Talk:Punjab (disambiguation)

Move to Punjab

• Support: move dab to Punjab Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support - Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

ugh

My God, my God. I remove links to this page every week – within 7 days, at least 50 new links have cropped up. Which is good in a way – new articles are appearing. But it's a bloody pain in the neck!!! — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 10:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sikh Empire

Am I missing something here but why does Sikh Empire keep getting put back into the "former countries, states and provinces" section. All the others contain the word Punjab, in any case Sikh Empire is a redirect. Pahari Sahib 20:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a political campaign by Wjkk20 to insert "Sikh Empire" and "Khalistan" into a series of articles related to the Punjab. He has been warned not to keep doing this without discussion and general agreement on the talk page of the articles in question. Sunray (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Khalistan

I had a question and that is that everytime when somebody enters Khalistan as well on this article, somebody deletes it. Why? Is it not a major part of happenings of Punjab region? Khalistan is not something foreign. It is of Punjab region that why it shouldn't be there? Reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjkk20 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand. Currently, Khalistan isn't a major happening in Punjab. It was in the 80s, but not at this moment. And I think that if we were going to mention Khalistan in this article, it would go under history. But ask the other editors on this page also. Deavenger (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes go ahead consult it with others, it will be the best solution as consulting others seems to be the proper way to resolve it. Wjkk20 (talk) 18:22, 01 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Wjkk20, I'm sorry that none of us who've been deleting your entries has dropped by your talk page to explain precisely why. That was rude of us and the templates you've been left are not, IMO, helpful. I'm glad that you've stuck around. So, why have we been deleting your entries? Whether Khalistan is or is not a major happening in Punjab at this moment or any other moment in history is not what's at issue here. The reason people keep deleting it and Sikh Empire is that people feel they're out of place on this disambiguation page. Guidelines for what a disambiguation page is can be found here. The way I think people are interpreting this is to say that neither Khalistan nor Sikh Empire begin with or include the word Punjab and therefore links to these pages simply don't belong here. That both Khalistan and Sikh Empire existed in or are proposed to exist in the area currently known as Punjab isn't relevant because people aren't likely to be typing in 'Punjab' when they mean 'Khalistan' or 'Sikh Empire'. The function of a DAB page is simply to quickly shuttle people to the correct page when what they typed in to the search function could have more than one possibility. Hope that's helpful. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To User:Ka Faraq Gatri, I see what you're trying to say here but also remember that the links I've had been trying to post here also called Punjab, people also call them Punjab. Matter of fact, the names by which they're known as aren't frequented as much as is frequented name Punjab with them. Wjkk20 03:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to say I agree with Ka Faraq Gatri on this, anyone specifically looking for Khalistan or Sikh Empire would search for those terms. I think everyone is aware that the Sikh Empire ruled the area but it isn't the same as the area. It's a bit like having the Norman dynasty on the England (disambiguation) page, also Khalistan is a proposed state in Punjab.

Not having these links on the Punjab page is in no way demeaning to any community. For example to go with the English example, no one could deny that the Norman dynasty had a tremendous influence on England and that they ruled over what is England (with some border changes here and there) - but the entry is not on the DAB page because it doesn't belong there (for similar reasons).

Pahari Sahib 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that Ka Faraq Gatri has explained this well. I agree with his comments and those of Pahari Sahib. Simply put, the purpose of a disambiguation page is to provide alternative uses for a word or phrase. In this case, the word is "Punjab." Only variants of that word should appear here. The relevant section of the guideline on disambiguation pages can be found here. I have reverted Wjkk20 for the nth time. Continuing to insert "Khalistan" and "Sikh Empire," on this page consitutes vandalism. Sunray (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Empire to Punjab Empire

Why don't we change the article's name again from Sikh Empire to Punjab Empire as it is the most authentic and most original name of the country. Because nobody has ever called or known this country by name of Sikh Empire/Confederacy, everybody has always known it by name of Punjab Empire or just Punjab. And also because if anybody would be come looking for the former Punjabi country then they would most likely type in Punjab, not Sikh Empire/Confederacy. Plus it would also give the Sikh Empire (originally Punjab) a permanent place on Punjab disam. page. What do you say? Wjkk20 04 December 2008 (UTC) If agree, kindly also contact User:Sunray and User:Ka Faraq Gatri

Actually that's a very good point, I agree with this. Pahari Sahib 02:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope This Solves It

There was a conflict about how to write the name of former Sikh country of Punjab as to should it be written Sikh Empire or Punjab Empire. To help in ease the matter, I have written certain labels with both names and written them both as both share equal importance. For example, the name Punjab Empire holds the geographical importance whereas the name Sikh Empire holds the political and authoritative importance. Hope this helps. Wjkk20 05 December 2008 (UTC)

Persian or Sanskrit

Just an explanation of this, the word Punjab is made up of two Persian words Panj and Aab. This is commonly accepted, see here. There may be similarities with Sanskrit because both languages are related (for example Persian Āb is cognate with Sanskrit Āp) - but the word is of Persian origin. Pahari Sahib 12:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Punjab → Punjab (disambiguation) – Punjab refers mainly to Punjab (region), so best is to redirect Punjab to Punjab region and move this page to disambiguation. New linkings keep coming so better to move it to disambiguation and redirect. Alertedlevel2 (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support This is a pretty clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose without further evidence that the region is the primary topic ("...more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."). The Indian state and the Pakistani province are each very important topics. —  AjaxSmack  01:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this is one of those cases where it makes more sense to have a comprehensive article at the basic title, rather than defaulting to a dab page, like we do at Football and Ireland (although the latter sure is a can of worms). I don't see the advantage to having a dab page where an article works just as well. --BDD (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is not a "comprehensive article". It is a weak article with a too-long intro, some history info largely terminating a couple of centuries ago, and some pictures. —  AjaxSmack  16:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying Punjab region is a comprehensive article, but it should be. Don't let the article's current state turn you off. I've tagged it with your concerns. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Then this move should wait until such improvements are made (an application by analogy of WP:CRYSTALBALL). —  AjaxSmack  01:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

See lot of new links to this dab page, here. I fixed few, but more links will come, it will be better if it redirected to Punjab region. Alertedlevel2 (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The incoming links to "Punjab" as of this writing are primarily for the Indian state with a couple for the Pakistani province and a couple for Punjab Province (British India). None were intend for the region and in cases like the List of Indian states and territories by Human Development Index, sending readers to the Punjab (region) article is patently misleading. This is an additional strong argument against a move. —  AjaxSmack  16:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The problem here is that "Punjab" is primarily WP:DABCONCEPT to variations of what is ultimately a single area of land. This is much like Germany, which is not a disambiguation page even though it has, over the centuries, had substantially varied borders and governments, and has even been split into different countries. bd2412 T 16:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you have a point about DABCONCEPT but the current Punjab region article doesn't pass muster. Fix the article first and then conduct a move. The use of "Punjab" today is far more likely to be about the state or the province than the region so a pretty impressive concept article is needed before directing all traffic there. —  AjaxSmack  03:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 02 September 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is that the region remains the primary topic for "Punjab". Jenks24 (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Punjab (disambiguation) → Punjab – Punjab should be a disambiguation page. The exisiting links to it are intended for Punjab, India, or Punjab, Pakistan, Punjab Province (British India), Punjab region, Punjabi language etc. The page currently redirects to Punjab region, which is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and is inappropriate in most cases. – Apuldram (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This move request is controversial, given the section above. Discussion of this move is necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – The Punjab transcends the borders of either India or Pakistan, and it is right that "Punjab" links to the page on the entire region. RGloucester — ☎ 20:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The region is not the primary topic ("...more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."). The Indian state and the Pakistani province are each very important topics. —  AjaxSmack  23:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

They are mere (recent/modern) administrative divisions within a region that has existed for centuries and centuries, and which has rich and diverse history. Please note the "long term significance" criteria for primary topic status. RGloucester — ☎ 02:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Few links to Punjab have Punjab region as their target. Many more are intended for Punjab, Pakistan or Punjab, India. I agree that ‘’Punjab’’, without a context, implies the whole region, but we are dealing here with links from articles where the contributor clearly meant to point at the Pakistan province or the Indian state, and the redirect to the whole region is incorrect or unhelpful. For example in the articles Pakistan, Delhi, Chhattisgarh, Islamabad etc.
  ’’Punjab’’ is part of the subject of several different Wikipedia articles and should be a disambiguation page. New links to it would then stimulate a bot to invite their editors to be more specific. Apuldram (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Punjab should redirect to Punjab region. We can fix those links which don't have Punjab region as their target. As it implies the whole region, it should be redirected to the whole region. Again, if there are some links which need to be fixed, redirecting it otherwise would not be a solution. Faizan (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

that's over two thousand links you feel you can fix! On top of that, new incorrect links coming in every week. Making Punjab a disambiguation page is a better solution. Apuldram (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is just confusing. If one is searching for the Punjab, one wants the Punjab, not a dab page. Fixing inappropriate links that are meant for the administrative divisions can be done. RGloucester — ☎ 15:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – "The Punjab transcends the borders of either India or Pakistan, and it is right that "Punjab" links to the page on the entire region" and "long term significance" per RGloucester. Pincrete (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Punjab" as a proper noun means Greater Punjab regardless of a recent political division. Khestwol (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem:
I sampled the first hundred articles listed in Pages that link to "Punjab", omitting from the sample the talk pages and ten pages which did not have a direct link to Punjab. Some of the links relate to the whole region, but the majority do not, and to redirect them to Punjab region is unhelpful.
Of the 100 links in the sample,
42 were for Punjab, India
31 were for Punjab region
20 were for Punjab, Pakistan
5 were for Punjab Province (British India)
2 were for Punjabi language
The page was originally a disambiguation page, but it was moved in September 2012 without regard to the effect the move would have on the disambiguation list.
Those who oppose the move back consider that Punjab implies the whole region and I have sympathy with that view, but approximately 69% of the 2400 Wikipedia contributors who added links to Punjab had other destinations in mind. The belief that we can fix those links which don't have Punjab region as their target is unrealistic. That would require 1600 or more fixes. Apuldram (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Punjab which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)