Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Places in Bangladesh)/Log

Puzzled

I'm puzzled by some of the recent changes to Wikipedia:BDPLACE/Log. According to WP:BDPLACE:

Shouldn't Tanore Upazila remain Tanore Upazila? "Upazila" is an integral part of the proper name. And there's no other Tanore Upazila in another district that would force the addition of ", <district name>" as disambiguation.
As above, shouldn't Puthia Upazila remain Puthia Upazila?
As above, shouldn't Mohanpur Upazila remain Mohanpur Upazila?
As above, shouldn't Bholahat Upazila remain Bholahat Upazila?

Shouldn't Enayetpur remain Enayetpur? There's no other Enayetpur from which disambiguation is required.
As above, shouldn't Gaganpur remain Gaganpur?
As above, shouldn't Hemayetpur remain Hemayetpur?
As above, shouldn't Randhunibari remain Randhunibari?
As above, shouldn't Nazipur remain Nazipur?

Thanks, Worldbruce (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. @Aditya Kabir:, BDPLACE states: Whenever possible, articles on places in Bangladesh go under [[placename]]. and For places and territories within districts, but not in a city: [[placename, district]]. Here, district name would drop the part District from name for sake of brevity. e.g. [[Kaliganj Upazila, Gazipur]] but not [[Kaliganj Upazila, Gazipur District]]. (signed later) nafSadh did say 06:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I compressed second tier names - "X, Y, Z District" instead of "X, Y Upazila, Z District". Obviously "X, Y, Z" would be even shorter. Cool. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nafsadh: Hmmmm. This revert got me a bit confused. Are we going in for a convention? Or do we keep it open like Worldbruce wants? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Aditya Kabir: I think you're misreading the convention and Nafsadh's unsigned reply above. By "Yes" I believe Nafsadh means that X should remain X. Only if disambiguation is required would it become X, Y or X, Y, Z. The confusion probably indicates that the structure and/or wording of the convention still needs polishing, but whoever's reading of it is right, I support having a convention. Worldbruce (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Worldbruce is reading it the way I am reading it. But, indeed I think we need to polish the wording. What BDPLACE states is that, do not add disambiguating suffixes unless it is needed. But also states, Tanore Upazila is different from Tanore. Hence, even if there is no article for Tanore, Tanore Upazila would remain at Tanore Upazila. –nafSadh did say 06:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the example I can just add that there is no Tanore.

Anyways, have the pilot. Without any example I don't think any polishing would work. Too much of vagueness anyways. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Tanore township indeed. -nafSadh did say 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. Amazing. Is that a part of digital Bangladesh? Now we are talking. Thanks for the link dude. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 21:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]