Jump to content

Talk:Chandigarh capital region

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Greater Chandigarh)

"Chandigarh Capital Region" in media

[edit]

Some of the articles found regarding the topic in media are: (Kindly search "Chandigarh Capital Region" in the articles)

note: I (Qwyrxian) am going to put my comments on each of the links indented. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popular newspapers

Government website

Other

Google results for "Chandigarh Capital Region" (exact wording or phrase)

The Google search reveals nothing of note aside from mirrors, Facebook etc, unreliable property pages & the odd comment in a newspaper. If this is not a formal (ie: state recognised) region then it should not exist here. A district or county area would be the equivalent formal region in many countries. All of the content in all of the articles regarding this region can easily be merged into the articles for the cities and towns which allegedly constitute it. In fact, much of that content was in fact either copy/pasted or otherwise split from those articles in the first instance.
At best, this article needs to exist merely as a list, with links to the constituent town articles. What is worse, is that I cannot spot anything that defines the constituent towns as being a part of the "region!: it appears to be original research. - Sitush (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Random mention of the term in few websites does not prove it is official or popular. The articles Chandigarh district and Chandigarh Tricity also cover the topic. I feel rationale of having Chandigarh Tricity should also looked into.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the first (News) list, you'll see this isn't a few random websites. In fact, its a number of politicians claiming the de facto existence of such a region and/or arguing that the region should be formally created. I think that if we re-write the article to state that, and then not include any of the economy, political, etc., details, then we should be fine. I'm going to expand on this thought in a section below. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names for Chandigarh region

[edit]

The following names are being used for Chandigarh and surrounding region:

Chandigarh Capital Region

[edit]

The name is similar to National Capital Region (India) and is being used as shown in links above. It includes areas like Zirakpur, Kharar etc, which are in continuation with the Chandigarh, the other names below can not include them. Weather any name is used for the region, still the article 'Chandigarh Capital Region' deserves to be an article. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh Tricity

[edit]

The name is used for Three cities Chandigarh, Panchkula and Mohali and does not include other surronding areas. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh district

[edit]

It includes areas only in Chandigarh not outside it. I haven't seen the name being used in newspapers till now. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-articles that should probably go

[edit]

I wanted to centralize discussion of a number of articles related to this one; specifically, Culture of Chandigarh Capital Region, List of people from Chandigarh Capital Region, Malls in Chandigarh Capital Region, Parks and gardens in Chandigarh Capital Region, Economy of Chandigarh Capital Region, Knowledge industry in Chandigarh Capital Region, and Transportation in Chandigarh Capital Region. Of those, I believe that the first 4 (Culture, List of People, Malls, and Parks and gardens) should be deleted, and the other three (Economy, Knowledge industry, and transportation) merged into here. Let me try to explain why.

The Chandigarh Capiral Region is an imagined political/economic zone, proposed by a number of politicians in the area (see some of the references in the section above). It is not a geographic area (excepting that it's "places near Chandigarh"). It has no unified history, culture, or other ties. Rather, it's just a bunch of cities/villages/towns that want to work together as a unit, much like Delhi, or possibly like Greater Los Angeles area or Greater London. Any information about the area that is not directly connected to politics, economics, or demography should go into the appropriate city, town, village, state, or country article. I'd like to hear input on this issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Wikipedia has plenty of articles on fictional subjects, but do we really need a full-blown article on an imaginary place that is (in a weird way) part of the real world? I think that it is just confusing. The region is not a defined area and as such even details regarding its economy would be wide open to WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR and breaches of WP:NPOV. Assuming those were overcome, you would still have issues regarding reliability of sources precisely because it is not a defined area.
I would suggest doing as I said in the prior section. This article, if it exists at all, should be little more than a list of the towns/cities which are believed by some to constitute the Region. Including a note to the effect that it isn't a formalised area. - Sitush (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politically the region may not be a single unit, but economically and in general sense it works as a single unit. It would be better to insert a link to the discussion about the articles of Chandigarh Capital Region in the talk pages of Chandigarh, Mohali, Panchkula, Zirakpur, Kharar. All there towns are in continuity with Chandigarh. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link on Talk:Chandigarh; I'm not sure about the rest, as that starts to move us toward talk page spamming...maybe...i'll think on it. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to verge on talk page spamming, but I'm not too fussed either way about that. I remain unconvinced that "economically and in general sense it works as a single unit". It might "work" like that in the heads of some people but most of the forked artcles themselves are primarily about Chandigarh city and the citations for them (even when the article text says otherwise) are about Chandigarh city. Sorry, but this looks like a sort of POV pushing to me: trying to get the name "Chandigarh" in the title of as many articles as possible. We know that the creator has had a tendency to do this sort of thing in the past, and most of those have ended up being either deleted or redirected from whence they came. It is irrational to have so many short, incomplete/undue weight, poorly cited, peacock-oriented articles containing substantial amounts of trivia about an entity that in itself would struggle to meet the notability guideline (& in this instance I don't think it really qualifies as an "inhabited place" in the sense usually intended). Stubs are not always de facto justifiable. We need to bear in mind that virtually all of these are non-consensual forks or unattributed copy/pastes of other articles which pre-date them. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Rein them all back in to the central location: Chandigarh. Or, delete or merge where necessary. Thereafter, the community can calmly decide what ought to break away, and when. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna's view on the term "Chandigarh Capital Region" et al.

[edit]

Suggested plan

[edit]
  • Chandigarh could have a section called something like "Surrounding areas" that starts: "...The city is located within overlapping regions referred to as Chandigarh Capital Region, Chandigarh district, and Chandigarh Tricity. Chandigarh district is officially recognized, whereas .... are terms that loosely encompass..." and then add content specific to that entire geographical area.
  • Chandigarh district could stand alone, as it is recognized by the government, but would preferrably be redirected to Chandigarh and mentioned in the surrounding areas section, and briefly in the geography section with "....The city is located within Chandigarh district..." to help identify where the city is situated.
  • The list of related/child articles containing "...Chandigarh Capital Region..." should simply be moved to the same name without ..."Capital Region...", where possible. Others are already merge candidates.

My rationale

[edit]

I checked some of the links. Chandigarh Capital Region is referred to, but not defined geographically. Nor is the region the subject of the sources. That means it doesn't pass WP:GNG for starters. When it is defined geographically the same way by a number of sources, (preferrably the government of India), and is the main subject of those sources, fine. If Chandigarh Capital Region remains, it will draw vague edits, and give rise to vague child articles, as the term itself is vague.

A reference supporting the existence of the region in the lead is conspicuously absent. Google image maps show nothing.

The "Surrounding areas" section is convenient because then, when mentioning a landmark for example, one doesn't need to specify what area it's in. It is then only necessary to specify its proximity to the city.

Although it is a bit awkward to have sections that encompass the subject, I think it is necessary. Otherwise, there will be confusion and lots of overlap. The result would be conflicting information, unconfirmable information, duplicate, and non-centralized information. Chandigarh still has plenty of room. These vague, conflicting, and ambiguous terms deserve to be covered in the article. There they can be, over time, better defined. Having them all on one page, and in one section, will help editors compare definitions between them.

Sorry for the long post. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Chandigarh district should stay as such as we have pages for almost all districts of India. Tricity and Capital region should be merged with Chandigarh with a paragraph about tricty and capital region.Shyamsunder (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW National Capital Territory of Delhi a widely used term in government circles and elsewhere presently redirects to Delhi. I think Chandigarh Capital Region and Tricty both should go.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anna, I don't read the GNG as requiring a definition in sources--it just requires that we have a number of sources that discuss it in detail. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant it being the main topic, not definition. But I'm wrong on that count too. :) "..but it need not be the main topic of the source material....". Does it get "...significant coverage..."? Probably, right? So much for my rationale. Okay. And thus, Anna's plan folded faster than Superman on laundry day. (--The Simpsons) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special case for Chandigarh

[edit]

Chandigarh is a special case, and it would be difficult to compare it with other geographical locations because.

  • Chandigarh is the only location in India, which is Union territory of India, as well as Capital of not only one state but two states Haryana and Punjab.
  • Chandigarh have area 114 sq km only, because of limited area in Chandigarh itself, the neighboring states have developed the towns Mohali, Panchkula, Zirakpur, Kharar in continuity, means there is no break between the towns i.e. the boundaries are 0 km between them, (continuously populated), making it a continuous single region. The combined area might be three times bigger than Chandigarh itself. The main article gives a different impression. The whole area is referred as 'Chandigarh' when referring it from overall perspective.
  • More than half of the population of each town go daily to other towns for work, school, shopping or other reasons.
  • The area works as an single entity in economic sense and in daily working of people living there.

So merging things in Chandigarh, would add to confusion, as Chandigarh region doesn't come under Chandigarh itself. Earlier it was called 'Tricity' as there were three towns, but in last four five years, the towns in continuity have increased to five or six, so under present circumstances Chandigarh Capital Region best fits as the name for the region and as listed in references above the media has stated using it. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above is totally irrelevant if it is not notable. And most of what is said applies equally well to other urban areas around the world, aside from perhaps the dual capital status. That status applies to Chandigarh and to the states as separate entites rather than as some conjunction. The Chandigarh article needs a lot of improvement but creating yet more articles just makes for a messy situation and even more things needing improvement, due to the overlap. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if first some consensus is made on 'Chandigarh Capital Region' before deciding about Sub-articles. Because then we may think of mering the sub-articles here, (instead of 'Chandigarh') or keeping them as separate articles according to the merit. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me brainstorm a lead here...

[edit]

...and that might clarify more why I think this article should stay (not be merged away) and exactly what the article should cover. Note that this is very rough:

"Chandigarh Capital Region refers to an undefined area around the union territory Chandigarh consisting of a variety of cities and villages that are closely economically and . While the exact definition of the region is not fixed, it usually includes Chandigarh, Panchkula, and Mohali. Some politicians have proposed making the region into single administrative region like Delhi."

The only two sections I see in the article after that are "Geography", which would include the towns listed in various sources as being included, although being clear that each definition is idiosyncratic and there is no formal definition; and "Proposal to formalize status" which would discuss and reference efforts made by politicians to make the area into a single political/economic unit.

We would remove all sections like Demography, Economics, etc., since there are no clearly defined boundaries, and most sources will not be referring to the region. Any of this information would only belong in the actual city that is referenced, unless at some point in the future CCR is more precisely defined and recognized.

In other words, the focus of this article would be much like Greater Los Angeles Area--this is an area that is also not defined exactly, has no specific political status, and has varying meanings depending on who is using the word, but is nonetheless a widely used term to refer to a variety of neighboring cities and areas that have both overlapping and competing interests.

Does any of this help explain why I think that merging this into Chandigarh is wrong? It seems to me that, given some of the source Mahesh provided above, this concept does exist, it is notable, even though it isn't well defined. In that sense, it's actually like a great many articles and topics on Wikipedia (and in the world). For example, look at a simple concept like Vegetable, and you can see how intentionally vague and undefined it is. Just because there is no precise definition does not mean the article should not exist. And just because the boundaries of the region are not formalized doesn't mean it shouldn't exist (I'm thinking here of obviously notable political/geographic regions like Eastern Europe (check out the lead on that one, btw). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. Sourced information can be dispersed to other articles, but most likely most of it will go to Chandigarh and not here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The area around Chandigarh may be economically affiliated with it but definately not politically affiliated. The area around it (outside Chandigarh district) politically fall in either Haryana or Punjab. It is unlikely that in foreseeable future it woulbe be a political unit. In fact in terms of Punjab accord the Chandigarh is supposed to go to Punjab. I think thisarticle is unnecessary and creates confusion. I think Chandigarh Capital Region article and related category should me merged with Chandigarh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamsunder (talk • contribs)
I see; we can leave the political part out. However, I don't think a merge is appropriate, because we have a number of reliable sources indicating that 1) some people already consider this a reasonable division of the area and 2) some people have proposed making this an official division. This article will likely end up being fairly short, but I see it as a fairly distinct topic from Chandigarh, such that it ought to be separated. We will, of course, include hatnote(s) that clarify any confusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, just checking in--do we have consensus to perform this merge? I see Anna definitely agreeing, but I feel like Shyamsunder still disagrees, not sure about Sitush or Mahesh (although he's been asked not to worry about this right now). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel a paragragh about capital region in Chandigarh should serve the purpose for now and that this article should be redirected to Chandigarh. Separate article will also encourage creation of many additional separate categories like Buildings in Chandigarh capital region, schools in Chandigarh capital region and so on and will add to confusion all aroundShyamsunder (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such a concern (that it will encourage other articles) is not really a concern--each of those articles would be unacceptable, and would/could should be deleted and/or merged. That's like saying "The existence of New Delhi encourages the creation of articles like Children under 5 living in New Delhi. Just because someone might wrongly think such an article is a good idea, does not mean that there is any reason to get rid of New Delhi. I still believe that this article itself should exist, referring only to the economic conglomerate, exactly like we have Greater London. However, I will try to go after the rest of the articles soon; I don't see anyone objecting to their merging. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said categories not articles.ExampleCategory:Visitor attractions in Chandigarh Capital RegionShyamsunder (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, sorry. I'm not wonderfully happy about retaining this article because it is such an nebulous area and until it is formally defined then it will remain nebulous. I cannot comment on the LA comparison but as far as Greater London goes, the point there is that there was once a formally defined political area under that name, which was under the local government aegis of the Greater London Council. Although the GLC was abolished under Margaret Thatcher (?) in the 1980s, the boundary can be determined from that existence. CCR is, to my mind, in the eye of the beholder even though it clearly would include Chandigarh itself and urban sprawl is likely to cause whatever space exists between that and the other two major towns to merge. As it stands, I feel that we who contribute to the WP project would be imposing our definition, however logical it may be, on to an unknown.
Now, if we could find significant people who have defined the area in, say, lok sabha debates or newspaper interviews, then we might have a hook on which to hang our hat. - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll flipflop all day on this one. But, seeing that it's controversial, maybe we should err on the side of "not", and try the plan I suggested here. Then, when the section gets developed, it can break away with solid consensus. CCR just doesn't seem ripe yet. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support Anna's plan.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry to have been so late in giving some input. Not sure what happened here but ultimately I just missed the entire series of conversations until very recently. My suspicion is that in an act of self-preservation my brain decided to block out any sightings of the word Chandigarh for a few days. Obviously, I am not going to kick up a fuss about this situation. I've said my piece & that's that. I know that I am dealing with reasonable people. - Sitush (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Here are all the CCR-related articles still pink:

Could let this one stand.
A clear candidate to dump back into CCR.
Prodded. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A clear candidate to dump back into CCR.
A clear candidate to dump back into CCR.
As CCR is not clearly defined, this might be an AfD candidate.
As CCR is not clearly defined, this might be an AfD candidate.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final chapter of the silver sandbox matter

[edit]

We never have to use the silver sandbox again. Yipee!

As of a few minutes ago, the last remaining pink items are CCR-related:

Thus, they can be dealt with here, pending consensus on the fate of this article.

I left the pink on the items at the silver sandbox so that we can refer to eariler notes.

It seems that there is no clear consensus on this article. I gather that means it stays, by default. Does this sound right? If that's the case, and we can get agreement on that, then we can now deal with the last five CCR-related articles above. When that is done, we can close the case. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Environmental issues in Chandigarh Capital Region, which I proposed to merge some time ago. The discussion there may have hit a hiatus. - Sitush (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the stalemate, well, I have long being disappointed that previous proposals for something along the lines of an AfD process for mergers have failed to pass muster. These things are far too limited in their reviewer numbers, unless the relevant articles are high traffic in the first instance. - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out Environmental issues in Chandigarh Capital Region. I just added it to the list above. In fact, when all this is done, I will go over silver to see what ended without resolution.
As for Chandigarh Capital Region, it would be great to see it go in one direction or the other so that we can resolve the remaining pinks.
This whole fiasco has been a bone in our throats long enough. Please, lets all push for closure. It's really putting me off Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I merge proposed Environmental issues in Chandigarh Capital Region. It's sitting there now waiting for input. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? It was already proposed, per article page. Merge discussions take place on the target article TP - Talk:Chandigarh#Merger_proposal - but please note Q's comment in the section below it. - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It awaits outcome of this article, so up in the air like the others. Is that right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through all the non-pink items:
Systemic corruption was deleted and has been recreated by some other ***?!£$***. Q's comment effectively put a block on the Environment article process, unfortunately. - Sitush (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The scandals by year/state is now resolved by a redirect. Three !votes for it, none against. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news.
I posted at the recreator's talk. You might be interested.
Not sure what you mean by "...put a block on the Environment article process..."
This whole thing's maddening, isn't it? Just when you think you're out, it pulls you back in.
Do you like your woof? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I missed your artwork, sorry. Wowee, an original Anna for my user page. Thanks very much. Are you aware that "let the dog see the rabbit" is an old saying?
I phrased it poorly regarding Q's message. The posting of it effectively stalled any debate that might have ensued regarding that particular article, bringing people to this article's discussion instead. Whether that would have been many people is moot, but the environment article is so poor that it really could pretty well just be deleted; the redirect & merge proposal was intended so that the thing could be expanded in the future if ever some decent content turned up but, of course, any article can be recreated after deletion anyway (as Systemic Corruption demonstrates!). - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon there is broad consensus to merge this article in Chandigarh. I therefore propose to redirect this page to Chandigarh now. Shyamsunder (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chandigarh capital region which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chandigarh_capital_region&oldid=1200778205"