User talk:Uanfala/Archive 2

DAB audit results
As we discussed over at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links, as an experimental trial audit I took a not-very-random sample of your two suggested edit summary query results and looked at each one. While I think it takes me less time to audit than it would have taken me to have done the actual editing action, it's nevertheless highly variable and this task took up most of an evening. The results are collapsed below.

Legend: (not grades!) A - completely agree B - generally agree C - proper WikiProject Disambiguation work, but not assessed as part of "Disambiguation Pages with Links" D - don't understand

1. This is pretty deep. "Agent (grammar)" and "Agent noun" both appear together under "Linguistics" on the "Agent" disambigutaion page. This "Agent (grammar)" page had a "See also" entry for "Agentive ending", which is one of a number of redirects that exist pointing to "Agent noun". I don't think I would have caught this nor would I be sure that a "Distinguish" hat note would be called for, since I don't see much chance for readers to have arrived at this "Agent (grammar)" page when they were looing for one of the various redirects for "Agent noun".

2. Yes, it makes sense to replace the link to the DAB page "Ladakhi", but "Ladahki people" is a redirect to "Ladakh", so I probably would have just used Ladakhi.

3. I think I see what happened here. If I'm looking at this correctly, Jasonaggie brought in a bunch of people with name Aida to the "Aida (disambiguation)" page. Yobot fixed some markup. There was an edit conflict as Uanfala extracted the newly added stuff in order to move it to the "Aida (given name)" page, so Yobot had to do it again.

4. It looks to me like there is some problematic phrasing. My interpretation is that Jasonaggie mistook something that said " is part of " as being more like " of, a part of ". Saying "is part of" makes more sense when talking about geographical areas and is harder to understand when talking about two languages. I believe I would have liked to have addressed this confusing language somehow so as to make the relationship between Hindi, Urdu, and Hindustani clear to the average reader.

5. I see what was done here, but not the motivation. Chinka, Chinca, Xinca, Hinka?

6. How does this help anything? Ziarre hangs around with history containing the "Native American name" information, but redirects to something that is unrelated. Seems like an odd way to leave things. Why not hhave it redirect to Given name?

7. I understand removing the bit about English plural, but why then add the plural "shams" referring to decorative pillows, and linking to a different target Bedding than what appears on the "Sham (disambiguation)" page where it links to Pillow?

8. Would be A but I would have kept the same spelling of favor as was used in Syntaxis; note that I only corrected the subject-verb agreement, not the spelling.

I learned quite a lot from watching you work and felt that my time was well spent.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  09:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . I'll have a look at the results after I've gone through your sample, to avoid any reciprocity bias. Uanfala (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, here are some replies (of sorts) to the points from your audit. I'd be happy to discuss any of these, and please let me know if I've missed or misunderstood anything.

1. Agent (grammar) covers the primary linguistics meaning of agent, but there are occasional uses where agent could refer to the agent of an agent noun (for exmaple "the -er suffix derives an agent"). Now, a reader encountering a sentence like this might come to wikipedia looking for more info and, if they're a little bit familiar with the naming conventions, could type something like "agent (linguistics)" or "grammatical agent", which would take them to Agent (grammar). From that article there's no easy way to navigate to agent noun and that's what the hatnote is trying to address. Is it going to be used by many readers? Probably not. Is it going to be useful to some? Likely yes. A borderline case really. If I had to change it, I think I would try to word it in a way that makes it clear why it's there.

2. is the only suitable target. We look at what a term refers to, and not to where it points to. The fact that it currently happens to be a redirect to Ladakh (an article about the place) is irrelevant (there's probably some useful info about that at WP:NOTBROKEN). An article is very likely to be created over that redirect at some point (ethnic groups like this are notable), and there's no reason to make that future article an orphan. Ideally, such redirects should be tagged with R with possibilites or R from subtopic so that people don't try to fix them. But most haven't been tagged yet.

3. Ooops, well spotted!

4. Well, the meaning would be clear to anyone who's read the beginning of the paragraph that the sentence appears in. The source of the confusion was the wording in a previous version of the dab page Hindustani which made it appear as though Hindustani could be used as a synonym for Hindustan (rather than a derived adjective). As for the expression "language X is part of language Y", you are right – it does seem infelicitous (and incidentally, in this phrase I was only removing overlinking. The phrase where the original misdabbing happened read something like "the dialect of Hindustani".)

5. I'm not sure I understand. This was simply moving an article that wasn't a primary topic to make room for a dab page.

6. This is a tricky one. can't redirect to given name because there's no mention of it at the target (at the very least that would astonish readers) and because it's also a spelling variant of Ziyarat (WP:XY). It coudldn't have been turned into a dab page either (the name fails WP:DABMENTION and that leaves only a single entry). An acceptable alternative would have been to wait for the prod to expire and then create a redirect (to Ziyarat). But in cases like this I prefer to keep the page history, which could provide useful hooks for the future editor who tries to make a dab page here.

7. I was simply moving the entry about pillows into a different section, without investigating it much. I don't have this meaning of the word in my variety of English, so I must have been following on from what I'd seen in the target article, and Bedding does define it in its plural form. Now I see that Sham lists the singular and points it at Pillow (where it is defined in the singular). Now that this has been brought up, I see both targets are suitable and I'm not sure if one is better over the other. In this case should we have both dabs point consistently to the same article? I don't think we need to. I'll have no objections either way. 8. Like the typo (thank you for fixing it!), this is an artefact of me copying the description by hand. Is there any reason to keep the spelling of the source? If it's consistency we're aiming for, then we would want it within articles, rather than across.

In turn, I've had a look at your random sample and I'm pleased at what I saw: your edits have been thoughtful and you have provided lucid edit summaries. I agree with most of your disambiguations, and the cases where I have a different view all have to do with unlinking. We would want to keep links (even if they're red at present) about topics that are likely to have articles at some point. I think WP:REDLINK would be worth having a look at.

I've adopted your letter codes, adding X for "I have no competence to comment". Notes

Do you think an exercise like the one we did could be viable as a general practice? Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I like how you made a Wikitable from the query results. Is that an obvious thing or do you have special tricks? And you just taught me about using || as a field separator.
 * Thank you for taking a careful look. Yes, my practices about unlinking vs redlinking are evolving. I'm familiar with WP:REDLINK, but when I work pretty hard to find anything about a subject and come up empty, I'm still tending to unlink. I suspect that to the the vast majority of WP readers, a redlink looks more like a mistake than it looks like an opportunity to make a contribution.
 * Regarding Ziarre, I looked at the redirected-to article and did not see this anywhere as an alternate spelling. Hence my confusion about what you were doing.
 * As for whether other people should do this, ABSOLUTELY!  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  23:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , the query results page has a "Download data" button. You could either download a wikitable directly, or get a .csv file which can then be manipulated with spreadsheet programs, and there must be tools out there that can export that into a wikitable.
 * As for, I have a vague recollection that I found it used to refer to Ziyarah, but now a quick search doesn't come up with anything. I might have been wrong. At any rate, ziyarah (when coming from a Persian source) could be rendered as zi(y)are(h), and ziarre is at a least a conceivable spelling variant of that. But given that I don't see it in sources now, I think I should have tagged it as R from misspelling instead. If there's any general point worth noting, it's that terms coming from non-Latin-script sources usually exist in multiple spelling variants, not all of which need to be listed at the target article, and the space between a spelling variant and a misspelling is a rather fuzzy one. Uanfala (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Daily Disambig hatnote
Hi, Uanfala. I undid the note you added to the top of Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig. I don't think it is good advice. Some newly added dab pages maybe will be reverted, but that's certainly not true of all of them, or even most. I don't see any reason to advise editors generally to avoid fixing links to newly added dab pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thank you for letting me know. There are several reasons for avoiding fixing links immediately after they're created, and they're touched upon in Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links. You're welcome to join the discussion there. Uanfala (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Article name change
User:Uanfala Thanks for editing my contribution. Do you have an idea how to change the article name from Parnkalla language to "Barngarla language"? The latter is how people refer to it in the 21st century. The same applied to Parnkalla people (it should be "Barngarla people"). As an example, you can see the FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA: Croft on behalf of the Barngarla Native Title Claim Group v State of South Australia (2015, FCA 9), File number: SAD 6011 of 1998; John Mansfield (judge). Cheers. Native-title (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I tried to make the moves msyelf, but could not for technical reasons, so I've submitted two move requests at this page. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 11:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ryk72 Thank you. Native-title (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sesquipedalophobia


A tag has been placed on Sesquipedalophobia, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
 * It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lourdes 15:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , creating a soft redirect at the title of an article that was previously deleted does not constitute "recreating a page". I'd suggest having a look at the first criterion your template message links to, particularly its first sentence. Cheers. Uanfala (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I see you've tagged it with WP:A3 as well, but can I remind you that this "article" is a redirect? Ta. Uanfala (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the note. Lourdes  22:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Key to colours
Regarding your partial revert of me, you're not actually supposed to care what the template looks like after the TfD notice because Twinkle is supposed to handle it all automatically. I'll file a bug report at their GitHub page – if there isn't one already – to add a newline between XfD notices and tables. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 02:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC) to reply to me 06:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC) to reply to me 06:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC) to reply to me 06:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , that's good. But then it's not just table markup, there are other elements that need to be the first string on their line in order to work. There was a template the other day that got broken by the TfD notice because it was beginning with a section heading. Uanfala (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Will add. Any other issues? Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * , back to the previous point, I don't think we're not actually supposed to care what the template looks like after the TfD notice. Given that the notice can be disruptive to articles, and there is a choice between displaying it as a block-level or inline element, or noincluding it, I think it's essential to see how the notice is going to affect the articles where the template is used. Uanfala (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that one was obviously intended for use as a block-level element, and there are only two transclusions of it anyway. I guess we could put it in the table header, but that would have basically the same effect. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * In addition, Twinkle doesn't show the template after pressing "Okay"; it shows the TfD discussion. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;

APEM
Changing the primary topic is contested, as both articles look weak, so the dab should be moved to the basename. Next time, if you do change the primary topic, then the dab needs updating too. Widefox ; talk 04:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, . I've retargeted to the journal as it receives five times as many pageviews as the organisation |World_Student_Press_Agency|Advances_in_Production_Engineering_%26_Management so I'd figured there should be a very good reason why this shouldn't be a primary topic. As for the dab page, I didn't bother doing anything to it because I bypassed it with hatnotes. Uanfala (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unusual to change a primary topic, as it indicates there is none. Doing it and not updating the dab breaks the dab and shouldn't happen. Please seek consensus before changing primary topics. (moved discussion to Talk:APEM).  Widefox ; talk 12:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Such "breaking" of a dab doesn't make much of a difference, especially when it's bypassed by redirects. Uanfala (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. It is highly disruptive to break things. Per WP:TWODABS the dab was not needed (at that point) but your action left maintenance for someone else. Combined with a contested unilateral primary topic change, this is all disruption, OK? Regards Widefox ; talk 14:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm confused now. So I should have both reformatted the dab page and had it deleted, and I was highly disruptive for doing neither? Uanfala (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruption on dab pages
Please don't remove valid wiktionary links, do follow MOSDAB and WP:D, and engage on the talk page before edit waring over your preferred version. This is highly disruptive. While trying to find the redirects that you've changed back, I notice you've undone other's work, say at Tibetan language. I agree with User:Paine Ellsworth, although it's a complex one involving a primary topic and a broadconcept. The creation of a dab or changing the primarytopic really needs consensus as this has flipped several times. I've restored what seems to be the default of a redirect to the primary topic. Further discussion about that dab/redirect should be on the talk there, but I want you to know I have concerns over the unilateral nature of all this reverting. Please slow down and seek consensus on the talk pages. Widefox ; talk 15:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Widefox, for your interest in the Tibetan language page. I think Uanfala is correct in that the title is ambiguous and should be disambiguated.  As you can see at Talk:Tibetan, there is no longer an issue for the templates I work with, so perhaps the best disposition for the  redirect would be to re-add the other languages to the Tibetan dab page, and then target that page from the Tibetan language redirect.  There is really no need for two dab pages; however, Standard Tibetan might not be the best target for the ambiguous redirect.   Paine   u/ c  16:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for giving me feedback on my editing and you're welcome to let me know when I do something wrong, but in this particular case it's your actions that are unilateral. The consensus on Tibetan was achieved after a relatively long discussion back in 2012, it involved a fair number of editors and happened on the talk page of an article with many watchers. If you would like to overturn that consensus, you should at the very least start another proper discussion and advertise it at least as widely.
 * As for wiktionary links, not all dab pages need them. The wiktionary entry has to be relevant. You might find MOS:WTLINK useful.
 * And one general piece of advice: before reverting an edit, it might be a good idea to have a look at that edit's edit summary: you might disagree and you're welcome to revert, but it will be helpful to explain in your edit summary why you disagree. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry agree I hadn't seen the talk page of Talk:Tibetan - there was nothing on Talk:Tibetan language. I will stop editing and take up there. Sorry for any confusion.
 * As for bold not reckless, removing a valid wikt link, changing primary topics without updating the dab pages, then asserting following guidelines needs justification, I'd prefer to say my concern isn't well founded. What's wrong with the wikt link? It links to wiktionary, the wiktionary page has one of the dab contents. Can you reason it please? Widefox ; talk 21:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there was a link to the current discussion in the merge notice you removed, but maybe I should have linked to it in my edit summary too.
 * As for the wiktionary links, they don't belong on every dab page. The guidelines explicitly mention them as appropriate for dictionary definitions of the ambiguous term (MOS:WTLINK) or for foreign-language terms present on wiktionary but not included on the dab (MOS:DABOTHERLANG). While it is true that these guideline don't explicitly preclude their use outside of these contexts, it probably is obvious that they should be used only if somehow relevant. I can't see how they are relevant in this case: readers looking for a Lua language aren't helped by a dictionary entry for the meanings of "Lua" in English and Portuguese. Uanfala (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that they don't belong on every page is a straw man. I do, personally, consider them useful, but I don't tell others to do as I do. The problem with the argument above is twofold: 1. it's logically contradictory MOS:DABOTHERLANG says to include per foreign words, then you say don't link to a foreign word. 2. in this case, Lua is particularly important and explicitly allowed per MOS:DABOTHERLANG as it means moon in Portuguese. The significance is rammed home by the computing language being named after the Portuguese word. In conclusion, it's safer to assume useful than not. Please don't remove again. Widefox ; talk 23:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I double-check we're on the same page? A link to lua is useful on Lua, there's no doubt about that. But we're talking about Lua language now. Uanfala (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. Firstly I have to apologise as I seem to have miscategorised your edits as run of the mill dab cleanup, when they are the opposite, in fact, they are good reasoned editing. Apology. Keep up the good work.
 * Good question, think I for one may be talking about two dabs above. Suggest any outstanding discussion be split to the dab talk pages for clarity, and resolved there. Regards, Widefox ; talk 10:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, misunderstandings happen and I'm sure at the time I was more argumentative and insistent than I should have been.
 * Splitting the discussion above and moving it to the talk pages of the relevant dabs is a good idea. I was wondering if the wiktionary question shouldn't be brought up at WT:MOSDAB to gauge the wider community's opinion, as current practices appear to be divergent and no discussion seems to have taken place before. – Uanfala (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of BESM (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BESM (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/BESM (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

See Miscellany for deletion/BESM (disambiguation) for further information regarding this nomination. Thanks, — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Kan
Sorry for reverting you by mistake. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, this happens sometimes. Look just two threads above and there's another example. Uanfala (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications
Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Just some idle thoughts
I am glad to see that you have become active in TFD; it's always nice to have more interested users. I have noticed, however, a rather disturbing trend over the last few weeks, namely that you are increasingly sniping against TFD (and, in particular, a certain editor) with offhand/backhanded comments regarding how it's run. Now, I obviously cannot stop you from feeling as you do or from making those comments, but it is getting rather distracting. I have seen multiple instances where your comments on someone else's !vote is simply "well, that's 'cause TFD sucks and it shouldn't exist" (some slight paraphrasing/exaggeration on my part).

My request, and again I can't force you to anything, would be to keep your comments at TFD related to the discussion itself. For example, arguing with other users about whether a template should have even been nominated is pointless; it's been done and you're welcome to your !vote; belaboring the nomination itself is just tiresome for a closer to read through.

TFD isn't perfect, and is probably the least-liked XFD I've seen so far (well, FFD is a bit odd sometimes), but it's here to stay and I hope the constant bickering between you and certain other editors can be... toned down? I'm happy to start a discussion (or not), but I felt that I should say something before all hell breaks loose (because honestly, that's the way it feels like it's going at the moment). Cheers, Primefac (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you,, for your helpful comments. I'm taking the point about the bickering and I'll try to make my comments more focused from now on. I don't think I'm always able to sense where the line is, so if I cross it again I'd appreciate it if you let me know.


 * I can think of only one example where I "snipe" against TfD, but I thought this was a harmless bit of meta humour. Does it create a hostile atmosphere?


 * There were a few instances where I commented to the effect that a nomination shouldn't have been made, and all of them except one (OSTI, where almost everyone else agreed) had to do with the choice of discussion venue. I remember two that were about user-space templates (one is Nobite2). Now, in both cases the discussion went on, so I was clearly out of touch with reality, but I'm still not sure I understand why. Userboxes are discussed at MfD and I'd imagine this would be the venue to discuss any other kind of user-space content, including one that resides in templates. Or is there an inherent difference between userboxes and other userspace templates that I'm missing?
 * The last example I can remember had to do with a policy-related template (Db-x1). Well, I was relying on the listing instrictions: Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline. Is there a subtle distinction that I'm missing? Or do the listing instructions diverge from common practice? Shouldn't they be updated? Uanfala (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking back over the last week or so of discussions I'm not quite finding what was bothering me, though the "not broken" comment was definitely what prompted me to start this discussion. So... whoops... I guess it isn't quite as bad as I originally made it out to be (though the other points you brought up were what caught my attention). I suppose when the same people are involved in a relatively small project there will invariably be clashes and disagreements.
 * Either way, thank you for being willing to listen and to think about what you're commenting on. I know we have had some disagreements in the past, and some of your comments have also reflected on how I approach TFD. I guess we all have a little to learn. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Komsa (disambiguation)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Komsa (disambiguation), Uanfala!

Wikipedia editor UNSC Luke 1021 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Perfectly fine! Thank you for contributing!"

To reply, leave a comment on UNSC Luke 1021's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A barnstar for you!
You might be interested in adding your entries to WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge which I've recently started, it needs contributors!♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! As soon as I put together one or two more brief articles, I'll add them to the list. – Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Saraiki language
Saraiki is language,182.186.11.208 (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Khua
Hello, Uanfala. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Khua, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. WebCite (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I see that you've removed the prod yourself, so now you're probably aware of what purpose is served by such pages, but in case you're interested to know more, you can have a look at WP:DAB. Sometimes disambiguation pages can get deleted: if either: 1) they meet the WP:G6 criterion; or 2) they only disambiguate between two articles and one of them is the primary topic (WP:TWODABS). – Uanfala (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Orthographic listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Orthographic. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Orthographic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Shahpuri dialect page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=745818857 your edit] caused an ISSN error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F745818857%7CShahpuri dialect%5D%5D Ask for help])

On Jyani
Why did you remove the deletion template? An article that survived a deletion discussion 3 years ago may not now, and so it is eligible for deletion. Thanks, RedPanda25 14:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , the article wasn't nominated for WP:AFD, it was WP:PRODded. An article can be prodded only once. – Uanfala (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. RedPanda25 14:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Your recent editing history at Hindko dialect shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 01:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , putting a 3RR notice on someone's page when you are also complicit in such behavior is rather cheeky. I suggest you both take this debate to the talk page lest you both get blocked for edit warring. Primefac (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I completely understand that, that is why I did not revert him and his fourth revert is standing. There is a difference here. I am not reverting him anymore and asking him to self-revert. There is also difference between just telling someone that they already violated 3RR and actually reporting them to AN3. I am sorry that you saw it as cheekiness instead of a show of good faith to an opponent.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 02:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the friendly notice and the invitation to self-revert. I'm afraid I won't be able to do that. Content on wikipedia, especially one that has been challenged, has to to be verifiable and if a particular source has failed verification for a particular statement, it shouldn't be used to support that statement. I'd imagine you might find WP:SYNTH useful. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Uanfala, you need to be careful here. 3RR is a bright line rule. There are some exemptions (WP:3RRNO) but stating that you're willing to cross 3RR because you believe the material is synthesized is not one of those exceptions. I tried figuring out where you've made the 4th revert (couldn't) but please note that there are no exceptions in your engagement with Sherriff and the others. If you think the material is synthesized or that the references don't support a statement, seek wider input but don't cross 3RR. --regentspark (comment) 17:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reminder. – Uanfala (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Uanfala is also engaged in edit war with :. See how much effort Yoyi ling is putting to avoid edit war. but Uanfala is not listening and pushing while ignoring the talk page filled with other users views against Uanfala's preferred stand. By saying so I don't want to get Uanfala blocked because he is such wonder full editor but I want more edits by him which could make community united and follow standards.  ₯€₠€₯

Help needed
Shortly ago, I turned Dagar into a dab page. I guess it needs some clean-up. Please have a look at it. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good job creating the dab page, ! I've made just one modification: I've merged the "music albums" section into "other uses". Sections with just one or two entries generally aren't needed as they create more clutter than they help with navigation.
 * There's one point I'm not sure about though: whether the two albums need to be listed. The word "dagar" is just part of their names (and so these entries are partial-title matches), and they're very unlikely to be what a user typing "dagar" into the search box is looking for. Unless, they're informally known as just "dagar", in which case they do belong on the dab. – Uanfala (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please decide it for yourself as I hardly know anything about the dab pages. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. The filer of this complaint would normally be expected to notify you. You can respond to the complaint if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Who would have thought that being anal about hatnotes could end up earning a barnstar :) Thank you! – Uanfala (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your edit on Kohat district

Abused word were used about Bangash tribe

Best wishes

Aftab Banoori (Talk) 15:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So that's what that was! Well, that kind of vandalism is quite common across wikipedia. – Uanfala (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Gapan (disambiguation)
This disambiguation page contains the primary topic, mainly original articles. Your edit is not helpful Sir. LisaRoy (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've reverted to Uanfala's version, as it is the preferred arrangement for DAB pages. Additionally, the promotional "footwear capital of the North" should not be included. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No no no itt isn't promotional. I am nort adding any business name. LisaRoy (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for bringing this up and for the comments. I have a vague recollection of having seen both styles being used. Of course, I prefer one of them, but if you'd like to hear more opinions,, you can start a thread at Wikipedia talk:MOSDAB. – Uanfala (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Sir Can you start one. I am a new user. I will participate. LisaRoy (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , any user, new or old, can start a topic there. That talk page isn't just for formal proposals, it's for informal questions as well. You don't need experience in order to ask other people's opinions. – Uanfala (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK I am trying it but need your review Sir LisaRoy (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Language vs. Dialect
Here we are. Just doing as you suggest and bringing our further discussion here to your talk page about this subject. I am truly sorry that you and I must be so sharply divided on this issue, especially since it's an issue that has no perceivable sharp divisions in either the science of linguistics nor on the more popular, yet usually reliable, scene of sources. We could both probably cite sources that support our views, but that would ultimately be shadowy, cloudy and not really truly conclusive, unless they were from some rather arbitrary view of a language speaker who wants their tongue upgraded to "language" or some other writer who wants a nearby tongue to stay a "dialect". Even those sources I've read that support Saraiki as presently a language say words like "until recently, Saraiki was considered a dialect". But they don't really go into it much more deeply. Leaves me with questions like, "When was 'recently'?", and "Considered a dialect by whom?" I'm really being honest with you when I say that, even when it may seem like OR, we must still be compelled to do the best we can with the tools we have, and one of the best tools when it comes to global gray areas is Wikipedia's own brand of consensus. We abide by consensus until we think it has, or may have, changed, and then we test it to see if it's changed. Consensus as defined by this project is really our best tool. It doesn't always work, and it definitely doesn't always work the way we want it to, or the way we think it should, and so on. At this point in time, consensus in the Saraiki dialect RM discussion has been determined to favor no title change. I say respect that, move on, and at some point in the future test it again to see if consensus has changed. Along this vein I have opened an "Addendum" section at Talk:Saraiki dialect.  Paine  u/ c  00:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding earlier,, but I didn't really feel like I had something new to say. I think your specific questions about Saraiki are already answered in first few footnotes to the article (which weren't there when you first read it).


 * I agree with your point about consensus. But I see it in consequentialist terms: it's not an end of itself and it's desirable only to the extent that it helps us make the encyclopedia better. It usually does so by getting us to arrive at a more balanced representation of the different viewpoints. Even when it doesn't achieve this primary purpose (in fact, it hardly ever does so completely: there's almost never going to be a balanced representation of the different viewpoints among the particular population of editors who have participated in a given discussion at a given time), even when it doesn't achieve that, the consensus at least settles the dispute and lets editors focus on improving the encyclopedia. But in order to achieve this secondary goal, the consensus has to be perceived as legitimate. We're all happy to uphold decisions we disagree with as long as we believe they've been made in a reasonable way. A consensus arrived at via a discussion in which good arguments are given and a large number of editors participate is more legitimate than one in which personal opinions are expressed and a small number of editors take part.


 * Now more specifically about your recent comments in the Saraiki RM. No-one is questioning your close of the previous discussion (in fact, the new move request is started by the only editor other than yourself and the socks who endorsed your close, so when you try to maintain the "consensus", it's worth keeping in mind where it comes from; consensus isn't some absolute substance, it's embedded in the context in which it has come about). Obviously, the initiator of the move request isn't going to withdraw it. What your continuing insistence does achieve, either directly or by its effect of deterring participation, is to undermine the legitimacy of whatever outcome this discussion is going to have. Instead of settling the matter, this will only help perpetuate the controversy. – Uanfala (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The outcome of the RM can have no legitimacy – let me repeat that for clarity – the outcome of the present RM at Talk:Saraiki dialect can have no legitimacy, because it is out of process and should never have been opened. Your call in regard to consensus is not surprising.  You ignore not just my October decision, but the MR decision for that discussion, the !votes in the Hindko dialect requested move and MR, and other consensuses, both local and community.  You are painting yourself into a corner, because you make yourself look more and more like just another frustrated person who is desperate to see Saraiki recognized as a language, rather than like an objective encyclopedia editor.  The more you fight this desperate battle, the worse it will get.  This really needs to rest for awhile.  My advice is to wait for a year or so and let things die down, at least with Saraiki and Hindko.  While I haven't deeply studied Hindko, I think Saraiki is enjoying a slow but winning battle to be seen as a language rather than a dialect.  And yet, it's time has not yet come.  So this is just a hopefully helpful call for you to re-engage objectivity and the decision to abide by Wikipedia consensus.   Paine Ellsworth   u/ c  23:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Paine Ellsworth, I think we should let this RM proceed. From what I've seen - and I've been following this for a long while - the various RMs and RfCs have been dominated by socks that have consistently misstated sources and obfuscated the discussion. In a sense, none of those discussions were really valid ones. It would be helpful to have a sock free discussion just to know where we stand. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Allegations of sockpuppetry are very serious and from what I've seen thus far controversial and unsubstantiated. Another possibility is that some of the alleged SPs are simply several people using one public computer, such as in a library.  I'm no expert, so when I see several people using broken English, especially in writing, it would be easy for me to think that it is really just one person trying to "sock" it to the discussions.  Before we can definitively scream "sockpuppetry" in this case, only a language expert, who is able to discern things that I cannot, would have to have a look at the various suspected posts.  Only then should we be as certain as you seem to be.  So no, the RM should be closed and we should wait at least a year before such proceedings.  The subject is in too much turmoil to continue it at this time.   Paine Ellsworth   u/ c  16:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You may be right. But the number of identified socks is already large (see the link below) and the IPs that appear only when a defense is necessary are suspiciously duck like in their approach. Regardless, the issue is a politicized one and I think it is time for a discussion amongst (relatively) dispassionate editors for once. --regentspark (comment) 17:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're missing the sock warehouse at Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert and its archive. Also, no-one has bothered opening SPI cases agains most of the IPs as these have come and gone and have hardly ever stayed for more than a day or two. – Uanfala (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That wasn't missed at all, and there is little there to change my mind, in which I agree with RegentsPark that the issue is "politicized", indeed far too politically charged for a page move discussion. The RM should be be withdrawn and we should wait at least a year.  If we don't, then I wouldn't get my hopes up for a successful page move.  There is just too much controversy at this point.  And while you think that it is I who somehow sabotages the RM, it is actually you who sabotages it by acting prematurely and against consensuses, both local and community.   Paine Ellsworth   u/ c  17:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That wasn't missed at all, and there is little there to change my mind, in which I agree with RegentsPark that the issue is "politicized", indeed far too politically charged for a page move discussion. The RM should be be withdrawn and we should wait at least a year.  If we don't, then I wouldn't get my hopes up for a successful page move.  There is just too much controversy at this point.  And while you think that it is I who somehow sabotages the RM, it is actually you who sabotages it by acting prematurely and against consensuses, both local and community.   Paine Ellsworth   u/ c  17:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Naxuan


A tag has been placed on Naxuan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , it's usually a good idea to have a peep at the talk page of anything you nominate for deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 09:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have seen that, because I was closing/relisting discussions, I wasn't sure if it was going to be controversial, but I'm more than happy if you feel like a second RfD on that. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * then I guess there's something I'm missing. Why should a redirect whose RfD received no "delete" !votes be speedy deleted? – Uanfala (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had nothing to do with the initial deletion, please ask the closing admin. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The situation has become silly enough: you probably aren't going to be the last one to nominate this per G4, so I guess it's time to have a discussion using the proper channels. I've started Deletion review/Log/2016 November 17. – Uanfala (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

RPP
The stuff on your userpage was getting a bit excessive, so I've put in a request for temporary protection at RPP. Primefac (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Appreciated! – Uanfala (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

PLZ DONOT REVERT MY EDITS IN ARTILE pUNJABI LANGUAGE,I AM EXPANDING .Shemaroo (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Punjabi language
I have made edits in this article, plz do not revert or change because i did not write extra any thing,i have just rearranged material already available on wikipedia like hotos etc and i have just wrote the matrial available in this article.plz donot revert Shemaroo (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , you've already posted this message on the article's talk page. It's visible there for anyone to see and there's no need to inform individual editors. – Uanfala (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

i am going to add sources for articles Punjabi language
sir i am going to add sources for articles Punjabi language.thanx in advance Shemaroo (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thank you for letting me know. However, I don't think you need to tell everyone what you're planning to do. If you need to announce something, you could use the talk page of the article concerned. Before adding sources, you might want to have a look at WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. – Uanfala (talk) 11:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Relevance
If you think that this the Baluchistan Liberation Army is a declared terrrorist organisation is not relevant on a page of a Baloch militant leader, I believe you are mistaken. I will take this to wikipedia administrators. It is referenced to the UK Home Office department and has a fully attached PDF file, stating the "Baluchistan Liberation Army" was proscribed in 2006. It is relevant. ( Wiki id2  (talk)  15:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
 * It's about this edit, right? The article is Akbar Bugti, and at the end, its lead paragraph talks about the significance of Bugti's death. And then out of the blue comes the sentence you've inserted, which is seemingly about a completely different topic. There's no mention of it in the rest of the article. Is Bugti a military leader of that organisation, as you say? Then that fact will have to be stated before anything is said about the organisation itself. And such a strong claim will have to be supported by a reliable source. I don't have any knowledge of, or interest in, this subject matter, but the article on the organisation says that Bugti is claimed to have been among its founders. – Uanfala (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Fantastico (supermarket chain)
If you think there is more material to add, please add it.  DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to expand or update an article after I've deprodded it, but I'm not sure I'm much into writing about supermarket chains. – Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Indian Subcontinent Languages
Hello

You,r Good work on the subject. Can you improve these few ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaRoy (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Aer
 * Badeshi
 * Bateri
 * Bhadrawahi
 * Bhaya
 * Brahui
 * Brokskat
 * Burig/Purik
 * Chambeali
 * Changthang
 * Chilisso
 * Dari
 * Dameli
 * Dehawri
 * Dhatki/Thari
 * Domaaki
 * Gawar-Bati
 * Ghera
 * Goaria
 * Gowro
 * Gojri (Gujari)
 * Gurgula
 * Hazaragi
 * Jadgali
 * Jandavra
 * Jogi, a language spoken by Jogi
 * Kabutra
 * Kachchi/Kutchi
 * Kalami
 * Kalasha-mun
 * Kalkoti
 * Kamviri
 * Kati
 * Khetrani
 * Kohistani Indus
 * Koli-Kachi
 * Koli-Parkari
 * Koli-Wadiyara
 * Lasi
 * Loarki
 * Marwari
 * Memoni
 * Od/Odki
 * Ormuri
 * Palula
 * Sansi
 * Savi
 * Swati
 * Shina-Kohistani
 * Sindhi-Bhil
 * Torwali
 * Uyghur (spoken by Uyghur community)
 * Ushojo/Ushoji
 * Wakhi
 * Waneci
 * Yidgha
 * Zangskari
 * Thank you for your suggestion. These are the languages listed at Languages of Pakistan, right? I'd love to work on these but I'm afraid I'll manage to, especially given that some of the "major" languages still need a lot of work. I'm still cleaning up the mess in the languages sections of the Punjab district articles, and after I'm done with that I plan to expand Saraiki language and, if I manage to get around to that (which isn't very likely), rewrite Punjabi dialects and Lahnda. I don't think I'll have the time to follow up on your suggestions. – Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * GREAT and also look at few more Meds, Lori and Mokaki dialect of Loris  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaRoy (talk • contribs) 15:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

LisaRoy
This user seems to be someone's sock. See this. Filpro (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, the tiger has shown its stripes. However, I don't think starting an SPI is worth the trouble, unless they start getting really disruptive. – Uanfala (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there it goes again: Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert. – Uanfala (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

DRN
Please visit DRN to solve a content dispute between us. Please don't feel it personal. Dye heart respects AksheKumar (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Malplaced dab pages
Hi, Uanfala. Just wanted to give you a heads up: in this edit, you redirected Terk to Terk (disambiguation). But that's backwards; if one is to be a redirect to the other, the redirect should always be the page with "(disambiguation)" in its title. When it's reversed, like this pair, it's a "malplaced" dab page. Don't just copy-and-paste from one to the other (you didn't, but sometimes people do); read WP:MALPLACED to learn ways to deal with these. Often, they are a quick fix at WP:RMT. — Gorthian (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you for fixing that. I didn't do it myself because I wasn't sure if my move away from a previous primary title wouldn't be controversial – before going to RMT, I wanted to let it rest for some time and see if someone reverts. – Uanfala (talk) 11:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yikes
When you decide to move an article and make a dab, would you please resolve at least some of the links that now point to the dab page? There are over 200 of them! :-O — Gorthian (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. there were zero links when I checked after moving it. It might have been a glitch, or (much more likely) an error on my part. As for the 200 links... I generally tend to avoid fixing all links, if there are many of them – after all, somebody has to make work for team DPL, no? ;)
 * , am I missing anything with the Siby~Sibby business? All the Sibys are already listed either in the dab page or in the linked name article, and I don't see a point in the current intitle link. On the other hand, Sibby would be a valid entry in the see also, but there's no such page yet, so I think it's helpful to at least direct readers to the search results that contain the three people with that name. – Uanfala (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually, intitle applies only to the spellings on the dab (or name) page itself. That's not a hard and fast rule (nor do I recall seeing it in guidance anywhere) but, in my experience, it is a general practice. I often add the template proactively; all the articles that have the term in the title may be covered at the moment, but new articles are constantly being created, and dab-page maintenance quickly falls behind, so readers can see what else is out there.
 * Also, I made a page for Sibby and expanded the pages Siby, Siby (name), and Sibi (disambiguation). Apologies for being so tardy with this response. — Gorthian (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Question
Can Saroha be a valid DAB page? There are some people with this surname, although only one of them seem notable:

NitinMlk (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Amit Kumar Saroha
 * Jitendra Saroha, Orissa Steelers
 * Ajay Kumar Saroha, Bangalore Hi-Fliers
 * Ranbir Singh Saroha, contested in 2008 Rithala (Delhi Assembly constituency) elections
 * Ah, that's a borderline case. If these aren't likely to ever have articles written about them, and the articles where they're mentioned aren't likely to ever be expanded to include more content about them other than the current brief mentions, I don't think such a dab page would be very useful. I wouldn't create one, but I wouldn't nominate it for deletion if I saw it either (although probably some editors would).
 * Having said that, there does appear to be one eligible entry: there's an organisation with that name mentioned at Malay Singaporeans, which gives just about enough context to be at the threshold for inclusion. And there also appears to be a village with that name (although it's not currently mentioned in the relevant union council article), and as villages are inherently notable, it might have an article created about it some day. –  Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Damn, I forgot to add the Indian village – Saroha, Uttar Pradesh – which is now mentioned in the List of villages in India. Anyway, it doesn't matter now, as there's already a delete !vote at its AfD. BTW, thanks for such a detailed explanation! - NitinMlk (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

ABOUT SARAIKI
SIR YOU JUST CAN NOT IGNRE SAYING THAT INDIAN ARE JUST SMALL EMIGRI POPULATION,IN INDIA SARAIKI (OR MULTANI) IS SPOKEN IN FAZILKA DISRICT NAD FEROZPUR DISTRIC,THEY ARE NOT EMMIGRINTS, BUT THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS PUNJABI SPEAKER,YOU CAN THRUST NEWLY BORN TERM SARAIKI ON ALL. Shemaroo (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , there really is no need to post the same comment both on the article's talk page and here. Also, using all caps is the internet equivalent of shouting, and much like in the real world, shouting isn't going to get people to agree with you or to reply to your comments. – Uanfala (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)