Talk:Robert Clark (missionary)

Merging Two Punjab sections
Hi User: Pdfpdf,

Your division of article into several sections is good, in fact, looking better than before. Division of Punjab into two sections is bit confusing or misleading to some extent. Wouldn't be good to merge both Punjab sections into one?. Will wait for 24 hours to merge myself, if no reply.

Thanks, --Jayasri Goud (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope my recent edit has addressed your concerns?
 * Yes, I agree it was a bit confusing, but no, (because of the length of time between the two periods), I don't think it's a good idea to merge the two sections into one.
 * Your thoughts? Cheers, --Pdfpdf (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The time-period with titles brought some clarity than before. Would it confuse, if two different periods in same Punjab section are introduced, as sub-sections?.
 * Thanks, --Jayasri Goud (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Good question. At the moment it's arranged in chronological order. (And obviously, that's what I personally prefer. I'll also mention that the sources tend to present things in chronological order.) But I don't suppose it really makes a lot of difference whether it is arranged chronologically or geographically - as long as (like you say) the sections and subsections are unambiguously labelled. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)