Talk:Nashik district

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

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.

Stub

This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian districts workgroup.

[edit] Clean-up

The article, apart from being a stub, is very bitty, with lists, bullet points, notes — it needs to be rewritten to make it a proper, English-prose article. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, "proper, English-prose style" includes the capitalization of proper names. Also, the capitalized "Nashik District" is consistent with the district's official web site, which mostly (although not entirely, as its approach to capitalization is a bit dodgy) uses the correct English form. Tom Radulovich 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the article's title doesn't use the capital, and no argument has been put forward so far to show that the capitalisation is the correct form. The article used capitals in some places and not in others, and as you say yourself, the sources do too. Nashik is a district, and can therefore be referred to as Nashik district; if the official name is Nashik District, on the other hand, then the capital is required. Do you know of a source that settless that question? I've had a quick look, and failed, but if you're more knowledgeable you might have more of an idea where to look. (If it doesn't in fact need a capital, then that means that all the other articles need to be changed, which will be a pain... but better to get it right than get it easy.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the page history, this article was originally at Nashik District, and it can, and should, be put back. Capitalization of proper nouns is correct English usage; I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why correct English should not apply on this page. Tom Radulovich 17:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't given a compelling argument, or offered any evidence, as to why "district" is a proper name here. I thought that I'd made clear, in correct English, that that was the issue. What the article was originally named is irrelevant to that. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

...as compared to the mountains of careful evidence presented in favor of your reverts? If you don't think that Nashik District is the district's proper name, then what do you think it is it called? The fact that the district's website is called "The official WebSite of Nashik District" [1] is one piece of evidence; that the Maharashtra state government calls it Nasik District [2] is another. The Imperial Gazetter of India and Encyclopedia Britannica also call it Nasik District, and capitalize the 'd'. Tom Radulovich 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting unsourced edits doesn't require sources.
As you said yourself, the evidence is mixed; titles of article often use capitals for common nouns, though we don't. Your first source does that, even having a section called "Places for Tourist [sic]", and its banner says "An Official website of Nashik District (Developed by NIC, Nashik)". Your second source uses capitals (and spells) even more haphazardly; moreover, in common with most sources I've seen, it calls the district "Nasik", not "Nasik District"; the only places that "Nasik district" is found are in the main title (which is in all-caps) and a sub-title: "Nasik District Gazetteers". In its text, "district" is normally spelt uncapitalised, and again, "Nasik" is used alone as the name of the district. Throughout the site, indeed, the same holds.

Look, you might turn out to be right — but your attitude has been that you're obviously right and I'm an illiterate idiot for disagreeing with you. Not only is that not designed to achieve consensus, it's just not backed up (at least, nowhere near unequivocally) by the evidence. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen you site a single source in support of your reverts; what makes you think you are right, and that Nashik District is not in fact called Nashik District? Also, you are not reverting unsourced edits; I cited the sources, whether you care for them or not. Tom Radulovich 15:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you didn't read any of what I said? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I did read what you said, and found it unconvincing. I am just trying to improve the article, and cited sources that demonstrate that this entity has been called "Nasik District" or "Nashik District" for at least a hundred years. Again, what makes you think that Nashik District is not a proper name; even if Nashik District is not official, although government sources use it consistently, it would be considered proper; the official name of "Los Angeles County" is "County of Los Angeles", but "Los Angeles County" is still correct capitalization. The Wikipedia article on Capitalization states that "Multiple-word proper nouns usually follow rules like the traditional English rules for publication titles (see below), e.g., Robert the Bruce."You might explain why you think English capitalization conventions don't apply here; the Nashik District web site may use incorrect capitalization at times, but that is hardly an argument for incorrect capitalization on Wikipedia. Tom Radulovich 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh good grief; either you genuinely are unable to grasp my point, or you're pretending not to. In either case, there seems little point in continuing, but I'll try once more.

I am not arguing that normal capitalisation rules shouldn't apply here.
I am not arguing that proper nouns shouldn't be capitalised.
I am arguing that it's very unclear that "district" in this case is a proper noun, that the sources that you provide are at best equivocal and unclear (some of them suggest that "district" isn't a proper noun in this context).
The fact that you're not convinced by what I said doen't justify ignoring it completely, and responding instead to a spurious and silly argument that I didn't offer. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Without a citing a single source, you seem quite certain that Nashik District is properly called something else – certain enough to revert three times. If you were merely "unclear", then why the insistence on reverting? Again, what are your sources? If you know something the rest of us don't, please enlighten us. Tom Radulovich 05:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the onus is on you to give sources for your change. Nor did I say that I was unclear; I'm uncertain, as the evidence is at best equivocal (it leans more towards "district" not being part of the proper name in fact). If you could drop the incessant and wearying sarcasm and the (deliberate?) misreading (when you don't ignore it completely) of what I say, we might get somewhere. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine how this will get anywhere; your repeated argument that the onus is on others to provide sources, acceptable to you, is itself wearying, and incredibly self-serving; it makes you entirely unaccountable for your unsourced changes. It also ignores the fact that the first version of this article used the correct capitalized form – if unsourced edits to a page are to be reverted, then it is your unsourced reversions to the uncapitalized form to which that should apply, as the change to lowercase was itself never sourced. Second, you have not attempted to explain why Nashik District is not the name of the political entity described in this article; if Nashik District is not its proper name, then the article should be renamed, as should all the 600+ articles on Indian districts, but you have presented no evidence for an alternative name. "Equivocal at best" is a gross misstatement of what these sources indicate. How do you explain that the Encyclopaedia Britannica article is entitled "Nasik District", the Imperial Gazetteer of India's article entitled "Nasik District", the State of Maharashtra web site refers to it as "Nashik District", and the official website for the district is entitled "Official WebSite of Nashik District"? Tom Radulovich 09:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As an editor I have responsibility to follow and uphold Wikipdia's policies, such as WP:CITE; as an administrator I have extra responsibilities to do that. Our policy is that the onus is on the person who changes an article to provide sources for the change. Neverthless, I have indicated evidence against the change — the sources that you provide. Your questions regarding the sources you've actually given here have been answered above; without seeing Britannica or the Imperial Gazetteer I can't comment, though I'd want to know what their capitalisation rules are (some Manuals of Style involve the capitalisation of every noun, not just proper names). I agree that this and the other articles might need to be renamed (I'd favour the style "Nashik (district)" if it does turn out that "District" isn't part of the name), but it would be foolish to start on that until the question has been resolved here. Before you conyinue to use terms like "self-serving", even leaving aside its bewildering misuse, please read WP:CIVIL.

Your reversions are completely baseless; the article cites three sources, all of which use "Nasik District" or "Nashik District", and I provided a fourth on this page, the State of Maharashtra web site, that uses Nasik District. If you take your responsibilities as seriously as you say, you should consult the sources provided before reverting. To date you have not provided a single source, or even contributed anything of substance to the article. Tom Radulovich 04:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that you've completely ignored what I said above ("As you said yourself, the evidence is mixed; titles of article often use capitals for common nouns, though we don't. Your first source does that, even having a section called "Places for Tourist [sic]", and its banner says "An Official website of Nashik District (Developed by NIC, Nashik)". Your second source uses capitals (and spells) even more haphazardly; moreover, in common with most sources I've seen, it calls the district "Nasik", not "Nasik District"; the only places that "Nasik district" is found are in the main title (which is in all-caps) and a sub-title: "Nasik District Gazetteers". In its text, "district" is normally spelt uncapitalised, and again, "Nasik" is used alone as the name of the district. Throughout the site, indeed, the same holds."), you're not in fact interested in a discussion, only in repeating your view. When you want actually to engage in dialogue, let me know. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I'm ignoring what you have said, I just can't follow the argument, as it slithers around quite a bit. You first argued that the edits didn't conform with the article title, but when I pointed out that the page had been moved from the original "Nashik District", you found that irrelevant. You have argued that you are simply reverting unsourced edits, ignoring the fact that the edits you are reverting are sourced (although you admit above that you have not checked those sources). You later admitted that proper nouns in English were capitalized, but now seem to be arguing that Nashik District is not a proper noun. Is your point that a proper noun must be an official name? If, say, the official name of the United Kindgom is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", would you argue that one should use the lowercase "united kindgom"? Or if an official UK website were to use "United Kingdom" or "UK" in its website text, that it would mean that "united kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is proper? Or that sloppy capitalization on the Nashik District web site justifies sloppy capitalization here? In any case, Nashik is the name of a municipality, a taluk, a subdivision, and a district; it is not impossible that they are all officially called simply "Nashik", although it would be quite deliberately confusing to do so. The British used the simple "x Taluk", "x District" etc.; you may be arguing that these distinguishing designations have been dropped more recently, but there is no evidence of that. And in any case, the Wikipedia naming convention is "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". You also seem to admit that if the Imperial Gazetteer consistently capitalized Nasik District, but did not capitalize every noun, that it might be convincing; the Imperial Gazetteer is available online, and the page numbers are provided on the article page, and should you deign to check them, you will find that it does indeed capitalize Nasik District consistently, but does not capitalize every noun. Enjoy your research! Tom Radulovich 00:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"It's not that I'm ignoring what you have said, I just can't follow the argument, as it slithers around quite a bit. You first argued that the edits didn't conform with the article title, but when I pointed out that the page had been moved from the original "Nashik District", you found that irrelevant."

It is irrelevant; articles often have their names changed — what counts is the current name, not a name it had years ago.

"You have argued that you are simply reverting unsourced edits, ignoring the fact that the edits you are reverting are sourced (although you admit above that you have not checked those sources)."

I have not only checked all the on-line sources for which you gave links, but have commented on them in detail.

"You later admitted that proper nouns in English were capitalized, but now seem to be arguing that Nashik District is not a proper noun."

I have never suggested, even remotely, that proper names shopuldn't be capitalised, and my position from the beginning has been that it's very unclear that "district" here is a proper name.

Don't accuse me of shifting my ground — I clearly haven't.

I'm contacting editors who have worked in the article in order to widen this beyond the two of us. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)