Talk:Kurram District

Combine with Kurram River?

I propose to add the information from the article on the Kurram River to this one as they cover much of the same information. I also propose to keep it all under the heading of the Kurram Valley - as that covers more territory - not just the river, and I have more information on recent archaeological finds in the region and more references which I intend to add when I can spare the time. If anyone has any comments on this proposed move I would appreciate them. John Hill (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Why it is part of project Afghanistan???

Kurram valley is completely in Pakistan and only shares border with Afghanistan. Why this is included in Project Afghanistan?? Anyone can answer please?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.192.9 (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Its because the Tribal Areas are a disputed area in Pakistan and the main inhabitants are Pashtuns who also belong to Afghanistan. Akmal94 (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge it with Kurram Agency

Yes, I think you are right that it should be merged with Kurram river page. In the same light this page should be merged with Kurram Agency page. The scope of the two articles being the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleedmansoor (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC) --Waleedmansoor (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Merged with Kurram Agency and other major changes

Merged with Kurram Agency and Kurram River. I think the structure is now there to expand it further. All contributions would be highly welcome.

Restart Flora and Fauna section.

The flora and fauna section removed on Feb. 5 2010 for the reason that it "said nothing" needs to be restarted. The section needed expansion and is important because it was the only valley in the northwest British India for which flora had been scientifically described as early as 1879 (before annexation, when it was a part of Afghanistan). Citations are available in The Imperial Indian Gazette and many scientific journals indexed. Of particular importance is the Artimesia spp. peculiar to the valley and therefore scientifically named after the Valley "Artemisia Kurramensis" in 1951. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshijee (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger and split

I really think that Kurram River should be separated from this article again. It covers a much longer area than the valley - it is an Afghan river as well as a Pakistani river. A section on an Afghan river does not sit well in an article about a Pakistani valley.

On the other hand, there is a lot of overlap with Kurram Agency, and this article would be better merged with that article, --Mhockey (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.kurram.net.tc

  Triggered by \bnet\.tc\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 07:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves

@SheriffIsInTown: your recent moves of Pakistani agency articles, such as this one, was contested at WP:RMTR by Khestwol. I have therefore restored them to their previous long-term titles, "Kurram Agency" etc. I suggest that if you wish them to be moved, you should start a move request at WP:RM. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Khestwol: Please check this and let me know what is your objection on these moves? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: Khestwol did not reply to my comment for six days, how is this still controversial? They just made a premature request to get the moves reverted, it's an administration change for these regions, no matter how many folks disagree, it will not change the material fact on the ground. They just cannot get over the fact that Pakistan changed the administration of these areas considering their longstanding POV. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  @SheriffIsInTown: it looks like a lot of news sources are generally still saying "agency", even as of late May, see for example [1]. The version with "district" doesn't get a lot of hits. It looks like there's enough doubt that a requested move for the group would be in order.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: President of Pakistan signed the amendment on 31 May, that is probably why you wouldn't find anything as of late May, see below move discussion, I have added many sources there supporting the moves. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 June 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear, and although the policy questions are closer than the consensus would suggest, it is not impermissible to move articles to a recently enacted new official title, which is likely to be the title used in official documents and all references flowing from them in the future. bd2412 T 20:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Kurram Agency → Kurram District
• Bajaur Agency → Bajaur District
• Mohmand Agency → Mohmand District
• Khyber Agency → Khyber District
• Orakzai Agency → Orakzai District
• Frontier Region Bannu → Bannu Subdivision
• Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan → Dera Ismail Khan Subdivision
• Frontier Region Kohat → Kohat Subdivision
• Frontier Region Lakki Marwat → Lakki Marwat Subdivision
• Frontier Region Peshawar → Peshawar Subdivision
• Frontier Region Tank → Tank Subdivision

– Support as nominator: Pakistan’s parliament passed a constitutional amendment to change the status of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas from a semi-autonomous region to be merged with one of the existing provinces i.e. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. As part of the measure the status of all existing agencies is changed to a District as it is in the rest of Pakistan and the status of all Frontier Regions is changed to a Subdivision. This should be treated as an administrative change and there should not be much dispute regarding this. The details about the measure can be found in this source. The source states Erstwhile seven tribal agencies will now be called tribal districts and existing tehsils and six Frontier regions will be termed subdivisions.

Thus, please move these pages as an administrative change even if there is a dispute. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support: Finally, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for the people of Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) who were subjugated under draconian Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) for far too long. It is not only fair but also justified and appropriate that Wikipedia celebrates with the people of FATA by documenting the ground realities (i.e. the end of FATA, merger of FATA with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) properly. There is no room for "Agencies", reminiscent of FCR, in the new dawn and the future for the people of FATA. Thus, please, let these redirections prevail as the first step in the right direction, at least, on Wikipedia. Thank you. McKhan ^(talk) 20:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per the reliable sources we have. The agencies have been abolished for replacement by districts/subdivisions. Mar4d (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - Kurram Agency still seems to be the common name in reliable sources. The same goes for the other Agencies. See also the comment by the Administrator user:Amakuru above in the section #Undiscussed moves where he said "it looks like a lot of news sources are generally still saying "agency", even as of late May". I agree with him. Khestwol (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• I oppose also the proposal to move the Frontier Regions to Subdivisions. No satisfactory evidence shown in favor of the proposal. "Dera Ismail Khan Subdivision" for example hardly gets any hits at all in Google outside Wikipedia - almost all reliable sources use "Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan" or its abbreviations ("FR Dera Ismail Khan"). Google Books gives 37 results for "Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan" -wikipedia but absolutely 0 results for the proposed name "Dera Ismail Khan Subdivision" -wikipedia. Also, Google Books gives 271 results for "Frontier Region Lakki Marwat" -wikipedia but absolutely 0 results for the proposed name "Lakki Marwat Subdivision" -wikipedia. In addition to being not commonly used, another reason to oppose this proposal is that the names "Dera Ismail Khan Subdivision" and "Lakki Marwat Subdivision" will also be confused with the totally separate areas Dera Ismail Khan Tehsil and Lakki Marwat Tehsil (which lie outside Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan and Frontier Region Lakki Marwat, respectively), because the word "Tehsil" can be also translated in English to "Subdivision" (see the article Tehsil, it is an administrative subdivision of a district). The users will ask whether the "Subdivisions" refer to the "Frontier Areas" or the "Tehsils" (both distinct from one another)? The same goes for all the other Frontier Regions - the proposed names cannot be found in reliable sources. Khestwol (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Re:Khestwol: This user has a longstanding POV regarding this matter which they have displayed by creating Qabailistan, they are among those people who favored a separate province for Federally Administered Tribal Areas instead of a merger with an existing province, now while Pakistan's government has already made a decision to merge that region with existing province, they want to keep trying their best to slow the progress in that direction. It's an example of a mindset that if we cannot do anything else to halt that process at least we can try that on Wikipedia. They are arguing that reliable sources do not use these new statuses but they are searching Google Books and including the word wikipedia in their search term. Since, Wikipedia have agency in the name thus Google Books would only show the hits for agencies and not the districts. Furthermore, there is hardly a book published after the status change, the Government of Pakistan changed the status less than a month ago, if we have to go by WP:COMMONNAME, the sources published before the date of official status change has no value in this matter.

Their argument regarding confusion about Subdivision and Tehsil falls on its face as Subdivision is totally separate tier than Tehsil in Pakistan and we cannot use a reference of a Wikipedia article for decision making. This reliable source regarding another recent decision by the government uses the word upgrade when certain tehsils status was changed to subdivision thus the administrative tiers in Pakistan are Tehsil --> Subdivision --> District --> Division --> Province. The source says The provincial government has formally created five more tehsils and upgraded another to a subdivision.....government had notified Suo and Urban Basha as tehsils of the Upper Kohistan district, Ranovali Pinkhad the Lower Kohistan district’s and Battar Kolai the Palas district’s and Dormerra Torghar district’s, while Kundai had been declared the Upper Kohistan district’s subdivision.....He said the newly-notified tehsils and subdivision would soon get the required staff members.

Govt awards status of subdivision to another tehsil

We (PTI government) believe in empowering the people through bifurcation of large districts and tehsils and these four tehsils and a subdivision have been created in line with that thought.

These above quotes from the source clearly describe that there is a difference between a tehsil and subdivision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"-wikipedia" (minus Wikipedia) was added to eliminate Wikipedia from the search results to be unbiased. Your proposed names get very little hits in the search results (some of them get absolutely no hits at all). Khestwol (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: please show some evidence using Google Search, Google Books or News Search, or Google Ngram Viewer. The current names are commonly used at the present. How can we move these articles to uncommon names, some of which get no results at all in the search results? Khestwol (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Re:Khestwol: Look, we can never satisfy someone who have a specific POV and does not want to get satisfied. I already showed a source in my nomination that clearly tells that all tribal agencies are converted to districts and frontier regions to subdivisions. Despite removing Wikipedia from search term, Google Books ought to show nothing as the matter is still less than a month old. This is not a matter of WP:COMMONNAME at all as it is an administrative change proven by sources. Here is one additional source published two days ago, Trailblazing Ali Begum sets up Kurram District's first-ever election office for women. Let it go Khestwol, let it go, we are not turning the clock back on people of this region back to the tribal era. Let the new dawn prevail. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please no WP:PERSONALATTACK. Show evidence how your proposed names are common using WP:RS. Khestwol (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I already showed you, the source in nomination is a WP:RS and the source in my above comment is a WP:RS and the source showing you the distinction between tehsil and subdivision is a WP:RS. What else you want? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You failed to prove how your proposed names are more common than the current names. Some of your proposed names (including "Dera Ismail Khan Subdivision" and "Lakki Marwat Subdivision", see above) return absolutely 0 results. This proves they are not commonly used. Khestwol (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Post the constitutional amendment, both the Pakistani and foreign RS such as news outlets refer the agencies as districts so for the sake of consistency I would go with official name and support rename. --Saqib (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

The current names are still more common than the proposed names as demonstrated in my !vote above. Khestwol (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You demonstrated nothing in your vote above, your searches were faulty, they included word wikipedia and they included everything published to date but in this case anything published before 31 May 2018 exclusive of that day does not count as per WP:NAMECHANGES as that is the date when President of Pakistan signed that amendment. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Khestwol’s searches are inclusive of everything to date, according to WP:NAMECHANGES, sources before the official name change do not count.

Here are some of the sources published after the constitutional amendment (30 May 2018) referring them as districts and subdivisions:

1. Trailblazing Ali Begum sets up Kurram District's first-ever election office for women
2. Above 340,000 voters to exercise their right of franchise for the National Assembly seats NA-45 and NA-46 of Kurram district.
3. The temporarily-displaced people of Kurram district opposed procedure of rehabilitation of the displaced families
4. Special anti-polio drive starts in Bajaur today….children under five years of age would be given oral polio vaccine (OPV) across the district.
5. northwestern Bajaur district of KP
6. in Bajaur….Confirming the incident, officials of the district administration said…..he said that the district administration had launched investigation into the incident
7. in Mamond tehsil of Bajaur district
8. Bajaur elder withdraws papers in favour of JUI-F candidate….He made the announcement during a press conference. JUI-F local leaders including its district head Maulana Abdur Rashid
9. This was stated in a meeting between the Mohmand District Deputy Commissioner and Returning Officer (DRO)
10. the group said in a statement texted to local journalists in Pakistan's Bajaur district
11. list of all the health facilities in newly established districts of Bajaur, Mohmand, Kurram, Khyber, Orakzai
12. list of healthcare facilities in the newly named districts of Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurram
13. list of healthcare facilities in the newly named districts of Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurram
14. districts of Mohmand, Bajaur
15. districts including Bajaur has registered maximum 492,732 voters followed by Khyber 491,844 voters, Kurram 337,865 voters, South Waziristan 324,165, Mohmand 255,523, North Waziristan 274,205, Orakzai 167,206
16. BAJAUR,(UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News - 2nd Jul, 2018 ) :Provincial President of Awami National Party(ANP) Ameer Haider Khan Hoti will address a public rally here at district headquarter Khar
17. Further to the east is that amazing upland country of the Khyber and Orakzai districts……. Northward lie the districts of Mohmand and Bajaur
18. Sugar, wheat flour prices rise in Mohmand district
19. Merged with K-P: Mohmand becomes district
20. the door-to-door anti-polio campaign in Mohmand district
21. The delegation demanded special economic zones in the merged districts.
22. It consists of seven districts - Bajaur, Khyber, Kurram, Mohmand, North Waziristan, Orakzai and South Waziristan
23. district administration of Mohmand said
24. After a gap of around a year, the Mohmand district administration has released salaries
25. A lady health worker from district Mohmand was posted at the disposal of district health officer Peshawar.
26. newly named districts of Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurram
27. Justice Musarat Hilal has also dismissed appeals of NTC against former MNA Malik Bilal Rehman contesting on NA-42 Mohmand district
28. MNA Malik Bilal Rehman contesting from NA-42 of Mohmand district
29. a protest camp in Khyber district’s Jamrud town on Monday.
30. (NAB) has decided to launch inquiries against officials of political administration South Waziristan and Khyber districts for embezzlement of funds.
31. (Wapda) will be working on building a dam in Mohmand district.
32. Khyber Union football team of Khyber district won the thrilling final
33. Pashto poets from Mardan, Dir, Malakand, Peshawar and other parts of Khyber district presented poetic tributes
34. no anti-state elements would be allowed to disturb the law and order situation in the Orakzai district
35. Kurram Agency, for example, would now be called Kurram district. Tehsils and frontier regions would be renamed as sub-divisions, so, FR Bannu would be referred to as Bannu sub-division Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This is cherry picking. You have ignored all the recent sources which use "Agency" and "Frontier Region". Also, again, how many times reliable sources use the proposed names "Dera Ismail Khan Subdivision" and "Lakki Marwat Subdivision"? And how many times do the reliable sources use the current names "Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan" and "Frontier Region Lakki Marwat"? I am sure the current names are more common than the proposed names, even in recent sources. Khestwol (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is no cherry picking, you are opposing the move, it is your job to tell us how many sources used agency in the name after 31 May, I only countered a couple. Do you think there are more, show us but they ought to be published after 31 May. You are using tactics like using unrelated terms in your searches and including all searches to date to show everyone there are more results for agency in the name but that is not according to WP:NAMECHANGES. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the nominator who wants to change the 11 titles, not me. Some of your proposed names get absolutely 0 results in Google News (neither found in older, nor recent news). My search results are straightforward. Can you show us even one "unrelated term" that you are claiming? Khestwol (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note for the closing admin: as shown below, six of the proposed eleven names get absolutely 0 results in the Google News search (although the current names for all these regions are still common). Khestwol (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Search engine results

Search engine results show that the current names are more common than the proposed names, by a very big margin (more than twice; in some cases, more than 200 times more common). Most of the proposed names get absolutely 0 results in Google News. So as far as I know, as per Wikipedia's policies, it is impossible to move these 11 articles:

1. The current "Frontier Region Bannu" gets 4,150 results in Google, 212 results in Google News, and 118 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Bannu Subdivision" gets only 64 results in Google, absolutely 0 results in Google News, and 10 results in Google Books.
2. The current "Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan" gets 2,670 results in Google, 5 results in Google News, and 212 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Dera Ismail Khan Subdivision" gets only 103 results in Google, absolutely 0 results in Google News, and 10 results in Google Books.
3. The current "Frontier Region Kohat" gets 8,200 results in Google, 96 results in Google News, and 163 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Kohat Subdivision" gets only 70 results in Google, absolutely 0 results in Google News, and 42 results in Google Books.
4. The current "Frontier Region Lakki Marwat" gets 2,130 results in Google, 2 results in Google News, and 190 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Lakki Marwat Subdivision" gets only 67 results in Google, absolutely 0 results in Google News, and 10 results in Google Books.
5. The current "Frontier Region Peshawar" gets 31,200 results in Google, 157 results in Google News, and 231 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Peshawar Subdivision" gets only 55 results in Google, absolutely 0 results in Google News, and 37 results in Google Books.
6. The current "Frontier Region Tank" gets 4,230 results in Google, 56 results in Google News, and 59 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Tank Subdivision" gets only 361 results in Google, absolutely 0 results in Google News, and 33 results in Google Books.
7. The current "Kurram Agency" gets 375,000 results in Google, 5,990 results in Google News, and 7,130 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Kurram District" gets only 60,000 results in Google, 8,870 results in Google News, and 360 results in Google Books.
8. The current "Bajaur Agency" gets 291,000 results in Google, 4,150 results in Google News, and 3,637 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Bajaur District" gets only 6,110 results in Google, 91 results in Google News, and 340 results in Google Books.
9. The current "Mohmand Agency" gets 353,000 results in Google, 7,590 results in Google News, and 4,360 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Mohmand District" gets only 5,630 results in Google, 112 results in Google News, and 259 results in Google Books.
10. The current "Khyber Agency" gets 456,000 results in Google, 11,500 results in Google News, and 9,420 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Khyber District" gets only 10,200 results in Google, 299 results in Google News, and 487 results in Google Books.
11. The current "Orakzai Agency" gets 244,000 results in Google, 2,750 results in Google News, and 2,990 results in Google Books, but the proposed "Orakzai District" gets only 2,500 results in Google, 10 results in Google News, and 120 results in Google Books. Khestwol (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note for the closing admin: Khestwol is distorting the facts by including all searches to date but according to WP:NAMECHANGES results before the actual change date, in this case 31 May 2018 do not count even if they are billions more than the proposed names, for an example you can look at one of their search results to get a good picture, all these 212 results in Google News are for 2017 and prior. This is an epic distortion of facts by this user to get their way through. Please do not get impressed by their WP:WALLOFTEXT. Almost every one on-wiki or off-wiki is recognizing these regions as districts and subdivisions except this one person. We have total support from everyone else who commented here and we had two other editors (Ridhej.dhhes and Eaak79) who tried to move these articles previously on their own, that can be counted as silent support as well. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of the proposed names (i.e. six out of the eleven proposed names) get absolutely 0 results in Google News. So evidence (no matter whether old, or recent) goes against the proposal. Khestwol (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This is epic misleading and misinformation from you. All of the frontier regions which you are purporting to show more than 0 results for current names are actually 0 results after 31 May 2018, none of those frontier region results have a published date after 31 May 2018 instead what you are showing 0 results for proposed names are actually not 0 results, here are some of the results confirming that frontier regions have been changed to subdivisions.

Proof that frontier regions have been changed to subdivisions

1. It will be the first campaign launched after KP-FATA merger which will continue till July 4 in all tribal districts and subdivisions except Orakzai and Kurram.
2. Kurram Agency, for example, would now be called Kurram district. Tehsils and frontier regions would be renamed as sub-divisions, so, FR Bannu would be referred to as Bannu sub-division’’’

Current names show 0 results after 31 May 2018 for frontier regions

• Frontier Region Bannu shows 212 results in Google News overall but 0 results have published date after 31 May 2018
• Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan shows 5 results in Google News overall but 0 results have published date after 31 May 2018
• Frontier Region Kohat shows 96 results in Google News overall but 0 results have published date after 31 May 2018
• Frontier Region Lakki Marwat shows 2 results in Google News overall but 0 results have published date after 31 May 2018
• Frontier Region Peshawar shows 157 results in Google News overall but 0 results have published date after 31 May 2018
• Frontier Region Tank shows 56 results in Google News overall but 0 results have published date after 31 May 2018 Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown: Did you even check the links before posting them? Your statements are highly self-contradictory, because your own links you gave above disprove your own claim that "current names show 0 results after 31 May 2018 for frontier regions". Here are some examples of the links from June and July 2018, found from the Google News search, which use the current names in the "Frontier Region" format: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Additionally, some news articles also use the abbreviation "FR" format (i.e. "FR Peshawar", "FR Bannu", etc); some examples: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Khestwol (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Khestwol: I just stumbled upon this discussion and it appears you are ignoring the consensus developed here, and trying to game the system to push an agenda. It does not make sense to call Kurram an agency when it is no more an agency but a district. I also don't think WP:NCPLACE should apply here because we're not proposing to change the name of the place but terms for administrative division. Why not get over it and move on? --Saqib (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not think a consensus can be developed here until the opposing reasoning rationale is responded to and refuted. As per the Wikipedia's policy explained in the article WP:!VOTE - this discussion should not be simply about counting !votes and deciding on a majority rule. It is not the !vote that matters, but it is the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. So please address my reasoning rationale, not me. Six of the eleven new article titles which were proposed seem to be nonexistent names as per the Google News search. I think the 11 article titles should stay at their current WP:STABLE versions, until a consensus for a change is reached. Also, Wikipedia is not bound to use the official names. According to WP:COMMONNAME: Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". Khestwol (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I already answered your rationale, your rationale is based on bogus results, you are displaying WP:IDHT attitude by ignoring the answers given to you. WP:NAMECHANGES takes precedence here. The searches for current names show zero to minimal results for post 31 May 2018 date. The districts formerly agencies are bigger entities so they are already appearing in Google News, I showed you some of the results (35) above which you are apparently ignoring (WP:IDHT) and mind you those were just the fractions, there are many more. Overall Google search includes unreliable sources so they cannot be trusted. Google Books cannot have a published book for the new names so soon after the change. So the only medium we can trust properly here is Google News. Six out of eleven are subdivisions, those are smaller entities than districts, they get very minimal coverage even in the news, for example current Frontier Region Dera Ismail Khan has only 5 results and Frontier Region Lakki Marwat has only 2 results for years and years of existence. The last news report for one of them was in 2012, these are six years, no reporting for six years. You cannot expect a report to show up for these smaller regions in a month's time. On the other hand those smaller entities show 0 results for post 31 May 2018 for their current names but there are third party very reliable sources saying that those frontier regions will be called subdivisions in result of that amendment so we have sources published post 31 May 2018 which say they are subdivisions but we do not have any reliable source with published date after 31 May 2018 confirming that they are still being called frontier regions. So, the consensus here plus two editors moving the pages on their own plus WP:NAMECHANGES rationale goes totally against your position, now you need to drop the stick and wait for the closing admin to make the decision. You are just wasting everyone's time here arguing endlessly for a non-issue. The fact on the ground has changed, the fact on Wikipedia will change. Your objections are groundless. You tried to construe the searches by including everything to date to make your point and that should be good enough to prove that you are here with a POV agenda and not here to improve encyclopedia and contribute constructively. One user trying to construe the search results trying to overrule a developing consensus is considered disruptive editing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

SheriffInTown: no WP:PERSONAL comments about my personality please. I have shown above that English language news sources, not only older ones but also those from June/July, refer to the six frontier regions as "Frontier Regions" (or "FRs" in short). See the examples above (I gave 17 English language news links in random, all from June/July to refute your claim). These are examples of recent articles which use "Frontier Region" (or "FR" in short) up to the present day, implying that the current names are the common names. On the other hand, the proposed names cannot be common names, because no news article refer to these six frontier regions in the "Subdivision" format, neither in June/July nor before that, in English language sources. Khestwol (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just a note (and observation), WP:GHITS is not a valid reason in discussions. Although this is not a deletion discussion, the use of Google hits to determine the result is still to be avoided. We generally stick with what the official name is, which should become apparent when there is a name change. Simple media reports can verify this assuming the name change occurred. Best regards, Mar4d (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. It seems to me a clear situation. The articles are a set of administrative areas, these areas have now been redefined by a constitutional change and now have different official titles. Most sources now use these new titles, some still use the old designations most obviously when reporting on past events. There is clear agreement from everyone except Khestwol that the move is constructive. Evidence for and against the move has been supplied, but is in summary a matter of whether changing the longstanding official name to the newly designated official name is acceptable within the WP:UCRN guideline. It is my view that it is, because neither sets of titles are "common names" as they are both official designations, one set of which is now historical. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Frayae: are you supporting to move only the first 5 articles (Agency -> District), or also the last six articles (Frontier Region -> Subdivision)? As I have explained, the last six proposed names aren't backed by evidence. Instead, the evidence backs the current names (using "Frontier Region") for the last 6 proposed articles. Please be clearer. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes sorry. I am supporting the move of all 11 articles. In my view there is little evidence to support the move of the (Frontier Region -> Subdivision), but equally limited evidence to suggest keeping them in their current location would be better. It is conventional to maintain consistency wherever possible. Thus all the articles should be moved to the new official names. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the current names are better. The problem with the last six names, especially, is that not a single news article refers to the six frontier regions in the "Subdivision" format. Even in June and July, all news articles refer to the frontier regions in the "Frintier Region" (or "FR" in short) format. Did you check the news articles referring to these frontier regions? Khestwol (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

With most of the regions, only a few sources ever covered them in all time (all time being the time Google holds data). It is my view that neither the old names or the new names have sufficient common usage to become an overriding commonly recognisable name. Thus we are left with choosing between the old official name or the new official name. The official name change is sourced and the fact the official names have changed is not being argued. Plus there will be redirects from the old names, so anyone with out of date information will be automatically sent to the correct article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Each term returns results in Google Search 1000s of times, which I think is not "few sources". Some of the more popular articles like "Khyber Agency" return results much more. However, clearly the new official names are not preferred by even the current sources. So, it is too early yet to move the 11 articles. There is no rush, we better wait. Khestwol (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You are again spreading misinformation by saying 1000s of sources. Read WP:NAMECHANGES, it seems only you understand the policies, nobody else does who supported these moves and who tried to move on their own. Your POV agenda will not prevail here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The common name policy is equally important as WP:NAMECHANGES, everyone is arguing within policies. The point is that a few sources (or 1000s of Google results) on the prior official names does not suggest we should not move the articles to their new official names. The key is that the previous name was used by the article and sources because it was the official name at the time, there is now a new official name. In the interests of keeping Wikipedia up to date it would make sense to move. This is why I have supported the move, and it is unlikely I will change my mind because I have given the subject some thought. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support moves to the suggested titles. The arguments in the favour of moves appear to be more convincing.  samee  converse  13:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per WP:NAMECHANGES, additionally, none of the rationales on WP:OFFICIALNAMES for not using the official name seem to apply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Khestwol's evidence and WP:NAMECHANGES. Those proposing the moving of the articles need to demonstrate that reliable sources have shifted to using the new name since the change, and Khestwol's evidence clearly shows that this has not taken place, at least for some of the suggested moves. Remember, NAMECHANGES does *not* say we should move the page automatically when the name changes, it actually says we should observe whether sources have shifted their usage. In this case they haven't, so per the prevailing WP:COMMONNAME we stick with the status quo.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I have already shown in one of my comments above that the usage have shifted, I am not relying on WP:NAMECHANGES in a literal sense of it's title and I post that evidence once again for you here, in case it was overlooked and this is just the fraction. As explained by me earlier, Khestwol's searches include everything to date otherwise post 31 May 2018, most sources are using new designations, furthermore this is not the name change, this is a type / designation change, the name part stays same, for example Kurram is name which stays same, Agency is designation which changes to District, example of a name change would be Nawabshah District to Shaheed Benazirabad District which someone moved without any discussion, historical name changed just like that without any opposition without looking at the usage in sources, a provincial assembly passed the resolution and people changed it but this move that we are talking about now has been approved from a bigger forum than that. I would also like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, once we already have an evidence of overwhelming adaptation of new designations then it's just a matter of time and considering that we should move them once we have that much consensus developing and that much effort already put in place:

Right, and if we look at the agency to district switch in isolation, there does seem to be more evidence to support it. That being the case, I'm wondering why you introduced the frontier regions into the RM. I would have an easier job evaluating this if those were excluded. (Also, I've put a collapse around your list of sources above, to keep the conversation flow intact, hope that's OK). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Since, I was basing the change on that constitutional amendment and the amendment included Frontier Regions to Subdivision change as well so I decided to include them all in one go! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons put out by SherrifIsInTown. It's just common sense. We very rarely should deviate from official names for entities like districts/counties/provinces, and this is not one of those cases. —innotata 02:24, 12 July 2018 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.