Talk:Guntur district

The name..

Name of this city is Gunturu with a u at the end. All Telugu names end with a vowel sound (ajanta bhasha) like Italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.222.42 (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Split the page

Need to spilt the page into Two: one for Guntur District another for Guntur City. Chirags 17:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Completed Chirags 18:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I believe that Guntur Coast should be merged with this article, as it can easily fit in the "Geography" section of this article. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Support, if this is the case then, there will be 9 districts with their respective coasts, and many other districts in other states as well, so the sub-sub-page Guntur Coast should be merged to this page, for precise info.--Vin09 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Support. As of now, the article doesn't have any content that justifies a separate article. utcursch | talk 19:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Against- Although these article(s) have some similarity due to its location, but I believe these should not be merged. Example- There is article about India, it does not mean that rivers, states, and other places etc. to be merged in the India (article) . CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 18:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

There are n number of temples and schools in India, do we have all those pages, rather we have list of temples page and list of universities page.--Vin09 (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: Reasons for merger say, a article can be merged in the condition of if it is Duplicate, Overlaps, have very few Text or content. It depends upon the quality of the article as well. Instead of questing me support the merger proposal. There are numerous examples on Wikipedia, have a look of these two article Gonda district and Gonda, Uttar Pradesh. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 18:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not questioning you, its a merge discussion, nothing against your opinion, I tried to point out that, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh is a city, Gonda district is a district, they do require a separate page, but here it is about coastline of district page, quite different, why I have pointed that is my article Coastline of Andhra Pradesh, a reviewer placed it in Wiki India discussion for discussion, whether it should have separate page or not, and this is a sub page of that, there are 9 districts in AP, if it is ok to keep this page, then those 9 districts and districts within other states should also have pages like Srikakulam Coast, Vizianagaram Coast and so on.--Vin09 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The subject of Reasons for merger overlap may be applies to this article with Coastline of Andhra Pradesh article.--Vin09 (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: I wish you should not be wrong, and I think your most of contribution can be merged into existing articles. I will take time to review some of your contribution. Anyways Thanks for response. Keep contributing! CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 18:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have anything about my contribution, use my talk page, but at this section have only about the topic.--Vin09 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"There are n number of temples and schools in India, do we have all those pages, rather we have list of temples page and list of universities page", if it is ok to keep this page, then those 9 districts and districts within other states should also have pages like Srikakulam Coast, Vizianagaram Coast and so on. Reflects your different views on the same topic. According to you every school and colleges or universities cannot have their separate articles? Well, I would like to inform you there are lots of such articles on Wikipedia. And of course why can't, every district have its own articles? Wikipedia, require the criteria to fulfill its policy of WP:notability and WP:verifiability; rest there is no such problems in having separate articles. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 18:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Here, the discussion is not about district, about Guntur Coast. As you said, why can't, every district have its own articles? Guntur district has its own page, no body opposing it. --Vin09 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: I am aware of it, that it is a coast not a district (it was answer to your query). My response for this merger is that, "It should not be merged, there is already confusion about merging it into Coastline of Andhra Pradesh or Guntur district". Merging may be possibly WP:COI. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 19:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Guntur Coast is a WP:STUB so small that the whole article can easily fit in Guntur district#physics. Furthermore, Guntur district doesn't even mention Guntur Coast. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 21:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If these articles are encouraged, then there will be articles such as Visakhapatnam Coast, Viskhapatnam district coast, Gajuwaka coast, everything is same. The page info about Nizampatnam, Suryalanka beach, all those have their own pages, absolutely redundant to be mentioned. A Port City to be built near Nizampatnam (assumptive), still do not exist.--Vin09 (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• merge somewhere, there is no sourced content in Guntur Coast that cannot be comfortably merged elsewhere. and in fact the one source in the "Coast" article does not even mention anything about "Guntur Coast" , rather it mentions Guntur district .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose merger on the basis that Guntur Coast, albeit short, forms a valid basis for expansion. Coastal areas are by no means typical of a district as a whole, and the coast article lends itself to enormous development in terms of ecology, geomorphology and other aspects that are specific to the coastal parts of the overall district.

We should not be shy of splitting coastal (etc) areas out. However, we should also recognise that coastal features are not constrained by the formal boundaries of a district. It may, thus, be important to look at the overall coastal systems, and to consider that there needs to be a different definition of the coastline that is not congruent with the definitions of districts. That is a wider topic than this merge proposal. Fiddle Faddle 15:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• • you are putting the cart before the horse. expansion to a stand alone article can be done when there is legitimate content to merit a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• In Wikipedia the order of carts and horses scarcely matters. We create stubs and hope for expansion. I often agree with you, today, on this topic, I do not. I am not, however, going to make an impassioned argument about it. I feel, simply, that the merger ought not to take place for the reasons I have stated already. Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• WP:GNG yes, carts and horses and significant content about the subject do indeed matter at Wikipedia. neither of the two sources in the existing Coast article actually even mention the supposed subject of that article -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• There is an article which I created Coastline of Andhra Pradesh. So that's why this merge was proposed for either Guntur district or Coastline of Andhra Pradesh. Any view?--Vin09 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Good idea. Other article is not too big. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support: Guntur Coast is more of a stub and this articles does not even mention anything about it. Best to merge the contents. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 12:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom.....none of the 2 sources mention about the topic...better to merge to Guntur district geography section. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guntur district. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151227185018/http://rmsaap.nic.in/Notification_TSG_2015.pdf to http://rmsaap.nic.in/Notification_TSG_2015.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161107155331/http://www.ap.gov.in/department/organizations/school-education/ to http://www.ap.gov.in/department/organizations/school-education/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guntur district. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150428070826/http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/apfactfile/info%20on%20districts/guntur.html to http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/apfactfile/info%20on%20districts/guntur.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)