Talk:Lawas

Commonwealth or American spellings
I have reverted the edits done by Huntscorpio on August 9, 2006 in which he/she changed a number of words from Commonwealth to American spelling. I did this simply on the basis that Commonwealth English is used in Lawas and so I could see no compelling reason for Huntscorpio's changes. I'm happy to discuss - this is not a belligerent revert! - Hebrides 11:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Restored last version on city
User:Zulfadli51 Please read WP:RM and follow the steps for a controversial move. Accordingly a move discussion has been started here to decide if the move should take place or not. For now I have restored WP:STATUSQUO about city before your edits, You can make these edits after a week when the move discussion is closed. Please do not revert me now. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: No move. I see no consensus to move and this is probably because the proposal argument is fundamentally that the town is not sufficiently notable to have an article. This is not a decision to be made in an RM discussion but in an WP:AFD, one result of which may be renaming exactly as proposed here and for the reasons stated here. But if the town is deemed sufficiently notable to have an article then the district article should probably be created separately as suggested here. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 20:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Lawas → Lawas District – the infos in this article are mainly describing Lawas District and not Lawas (town, nevertheless capital of Lawas District). Note that Lawas (town) has insufficient infos for it to have its own article so the article name 'Lawas' should be redirected to 'Lawas District' (and any infos about Lawas town should be added to Lawas District article). Zulfadli51 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * oppose Zulfadli51, The City Lawas is not the same as District Lawas, both have a different scope and it makes no sense to merge both of them. The article Lawas is about the city. Please develop the District Lawas at the other location. there may be some overlap, but the content of Lawas will be a subset of district of Lawas. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DbigXray I am well aware that Lawas town and Lawas District are two different entities, but the problem is the infos in the article Lawas refer to the scope of Lawas District, not Lawas town. The population is the the population of Lawas District, not Lawas town, same goes to the area, places of interest, governing body, economy, etc. Another example is there mentioned the place Ba'kelalan which is not in Lawas town but a place in the interior of Lawas District.Zulfadli51 (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see from the article history that the lead and several sections always talked about the city. If there are certain data figures about district wrongly added into this city article, then the correct thing to do is to remove teh data figures of the district and add the data figures of the city here. As I said earlier, the district article has to be separately developed at Lawas District. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * DBigXray If you examine carefully only the lead section talks about the town. The rest is actually talking from the scope of the district. The problem is if I have to remove the irrelevant data the article will be left with practically nothing substantial, and from edit stats perspective it would be as if I'm deleting a big chunk of info from the article. Please note that the article is already problematic prior to my edit due to misleading scope.Zulfadli51 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sometimes there are combined articles such as Corby and Fulford, Staffordshire, others such as Darlington/Borough of Darlington have separate articles. Its usual to have separate articles for anything other than 4th order diversions where an administrative diversions shares its name with a settlement. If there are separate articles then its still possible to summaries in one or both articles. In the case of South Huish there is no population data for the settlement so there's no point in having a separate article but since this seems to be a larger diversion it looks sensible to have separate articles but I'm not sure.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Crouch, Swale Thanks for your input. Lawas District and Lawas town are indeed entities with different sizes where the district the larger diversion of the town. What I've reasoned for my edits is that it would be too redundant to create separate articles for these two entities since almost all of the sentences are about the district anyway, and from my own research most of the infos out there are only about the district, there are no infos about the town (e.g. population, area). Even if there is something to describe the town it would be better to be described as a sentence or a paragraph in relevant sections in Lawas District article (e.g. like Lawas Hospital, although it is located in Lawas town it serves the whole Lawas District).Zulfadli51 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NCPLACE, "Districts are given in the form Placename District ". This article is about the district, which happens to include a synonymous town. If the town were called, say, "Sawal", we wouldn't put the "Lawas District" article at "Sawal", we would redirect "Sawal" to "Lawas District" as . 178.164.162.144 (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.