Kurram district.
- The temporarily-displaced people of Kurram district opposed procedure of rehabilitation of the displaced families
- Special anti-polio drive starts in Bajaur today….children under five years of age would be given oral polio vaccine (OPV) across the district.
- northwestern Bajaur district of KP
- in Bajaur….Confirming the incident, officials of the district administration said…..he said that the district administration had launched investigation into the incident
- in Mamond tehsil of Bajaur district
- Bajaur elder withdraws papers in favour of JUI-F candidate….He made the announcement during a press conference. JUI-F local leaders including its district head Maulana Abdur Rashid
- This was stated in a meeting between the Mohmand District Deputy Commissioner and Returning Officer (DRO)
- the group said in a statement texted to local journalists in Pakistan's Bajaur district
- list of all the health facilities in newly established districts of Bajaur, Mohmand, Kurram, Khyber, Orakzai
- list of healthcare facilities in the newly named districts of Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurram
- list of healthcare facilities in the newly named districts of Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurram
- districts of Mohmand, Bajaur
- districts including Bajaur has registered maximum 492,732 voters followed by Khyber 491,844 voters, Kurram 337,865 voters, South Waziristan 324,165, Mohmand 255,523, North Waziristan 274,205, Orakzai 167,206
- BAJAUR,(UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News - 2nd Jul, 2018 ) :Provincial President of Awami National Party(ANP) Ameer Haider Khan Hoti will address a public rally here at district headquarter Khar
- Further to the east is that amazing upland country of the Khyber and Orakzai districts……. Northward lie the districts of Mohmand and Bajaur
- Sugar, wheat flour prices rise in Mohmand district
- Merged with K-P: Mohmand becomes district
- the door-to-door anti-polio campaign in Mohmand district
- The delegation demanded special economic zones in the merged districts.
- It consists of seven districts - Bajaur, Khyber, Kurram, Mohmand, North Waziristan, Orakzai and South Waziristan
- district administration of Mohmand said
- After a gap of around a year, the Mohmand district administration has released salaries
- A lady health worker from district Mohmand was posted at the disposal of district health officer Peshawar.
- newly named districts of Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurram
- Justice Musarat Hilal has also dismissed appeals of NTC against former MNA Malik Bilal Rehman contesting on NA-42 Mohmand district
- MNA Malik Bilal Rehman contesting from NA-42 of Mohmand district
- a protest camp in Khyber district’s Jamrud town on Monday.
- (NAB) has decided to launch inquiries against officials of political administration South Waziristan and Khyber districts for embezzlement of funds.
- (Wapda) will be working on building a dam in Mohmand district.
- Khyber Union football team of Khyber district won the thrilling final
- Pashto poets from Mardan, Dir, Malakand, Peshawar and other parts of Khyber district presented poetic tributes
- no anti-state elements would be allowed to disturb the law and order situation in the Orakzai district
- Kurram Agency, for example, would now be called Kurram district. Tehsils and frontier regions would be renamed as sub-divisions, so, FR Bannu would be referred to as Bannu sub-division Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is cherry picking. You have ignored all the recent sources which use "Agency" and "Frontier Region". Also, again, how many times reliable sources use the proposed names "Dera Ismail Khan Subdivision" and "Lakki Marwat Subdivision"? And how many times do the reliable sources use the current names "Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan" and "Frontier Region Lakki Marwat"? I am sure the current names are more common than the proposed names, even in recent sources. Khestwol (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)]
- This is no cherry picking, you are opposing the move, it is your job to tell us how many sources used agency in the name after 31 May, I only countered a couple. Do you think there are more, show us but they ought to be published after 31 May. You are using tactics like using unrelated terms in your searches and including all searches to date to show everyone there are more results for agency in the name but that is not according to ]
- The burden of proof is on the nominator who wants to change the 11 titles, not me. Some of your proposed names get absolutely 0 results in Google News (neither found in older, nor recent news). My search results are straightforward. Can you show us even one "unrelated term" that you are claiming? Khestwol (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)]
- The burden of proof is on the nominator who wants to change the 11 titles, not me. Some of your proposed names get absolutely 0 results in Google News (neither found in older, nor recent news). My search results are straightforward. Can you show us even one "unrelated term" that you are claiming?
- This is no cherry picking, you are opposing the move, it is your job to tell us how many sources used agency in the name after 31 May, I only countered a couple. Do you think there are more, show us but they ought to be published after 31 May. You are using tactics like using unrelated terms in your searches and including all searches to date to show everyone there are more results for agency in the name but that is not according to ]
- Note for the closing admin: as shown below, six of the proposed eleven names get absolutely 0 results in the Google News search (although the current names for all these regions are still common). Khestwol (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)]
Search engine results
Search engine results show that the current names are more common than the proposed names, by a very big margin (more than twice; in some cases, more than 200 times more common). Most of the proposed names get absolutely 0 results in Google News. So as far as I know, as per Wikipedia's policies, it is impossible to move these 11 articles:
- The current "Frontier Region Bannu" gets 4,150 results in Google, 212 results in Google News, and 118 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Bannu Subdivision" gets only 64 results in Google, absolutely 0 results in Google News, and 10 results in Google Books.
- The current "Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan" gets 2,670 results in Google, 5 results in Google News, and 212 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Dera Ismail Khan Subdivision" gets only 103 results in Google, absolutely 0 results in Google News, and 10 results in Google Books.
- The current "Frontier Region Kohat" gets 8,200 results in Google, 96 results in Google News, and 163 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Kohat Subdivision" gets only 70 results in Google, absolutely 0 results in Google News, and 42 results in Google Books.
- The current "Frontier Region Lakki Marwat" gets 2,130 results in Google, 2 results in Google News, and 190 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Lakki Marwat Subdivision" gets only 67 results in Google, absolutely 0 results in Google News, and 10 results in Google Books.
- The current "Frontier Region Peshawar" gets 31,200 results in Google, 157 results in Google News, and 231 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Peshawar Subdivision" gets only 55 results in Google, absolutely 0 results in Google News, and 37 results in Google Books.
- The current "Frontier Region Tank" gets 4,230 results in Google, 56 results in Google News, and 59 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Tank Subdivision" gets only 361 results in Google, absolutely 0 results in Google News, and 33 results in Google Books.
- The current "Kurram Agency" gets 375,000 results in Google, 5,990 results in Google News, and 7,130 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Kurram District" gets only 60,000 results in Google, 8,870 results in Google News, and 360 results in Google Books.
- The current "Bajaur Agency" gets 291,000 results in Google, 4,150 results in Google News, and 3,637 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Bajaur District" gets only 6,110 results in Google, 91 results in Google News, and 340 results in Google Books.
- The current "Mohmand Agency" gets 353,000 results in Google, 7,590 results in Google News, and 4,360 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Mohmand District" gets only 5,630 results in Google, 112 results in Google News, and 259 results in Google Books.
- The current "Khyber Agency" gets 456,000 results in Google, 11,500 results in Google News, and 9,420 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Khyber District" gets only 10,200 results in Google, 299 results in Google News, and 487 results in Google Books.
- The current "Orakzai Agency" gets 244,000 results in Google, 2,750 results in Google News, and 2,990 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Orakzai District" gets only 2,500 results in Google, 10 results in Google News, and 120 results in Google Books. Khestwol (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)]
- Note for the closing admin: Khestwol is distorting the facts by including all searches to date but according to WP:WALLOFTEXT. Almost every one on-wiki or off-wiki is recognizing these regions as districts and subdivisions except this one person. We have total support from everyone else who commented here and we had two other editors (Ridhej.dhhes and Eaak79) who tried to move these articles previously on their own, that can be counted as silent support as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)]
- Most of the proposed names (i.e. six out of the eleven proposed names) get absolutely 0 results in Google News. So evidence (no matter whether old, or recent) goes against the proposal. Khestwol (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)]
- This is epic misleading and misinformation from you. All of the frontier regions which you are purporting to show more than 0 results for current names are actually 0 results after 31 May 2018, none of those frontier region results have a published date after 31 May 2018 instead what you are showing 0 results for proposed names are actually not 0 results, here are some of the results confirming that frontier regions have been changed to subdivisions.
- Most of the proposed names (i.e. six out of the eleven proposed names) get absolutely 0 results in Google News. So evidence (no matter whether old, or recent) goes against the proposal.
- Proof that frontier regions have been changed to subdivisions
- It will be the first campaign launched after KP-FATA merger which will continue till July 4 in all tribal districts and subdivisions except Orakzai and Kurram.
- Kurram Agency, for example, would now be called Kurram district. Tehsils and frontier regions would be renamed as sub-divisions, so, FR Bannu would be referred to as Bannu sub-division’’’
- Current names show 0 results after 31 May 2018 for frontier regions
- Frontier Region Bannu shows 212 results in Google News overall but 0 results have published date after 31 May 2018
- Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan shows 5 results in Google News overall but 0 results have published date after 31 May 2018
- Frontier Region Kohat shows 96 results in Google News overall but 0 results have published date after 31 May 2018
- Frontier Region Lakki Marwat shows 2 results in Google News overall but 0 results have published date after 31 May 2018
- Frontier Region Peshawar shows 157 results in Google News overall but 0 results have published date after 31 May 2018
- Frontier Region Tank shows 56 results in Google News overall but 0 results have published date after 31 May 2018 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- SheriffIsInTown: Did you even check the links before posting them? Your statements are highly self-contradictory, because your own links you gave above disprove your own claim that "current names show 0 results after 31 May 2018 for frontier regions". Here are some examples of the links from June and July 2018, found from the Google News search, which use the current names in the "Frontier Region" format: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Additionally, some news articles also use the abbreviation "FR" format (i.e. "FR Peshawar", "FR Bannu", etc); some examples: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Khestwol (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)]
- SheriffIsInTown: Did you even check the links before posting them? Your statements are highly self-contradictory, because your own links you gave above disprove your own claim that "current names show 0 results after 31 May 2018 for frontier regions". Here are some examples of the links from June and July 2018, found from the Google News search, which use the current names in the "Frontier Region" format: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Additionally, some news articles also use the abbreviation "FR" format (i.e. "FR Peshawar", "FR Bannu", etc); some examples: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18].
- @WP:NCPLACE should apply here because we're not proposing to change the name of the place but terms for administrative division. Why not get over it and move on? --Saqib (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)]
- I do not think a consensus can be developed here until the opposing reasoning rationale is responded to and refuted. As per the Wikipedia's policy explained in the article Khestwol (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)]
- I do not think a consensus can be developed here until the opposing reasoning rationale is responded to and refuted. As per the Wikipedia's policy explained in the article
I already answered your rationale, your rationale is based on bogus results, you are displaying
]- SheriffInTown: no Khestwol (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)]
- Just a note (and observation), ]
- Support. It seems to me a clear situation. The articles are a set of administrative areas, these areas have now been redefined by a constitutional change and now have different official titles. Most sources now use these new titles, some still use the old designations most obviously when reporting on past events. There is clear agreement from everyone except WP:UCRN guideline. It is my view that it is, because neither sets of titles are "common names" as they are both official designations, one set of which is now historical. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)]
- Khestwol (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)]
- Yes sorry. I am supporting the move of all 11 articles. In my view there is little evidence to support the move of the (Frontier Region -> Subdivision), but equally limited evidence to suggest keeping them in their current location would be better. It is conventional to maintain consistency wherever possible. Thus all the articles should be moved to the new official names. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion the current names are better. The problem with the last six names, especially, is that not a single news article refers to the six Khestwol (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)]
- With most of the regions, only a few sources ever covered them in all time (all time being the time Google holds data). It is my view that neither the old names or the new names have sufficient common usage to become an overriding commonly recognisable name. Thus we are left with choosing between the old official name or the new official name. The official name change is sourced and the fact the official names have changed is not being argued. Plus there will be redirects from the old names, so anyone with out of date information will be automatically sent to the correct article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Each term returns results in Google Search 1000s of times, which I think is not "few sources". Some of the more popular articles like "Khyber Agency" return results much more. However, clearly the new official names are not preferred by even the current sources. So, it is too early yet to move the 11 articles. There is no rush, we better wait. Khestwol (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)]
- Each term returns results in Google Search 1000s of times, which I think is not "few sources". Some of the more popular articles like "Khyber Agency" return results much more. However, clearly the new official names are not preferred by even the current sources. So, it is too early yet to move the 11 articles. There is no rush, we better wait.
- With most of the regions, only a few sources ever covered them in all time (all time being the time Google holds data). It is my view that neither the old names or the new names have sufficient common usage to become an overriding commonly recognisable name. Thus we are left with choosing between the old official name or the new official name. The official name change is sourced and the fact the official names have changed is not being argued. Plus there will be redirects from the old names, so anyone with out of date information will be automatically sent to the correct article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion the current names are better. The problem with the last six names, especially, is that not a single news article refers to the six
- Yes sorry. I am supporting the move of all 11 articles. In my view there is little evidence to support the move of the (Frontier Region -> Subdivision), but equally limited evidence to suggest keeping them in their current location would be better. It is conventional to maintain consistency wherever possible. Thus all the articles should be moved to the new official names. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
You are again spreading misinformation by saying 1000s of sources. Read
- The common name policy is equally important as WP:NAMECHANGES, everyone is arguing within policies. The point is that a few sources (or 1000s of Google results) on the prior official names does not suggest we should not move the articles to their new official names. The key is that the previous name was used by the article and sources because it was the official name at the time, there is now a new official name. In the interests of keeping Wikipedia up to date it would make sense to move. This is why I have supported the move, and it is unlikely I will change my mind because I have given the subject some thought. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)]
- The common name policy is equally important as
- Support moves to the suggested titles. The arguments in the favour of moves appear to be more convincing. samee converse 13:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support as per WP:OFFICIALNAMES for not using the official name seem to apply. Onel5969 TT me 18:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)]
- Oppose per ]
- @Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, once we already have an evidence of overwhelming adaptation of new designations then it's just a matter of time and considering that we should move them once we have that much consensus developing and that much effort already put in place:
- @
List of sources
|
---|
|
- Right, and if we look at the agency to district switch in isolation, there does seem to be more evidence to support it. That being the case, I'm wondering why you introduced the frontier regions into the RM. I would have an easier job evaluating this if those were excluded. (Also, I've put a collapse around your list of sources above, to keep the conversation flow intact, hope that's OK). Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support for the reasons put out by SherrifIsInTown. It's just common sense. We very rarely should deviate from official names for entities like districts/counties/provinces, and this is not one of those cases. —innotata 02:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- 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.