Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir/Archives/2012/February

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Set up clue bot here? The page needs a clean look for the new discussions related to disambig. as well as getting huge. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. Mar4d (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done --lTopGunl (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page is not appropriate

Apparently there was some discussion about page merger on Talk:Azad Kashmir, and in the course of that discussion it was suggested that this page should be reformatted as a disambiguation page. Unfortunately, no one consulted with WikiProject Disambiguation about that proposal, or notified the project of the proposal. The problem is that the term "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is not ambiguous. It refers to a single well-defined area that has been divided into two subparts for administrative purposes. This name is not ambiguous any more than the name Kashmir itself is ambiguous, even though the geographic area of Kashmir is divided among multiple political entities. The {{Disambiguation}} template should be removed from this page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What I have been saying. This should be a small article explaining about the area of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" which has been divided into two subparts for administrative and political purposes and had a third part ceded to China. JCAla (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
JCAla, we're not going to debate that again. The point is, "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is a political term that only came into existence after the Kashmir War and is basically a convenient/neutral international designation for the part of Kashmir under Pakistani control. The term is not used by Pakistan itself and the same goes for Jammu and Kashmir, which is internationally designated as Indian-administered Kashmir although that term is not officially used by India itself for the territory. Read the previous arguments on that. I am confident that the articles History of Azad Kashmir and History of Gilgit-Baltistan ideally do a perfect job of explaining the dispute over the territory. @R'n'B: I don't think comparing Kashmir (the native name of the region) with "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" (a modern term in political usage), and saying that the latter is "no more ambiguous" than the former is a reasonable comparison. As a matter of fact, this term does have a degree of ambiguity. Pakistan-administered Kashmir is not a single area, as you say; rather, it's a designation for two seperate areas with their own, seperate official administrative systems. When this term is used, it can refer to either Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan: hence, the presence of ambiguity. Mar4d (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This has been debated over and closed. This is counter productive to the efforts made in that discussion and there's no use of going over this again. Even "Kashmir" has a disambiguation page: Kashmir (disambiguation). Just because it has an article doesn't mean it is non ambiguous. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't find it constructive to announce that the topic is closed to users who were not notified of the previous discussion and had no reasonable opportunity to participate in it. Further, I would be interested to be referred to any published source that uses the term 'Pakistan-administered Kashmir' to refer only to Azad Kashmir or only to Gilgit-Baltistan. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 02:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I called in an RFC (without an opposition in the first place) knowing the nature of the case and then I waited for half a month even after getting a unanimous consensus so that I do get oppositions. JCAla objected and I explained my nomination to him. The consensus finally came out to be as merge. Unfortunately/fortunately the consensus is not dependent of a say of every wikipedian that exists. This effort however is counter productive to the previous discussion. Infact, in your last sentence you explain yourself why this is a disambiguation page and not a simple redirect. The page has been merged by a well formed consensus and the disambiguation has been created by unanimous support of opposing and favoring editors. Hope that answers your question. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Not to forget that the RfC in total lasted for one whole month. If that is not ample time to come up with consensus, then I don't know what is. As I've said, the History of Azad Kashmir and History of Gilgit-Baltistan articles do a far better job at explaining Pakistan-administered Kashmir. This article was seriously redundant. "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is not even the official name of the territories, it's just an international designation. Mar4d (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
TopGun, I don't understand at all your comment that "you explain yourself why this is a disambiguation page and not a simple redirect." (Especially since I never suggested it should be a redirect.) I asked for information, which so far no one has provided.
Anyway, assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, I would have thought that TopGun and Mar4d would both have been busy for the past few days correcting all the pages that contain links to "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" and correcting (i.e., disambiguating) those links to point to the correct article. Oddly, however, the number of those links seems not to have changed at all in the past couple of days. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Now, what is this all about? Azad Kashmir is just one entity of Pakistan-administered Kashmir - not a synonym. There already exists an article on Azad Kashmir, no need for a disambiguation page. JCAla (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
JCAla, you're advised to stop watching my contributions. That is a correct redirect as The whole non split area was known as Azad Kashmir before 1970 and the whole area is still referred to as such in Pakistan. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
No comment on your non-content based remark. On content, there should be some note then that in that disambiguation you are referring to the historical "Azad (Jammu and) Kashmir" - the Pakistani name for the whole of Pakistan-administered Kashmir until 1970. "Azad Kashmir" contemporary refers to only one out of two entities of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. JCAla (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually that would deserve a separate article for the historical administrative entity (seeing that we have one on NWFP from British rule till Pak renamed it to KP). But I guess at the moment we don't have enough content available as well as a history of Azad Kashmir article is present. About the redirect, the facts that Azad means free in Urdu and that Pakistan considers its part of Kashmir as liberated would both get that disambiguation to redirect to this on the basis of common knowledge of Urdu or of Pakistan's views. And since there's no separate article on that historical entity yet, a disambiguation link would be useless as the purpose of a disambiguation is to direct the reader to the relevant articles. I think I actually mentioned it here (and that disambiguation redirects here) but some one removed it (did you?). --lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, TopGun, I went back and read your RFC. I don't disagree with anything you proposed there. However, the word "disambiguation" never appeared in the RFC, so there is no reason anyone interested in disambiguation would have participated in the discussion. My concern is limited solely to the designation of this page as a "disambiguation" page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ok, I assumed that you read the merger proposal discussion before commenting here so I refered to that. It was I who suggested both the redirect and the disambig. page. I meant if it had been a redirect then your last sentence would have been valid but your comment makes it clear why it is a disambig. page since it doesn't refer to a single one of them. That is the purpose of a disambig. page. I will correct any of those links if I do see them and I assume so for Mar4d as well but you should see WP:VOLUNTEER. I also assumed a bot to fix those (which it did as I saw at one point). Actually the proposal about merger does have the suggestion.. maybe you did not find it or I might have used a short hand for "disambiguation". --lTopGunl (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Administrative entities"

This should be, "it may refer to" instead of "its two administrative entities are" because the administrative entities are of Pakistan and not Pakistan-administered Kashmir as that is a neutral name given to the region. In short, the administrative entities are of a country or a province and this would have been true if P.A.K. was a province of Pakistan. I suppose you have an explanation for keeping it that way? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I've made a slight rephrase keeping your mention of administrative entities yet making it less confusing. Discuss for further improvement. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I am fine with that slight rephrase. JCAla (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Good, then that stays till some one else has a better one. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)