Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Speedy keep. Page is now correctly tagged as a proposed guideline and is under active discussion, which puts it pretty much off limits from MFD for the time being. Any move-related controversies caused by the original author should be addressed in other venues. --RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions (India)


Nothing but objections on talk page. Formed completely against consensus, and the user who created it is using it to start move-wars (see ANI). The user has been told to go to WP:RM for controversial moves, but has ignored this. Kill it before it spreads. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, I'm one of the editors who objected to it in its current form and the use of it as a guideline to start moves (and took to ANI), but we do need a guideline and this page serves as a starting point for creating that. Having this guideline isn't bad, but what we need is some discussion around the creation and application of the guideline, not treat it as some binary note under the pretext the US articles do this, so if India articles don't then there's a bias in the system. That said, I'm quite open to moving this to a title that indicates it's a work in progress/discussion until such time that something that can be implemented is developed, so that it's not treated as a guideline. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, I was the creator. Talk page shows agreements with several facts on the page. The rest(all?) of the facts comes from actual observations of current usage. If there is anything not falling into the former categories it should be discussed or removed. I am happy to see SpacemanSpiff as my main opponent in several India related discussions to vote it for keep. I hope we can have an objective discussion of it's content. Hopefully this will also resolve many of the disputes between us. And maybe it can be the beginning of a more positive interaction between us. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with Bogdan and Spiffy that such a policy is needed. However this page should explicitly indicate that it's a work in progress and not yet a consensus-based document, so nobody should be defending page moves with "go read WP:NC(I) and you'll see I'm correct". The debate has been heated, but once it gets sorted out it'd be great to preserve its findings in this article to address any points which may come up in the future. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It does so, see the top: "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process.". Only for 34 min it was marked as guideline, because I thought it presented current usage (i.e. naming conventions) found before NC creation plus the things agreed on the talk. WP:BRD. This tagging was reverted and since then it is marked a proposal again. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that a proper policy is needed, but with input from WikiProject:India and other interested editors. I will say keep merely because I would have voted to delete and have the WikiProject restart the page with a proper policy guideline, but it appears my fellow editors - including the original complainant at AN/I - seem to agree that it can be salvaged from what is there now.  CycloneGU (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, any page moves citing this policy must be reverted for the time being. Once the policy is complete, we can explore those moves again.  CycloneGU (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - A lot of moves were done due to several reasons and only the additional link to WT:NCINDIA or WP:NCINDIA cannot be taken as a revert reason. Other users don't link any convention at all, e.g. "15 May 2011 Crusoe8181 moved Nawabpet, Rangareddy district to Nawabpet, Ranga Reddy (stdd orthogr.)" - this is a work I have performed too, but under presenting a link to NCINDIA, so people could actually see something. Only after someone complained about the links, I stopped to provide them. Not sure what the benefit was, beside getting rid of that complain. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As long as people are aware that it is a work-in-progress, I don't see the problem, as long as people do not continue to cite it as a move rationale.  Hi 8 7 8   (Come shout at me!) 23:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - You mean, it is better to only write "naming convention" instead of providing a link to a page that lists the current naming conventions, so that people could at least go to the talk and get involved? I did provide the links in the move comments as a courtesy to others and as a help for the future since the move comment will be in the move history log. I thought the plain string "naming convention" in the aforementioned diff is of less help than a link. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy if it's a one-man-work-in-progress then perhaps the user's page is the best place for it? -- Klein zach  06:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Following your suggestion would mean violating the process detailed in WP:POLICY subsection WP:PROPOSAL, which Naming conventions (India) is currently following. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very very borderline. but keep. More active involvement is needed from WikiProject India and other interested editors if this page was ever to succeed as a proposal. The situation re the US, Canada and Australia as relatively recent countries with a lot of imported names is quite different to a mostly indigenously populated country with a multiplicity of languages. Orderinchaos 11:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In what respect is that different? Do older countries with more historic place names and more currently used languages not need a written down naming convention? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * userfy UNTIL consensus is gained and the work is furthered by review and corrections and cleaned up. Its hardly clear what is intended right now...and per the arguements seems unilateral especially when cited by said user with a CPOI it seemsn ow to move pages.Lihaas (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it you want it to be cleaned up then the WP space is the right place, read WP:PROPOSAL. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It is something neeeded. Refer to Before before nominating. Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.