Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies)

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

Discussion Thread

Consensus discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics#Proposal_:_Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies. Please participate there. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

State/UT Assembly Lok Sabha
Current
constituencies 		Former
constituencies 		Nav
templates
Andhra Pradesh C F T
Arunachal Pradesh C Done X T
Assam C X T
Bihar C Done F CT  Done

FT

Chhattisgarh C Done X T Done
Delhi C Done F T Done
Goa C  Done F T Done
Gujarat C Done F  Done T Done
Haryana C  Done F  Done T Done
Himachal Pradesh C  Done F  Done T  Done
Jammu and Kashmir C  Done F  Done T  Done
Jharkhand C Done X T Done
Karnataka C Done F T  Done
Kerala C  Done F  Done T  Done
Madhya Pradesh C Done F  Done T Done
Maharashtra C Done F T Done
Manipur C Done X T Done
Meghalaya C Done F  Done T Done
Mizoram C  Done X T  Done
Nagaland C Done X  Done T Done
Odisha C Done X T Done
Puducherry C Done X Done T Done
Punjab C Done F  Done T Done
Rajasthan C Done F T Done
Sikkim C  Done X T  Done
Tamil Nadu C  Done F  Done CT  Done

FT
 Done

Telangana C  Done F  Done T  Done
Tripura C  Done X T  Done
Uttarakhand C  Done F T Done
Uttar Pradesh C F T
West Bengal C F T
Others X

-Venkat TL (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming constituency articles

I see you've finished the TN ones. Please remember to correct the AC nav template as well. If you want, we can coordinate on this. That way, you can do the page moves, since you have the rights, and i can do minor cleanup. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Thank you for reaching out and helping. I was testing the move rights today. I have created the thread above with the lists to track the progress. Let's use this talk page for collaboration. If you can help with the updating of the Templates, that will be great. Notepad copy and 'replace all' feature can be used. My plan is to start with the states up for election and update their current constituencies first. The Defunct constituencies will be done at the end. Venkat TL (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 April 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 17:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 11 May 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by operator. Primefac (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– The current name is to make it consistent with other entries in the Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, but all of them are violations of Wikipedia:Article_titles#Disambiguation. The dab category need to be in the parenthesis. So Wikipedia:Naming conventions (X) should be Wikipedia:Naming conventions for X. Proposed titles are Wikipedia:Indian constituencies naming conventions or Wikipedia:Naming conventions for Indian constituencies or Wikipedia:Indian constituencies (Naming conventions) Venkat TL (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@ZLEA@Steelpillow I followed your advice to start this elsewhere, and @Tamzin did not even allow the thread to remain open for a day. Now both threads are closed. Since you guys had suggested that option, what now? Venkat TL (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What now is to accept that this isn't something the community wants to spend its time on. Sometimes you just have to accept that things aren't going to be the way that you want, and find something else to do. Personally, when I'm in that kind of situation, I find it very revitalizing to pick an article to work on for a while. It keeps me in touch with what we're here for: Writing the world's largest reference work. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin Thanks for the sagacity, I was under the belief that decisions here are made with community consensus, but I see some entitled users, feel their opinio 'defines' what consensus is and they will disrupt the consensus building process within hours, just because they could. I would have been contented if you could have allowed the discussion to reach its natural conclusion, but clearly it is too much to ask for. Venkat TL (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying you would rather waste more of the community's time to arrive at the same conclusion? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin That discussion only received 2 comment that discussed the actual matter instead of doing meta/Bureaucracy related comments. Your close within hours was disruptive and I see that you have now resorted to calling others waste of time to justify your inappropriate and immature closure. There is nothing more for me to say here. Venkat TL (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've reopened. Enjoy. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 10:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...and it has been closed again. A long while ago. Just updating. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comma or brackets?

This needs to be consistent (currently it's not). — kashmīrī TALK 21:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri There are no brackets nor comma. Only when there are multiple constituencies with same name, a comma is used. Take a look at the table #Implementation If something is marked as done and it is still inconsistent, please point it here. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok thx. — kashmīrī TALK 07:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal state

I just became aware of Wikipedia:Article titles#Proposed naming conventions and guidelines a few hours ago which needs a community-wide consensus to be adopted. Kashmīrī has already marked this as proposal. In the meantime, @Venkat TL, @MPGuy2824 and @IJohnKennady (not sure who else), could you all stop moving articles citing this guideline? Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer What is your concern? The proposal is unanimously supported and 2 months old. Venkat TL (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL If you read my above message again, the Wikipedia:Article titles#Proposed naming conventions and guidelines lays out the procedure for a naming convention to be adopted. I do not like no more than you do to put arguments for consensus twice — DaxServer (t · m · c) 06:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaxServer All the procedure was followed and every relevant project was informed. You should check. Again, what is your concern really? Venkat TL (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WT:IN. I am guessing that you're unaware of that earlier. From what I gather, you don't seem to be willing to do that now. There's not much I can do either way. Enjoy your editing! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
If I recall correctly I have notified more than 40 relevant Wikiproject talk pages, (including Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles) and the thread has been open for comments for 2 months, which in my opinion is a very long time, if you want to notify another couple of Wikiprojects, Knock yourself out. Venkat TL (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_India and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics. Please refer to the thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics#Proposal_:_Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies
Folks (DaxServer and MPGuy2348) had suggested to advertise this proposal and I posted the links there, e.g.
Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_74#Assembly_constituencies_article_titles
Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_74#Discussion_at_Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics_§_Proposal_:_Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies
Along with Wikiproject talk pages of all Indian states and major cities, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Delhi#Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Indian_politics_§_Proposal_:_Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_Indian_constituencies
A previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles where this discussion had occurred in past was also notified duly. At that time 'all places' where I could think of, and others could think of, were notified. Now, if anyone believes that some more pages should be informed, what is stopping them from adding a link there? Venkat TL (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you spearheaded the proposal, I thought it would be only natural that you take up the RfC efforts. Of course, others, including me, can do that as well. Let me first ask on Village Pump as to what should be the next step in this situation — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not
WP:OWN this page, there is no need to ask me for any permission. Venkat TL (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
lol. Nobody is asking you for any permission. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I can't see any strong consensus as required. There are only three five voices in support. The capitalisation issue, for instance, has not been solved in my view.
Also, was it announced at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming as required? Can't see such an announcement. — kashmīrī TALK 09:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kashmiri. I have removed that ongoing discussion from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indian constituencies) where it was used as a reference. It was giving a false impression that the policy has been formally vetted by the community, but in fact, there is no consensus yet. The discussion is still ongoing. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal for new article title naming convention - RfC or local consensus, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer this needs to be posted at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics Venkat TL (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion is intended as a clarification for the next step on a policy basis. I don't see WT:IN needs this notification, but I did it since you asked — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Improper acceptance of a new proposal as policy

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Improper acceptance of a new proposal as policy. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to Constituency titles. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Indian_constituencies)&oldid=1095080967"