Talk:Vinjhan

India: Gujarat / Geography Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Naming[edit]

Lordtekken continues to re-add an incorrect edit that the name is Vinjan. While this might be an additional name, the sources in the article support Vinzan. Additionally, as this article is several years old, any change in name really needs to be discussed. Please provide your "third party source" that states definitively it is not Vinzan. Praxidicae (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 January 2019[edit]

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: Moved. (non-admin closure) samee converse 09:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinzan → Vinjhan – Per [1] and other sources and 2011 census, appears to actually be Vinjhan. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Iffy★Chat -- 14:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 00:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galobtter I honestly think this needs to be redirected to Abdasa Taluka as it's such a small village with so few sources that it could be covered there. Praxidicae (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, obviously. All villages are considered to be appropriate subjects for Wikipedia articles, even if they are inhabited by non-white people, and this is clearly the current spelling. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger Would you please elaborate on what you meant by this: even if they are inhabited by non-white people, and this is clearly the current spelling. and what relevance it has? Praxidicae (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that nobody would say that every article about a village in, say, the USA or the UK, should be redirected to an article about a county, so the same should apply to a village in India. See WP:GEOLAND. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the up-to-date spelling has been demonstrated above by Galobtter. Many places where the Roman alphabet is not the main script in use had various different spellings in the past, but in India, at least, spellings are mostly standardized now. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but would not oppose relisting. I changed the Google Books search above to the current name, and got almost twice as many hits. [2] The proposal seems to be based on primary sources. Andrewa (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa, the Vinjhan sources are from the 1970-80s onwards, while the sources for Vinzan per that search are largely not about the village (which is why we shouldn't go by raw ghits) and are mostly very old - more than 60-80 years old. - and those that are about the village appear to be similarly primary (district census, government gazette). I'd expect the (limited-number of) sources to generally follow the census spelling too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we shouldn't go by raw ghits. I'm just pointing out that if we do (as proposed above) it doesn't support the move anyway. No case has been made and the discussion period has ellapsed, but I didn't think it right to close as no consensus, no move when the only explicit !vote was support, even though that vote is IMO discardable.

Also agree that WP:NAMECHANGES is applicable. That should be investigated, and evidence provided. Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per nom, COMMONNAME. The Google results are compelling. —В²C ☎ 14:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.