Jump to content

Talk:List of districts in India/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the district naming. Please do not modify it.

Just curious: why did you move the page to districts of India? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

thought its not only a list , because has sme description in intro. Lots of country specific subnational entity pages are done this way. Category:Subdivisions by country , do you see problems? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that the "List of Indian districts" is a Featured list. The data is essentially a nice list. I'm not sure if it should be renamed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:58, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

did not see this FL before. mmh. does it matter, at the and the article contains the list. Should it be splitted into articel and list? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It does matter. A featured list should have an introduction to the topic. I think it should be moved back. You have any objections if I move it back? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have no immediate problem with moving it; it can still be a featured list without having the word "list" in the title. It fits the standard, "States and territories of India", etc. However, preference is typically given to the original name in moments of conflict. (Honestly, "list of" seems redundant. One expects a list at "districts of india"...)--Golbez 18:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ah Golbez, nice to see you here ;-) It seems this time we are not head against head.
Wikipedia:What is a featured list? 4. brief intro. the intro is more than brief, its already more than a good article stub. But we can split. Than there will be good article and a FL with brief intro. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Whoa now, I see no reason to split this. It's good as is. Don't turn a naming dispute into an article split. --Golbez 18:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
and wants again, head against head.
If I could portray rolling eyes in text form, I would. --Golbez 18:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Actually both articles can exist. The "list of..." contents remains as it is, but the Indian distt. article has the intro information and more stuff on special districts, trivia and that sort of stuff. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:21, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
You really think so? Hm. Well ok :) --Golbez 18:30, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Do you know more on special districts? Maybe you can also add some local terms to List of terms for subnational entities. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Well some districts are city districts w/o a dist headquarter. Some others like chandigarh which is a city dist is the capital of 2 states and 1 UT. Ladakh is the largest district. All that stuff. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

interesting. capital of three different first level divisions. Let's split? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok I'll move the page back. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Naming

moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian districts/Naming Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Total number of districts

According to NIC's districts site there are 602 Districts in India, but the present table tallies to 598. Not sure where the discrepancy is yet..--cjllw | TALK 02:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've now corrected the totals, it seems some earlier entries were mis-aligned with their State, and there have been a couple of recent ones. The table totals (per State/UT & the grand total) now agrees with the NIC list (at least I think so, someone could double-check). For the listings of individual districts per State/UT, the ones which are presently seem to be missing are:

I also formatted the totals table so that the numbers are bolded, to distinguish them from the adjacent number codes used to identify the State in the map.--cjllw | TALK 04:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I started collecting the footer templates, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian districts/templates - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Should be removed from FL

The list gives provisional figures only from Census 2001. Either update it with final tally available here or remove it from FL. Anwar saadat 19:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The Abbrevation Codes

What is the source of the two letter abbrevation codesDoctor Bruno 16:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Category:Wikipedia featured geography lists

I'd like to know also what the purpose of those codes is, e.g. if they're used in any official documents. Could somebody maybe add this?--Young Pioneer 13:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Abbreviation codes have been created by the webmaster of statoids.com: he says clearly that these are not an official standard, sanctioned by any international body, so i think they should be removed from this list. --Lucio Di Madaura (disputationes) 21:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the official stuff: https://www.mail.nic.in/docs/MailService_e-mail_address_Policy_WithCodes.pdf. Appendix 1 has state codes, appendix 2 has district codes.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Missing districts in Northeast

Arunachal Pradesh refer to map [1] total:16 districts, 3 missing from list:

-- PlaneMad|YakYak 09:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Nagaland, refer [2] -- PlaneMad|YakYak 11:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Great list that deserves its FL star, but when reading the lead, it seemed to be a description of a State or Union Territory in India, instead of districts. Only the last sentence concerns Districts. Could someone knowledgeable in the subject modify the lead to better fit the article? Thank you. CG 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

New district

The list should include the new district of Rajasthan Pratapgarh district ( Rajasthan). I have not added lest I mess up the list. Can someone please do that.Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Error on Assam's Districts

None of teh Assam districts are showing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.96.82 (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge_discussion

This page should be merged with Districts of India or that into this. They are on the same exact subject. I see no point of having to diff articles of the same thing. Gman124 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Support. Each list on the other one should be made collapsible, as well. PhnomPencil (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not a web directory we really need to remove all the external links in the article body, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Need section tracking changes

This article -- and perhaps other articles on administrative divisions at higher and lower levels -- needs a section tracking changes. India seems to frequently carve out new states and districts. The history of this can be important to those of us who live outside India and don't reliably get this information in our local news. We need to know about past changes as well as current changes. Maybe even discussion about possible future changes too! LADave (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Inaccuracies/Inconsistencies in District Data for Chhattisgarh

There are inconsistencies in the area for (atleast) the dictricts in the state of Chhattisgarh as discussed in the List of districts of Chhattisgarh and the districts listed for Chhattisgarh here.

Example: In List of districts of Chhattisgarh, Bastar has an area of 14,968 sqkm, while here is has an area of just 4030 sqkm. Same for Dantewada (17,538 vs 3,410). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randompie (talk • contribs) 06:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I've checked the areas for two districts you mentioned, and both areas are in error at the Chhattisgarh list, according to their linked websites. Other districts may be out of line, as Bastar (4,029.98 square kilometres (1,555.98 sq mi)) and Dantewada (3,410.50 square kilometres (1,316.80 sq mi)) are two of the larger districts, looking at the map at the Chhattisgarh list, and some of the other area figures don't reflect that. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of districts in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 44 external links on List of districts in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New districts

Need to add new districts of Gujarat, Telangan among others. Also, need to shift Ponda (actually Fonda) taluka from North Goa district to South Goa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psk999wiki (talk • contribs) 14:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The new districts have probably already been added. Note that the numbers of districts here for Gujarat (33) and Telangana (31) are in accordance with the numbers at their own "List of districts..." articles, the new districts being the ones missing entries in the Code column. The makeup of the districts (e.g. what sub-districts, or talukas, constitute North and South Goa) doesn't concern this article. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 07:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC))

Hello @Dhtwiki:! Thanks for reverting so many of my efforts and not caring to start a discussion. Were you thinking you were reverting a vandal here?
Anyways! Please read WP:EL; (all emphasis mine) "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article.
Overall, WP:EL stated that external links should be kept minimum and i do not think 725 external links can be called minimum in right sense of mind. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have started the discussion before removing so much work, and with so little explanation. How do you think those links got put in? Certainly with more work than you put into taking them out. I myself have checked a number of them for validity and find them useful in deciding on other details in the list. And, yes, I had to act quickly, before to much other, helpful work would be thrown out by a reversion, such as the insertion of the "short description" template, which I restored. I see you've taken out another batch of external links, which I'll revert. I see no consensus for your actions, and "not normally" means the external links aren't absolutely forbidden in article bodies. One can "disguise" them as references, which is how external links usually appear and without throwing out so much information. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
So if you want, you should add them as references. They certainly cant stay in the current format. And discuss with whom in first place? no one owns this article. Also, the list has been a former FL and it never had so many external links. I also do not think it can become FL again with 700+ external links. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I've just had to revert some more deletions of external links. There are other things you seem to be doing that I don't see as harmful, but I have to undo it all to save the external links, which would be much harder to convert, if that's necessary, if they're not there. I'm not going to feel as though it's my job to do it right now. Those links aren't hurting anything. I think the proscription against them applies to when users are taken unexpectedly to external sites, which is not the case here. There certainly can't be anything against such links in text space, as they're there all the time as parts of citations. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
And while you lament about the lost of "short description template", did you bother checking how many footnotes on Arunachal and Assam were lost? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dhtwiki: you can help me by giving examples of any FLs that use over 700 external links and then we can see your other arguments of how really usefull they are. The other content of the table i.e the district name, capital, population, area and density is all going to be sourced from census and not individual websites and they are not WP:RS for this information. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying the links are a good idea; they're not easily maintainable, for one thing, and, for another, we have links to district articles where the links should be. However, the links are here and may be convenient for people. Are there over 700 of them? That is a lot. But why waste time removing them, unless you have a good sense of how people use this page or how such links are positively harmful in other ways. Are there any En-wiki-wide discussions on such external-link placement. Finding such would be preferable to asking me to undertake an lengthy examination to disprove the validity of the stance I've taken. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I can show you n number of FLs that do not use such external links. If you want to stand up to your stance you have do some homework. Another point, we cant have links to few districts alone. It has to be uniform for all 700+ entries. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I cant see any reason for the external links, it is not normal practice to include them in the article body and as wikipedia is not a web directory I cant see any reason that they are included. If the user really wants a link then it will be in the related district article or they can search for it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
You dont really need permission just need to be sure that a consensus exists that this article is not a special case, it is being disruptive if somebody reverts after a consensus exists. So far I dont see any reason why the links should be on the page. MilborneOne (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I know; i was being ironic. They kept reverting me as if only they WP:OWN the page. I will simply get back to cleaning again from tomorrow maybe unless they want to discuss more. After fixing format i also have to fix numbers as they are not matching with the actual Census report. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Your approach to this stinks, but I can't continue to oppose you on substantive grounds, since I made some of the same arguments that MilborneOne made in support of you. And Naveenpf didn't give an opinion on substantive grounds when they reverted, they commented on your slowness to take this to the talk page. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! If you want, you can have a copy of all link in your draft space somewhere. And you are also welcome to suggest/contribute into editing. Lets try and make this FL again. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Lakshadweep districts

If someone could add the district related information to the pages of Chandigarh district, Dadra and Nagar Haveli district and Lakshadweep district, it'd be a great help. Right now these pages redirect to the union territorries of Chandigarh, Lakshadweep and the former union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. We need a separate district page for these three to differentiate them from the union territorries of same name. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The current pages say they are union territories and districts. There's no particular reason why separate articles are needed, unless there's a lot to say about the district that's irrelevant to the union territories. For now, I tagged the redirects with Template:R with possibilities. Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Dadra and Nagar Haveli is a former union territory of India that is merged with former union territory of Daman and Diu to create Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. That's the reason we need a separate Dadra and Nagar Haveli district article that differentiates it from the former union territory. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the titles of the districts

It's now apparent that there're two main issues about the titles currently being used in various districts of India articles, generating discrepancy and inconsistency across all the article pages of districts.

1 – Usage of the suffix "district" in the titles: There is a question of using the suffix "district" in the article title where no other location similar in name of the district exists. For example: Lahaul and Spiti district of Himachal Pradesh, there is no other place exist naming "Lahaul and Spiti". The district headquarter of Lahaul and Spiti is located in Kyelang, therefore the suffix "district" is usually not needed for disambiguation.

But we have to first look: (a). If it's a WP:COMMON name. (b). If the norm used in Wikipedia regarding districts' articles is generally followed adding the suffix "district". (c). If the google search shows more results with suffix "district" for such districts having unique names. (d). Also we have to look the official district website to see what's that district is officially titled.

Also there are two union territories of India having only one district (district-at-large) Chandigarh and Lakshadweep. Since these union territories are also districts, the suffix "district" is not used in their titles. There is a need of creating a separate article for Chandigarh district and Lakshadweep district to differentiate these union territories from districts. Chandigarh is a unique case, since it's also a municipal corporation and there is a separate page for Municipal Corporation Chandigarh already exits. Same goes for former union territory and now a district of the union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu since 2020 the Dadra and Nagar Haveli. there should be a separate article for Dadra and Nagar Haveli district to differentiate it from former union territory of the same name.

Even after considering all of above, having some districts with the suffix "district" and having others without it would greatly affect the WP:CONSISTENCY and might add difficulties for a Wikipedia user searching the districts.

2 – Usage of the uppercase "District" vs. lowercase "district" suffix: Another question is the usage of uppercase "District" vs. lowercase "district" suffix. There are currently 680+ articles of Indian districts all bit three (Baramati District (a proposed district of Maharashtra), Sri Ganganagar District of Rajasthan and Tengnoupal District of Manipur) having lowercase "district" suffixed. It is proposed by @The Man in Question: to move all the districts with lowercase "district" title to the uppercase "District" title.

See the full list of current districts of India here

Inviting, @The Man in Question:, @Bungle:, @Aviator423:, @C1MM: to the discussion here. Feel free to add more contributors to the discussion here, the more the merrier!

Regards, — Hemant DabralTalk 11:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

A week later there is no participation, and several RMs you have proposed depend on the outcome here. Andrewa (talk) 02:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a simplified list of suggested options should be given and then voted upon; however, without knowing the correct way to describe districts in India, I suspect there would be a number of voters basing their view on preference than fact. I do not personally know enough to make an informed decision. Given we're talking about districts in India, and this is en wiki, then it may even be worth considering if there should be an uniformly clear distinction, such as putting "Indian district" in parenthesis (i.e. Sri Ganganagar (Indian district)), but this then comes back to my point of what individuals think looks/works better than being based on actual naming convention or fact. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The big challenge so far is participation. Several contributors have participated in the various RMs but even those who have been pinged have not turned up here.
There are basically two ways forward:
  1. We can apply existing policy and guidelines.
  2. We can develop and propose a Naming Convention to cover any special considerations for these articles.
The first thing in any case is to establish what existing policy and guidelines would have us do. Only then can we even consider whether this should be a special case. Andrewa (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that consistency with naming conventions and guidelines is more important than absolute consistency between articles. In these, "district" is not part of a proper name, as evidenced by the fact that it's usually lowercase in sources. Rather, it's what we call "natural disambiguation". Per WP:NCDAB, a "more complete name" ("such as English language instead of English") is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation, and is not necessary where there is no actually ambiguity. So the only thing I see to fix is the few with capped "District", which I have supported at their RM discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If people prefer the "more complete name" even when the proper name is not ambiguous, I do not object, but B2C would, as he puts most weight on CONCISE of all the WP:CRITERIA; personally I see value in WP:RECOGNIZABILITY and WP:PRECISION. If you want to go that way, you should have an RFC on a naming convention for this class of articles, saying that the convention of including district overrides the usual omission of unnecessary disambiguation, as in the WP:USPLACE convention. Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Outstanding RMs

Suggest that these all be closed if we're to discuss here instead.

Once we have a suitably advertised discussion and consensus on the way forward (here or elsewhere), we should propose a multi move on that basis rather than individual RMs. Andrewa (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that any related move requests should be undertaken as a collective rename to ensure consistency, rather than being voted upon individually. This was the purpose of the discussion being raised in the first place, to reach consensus for all related articles collectively. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, a multi move will help to achieve consistency. And it will also save a lot of time... that of the contributor raising the request, that of the others who !vote on the request, and that of the closer(s) who assess consensus and perform any necessary moves. Andrewa (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, a multi-RM is the way to go. Nevertheless I support these downcasing proposals after noting that sources do not typically capitalize district for these. Fixing these three will make for consistency, internally and with sources. I wish they had been all three proposed in one discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The pure capitalization discussions in question are at Talk:Sri Ganganagar District#Requested move 4 May 2020, Talk:Tengnoupal District#Requested move 4 May 2020, and Talk:Baramati District#Requested move 4 May 2020. Dicklyon (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The trouble with discussing here instead of in the RMs is that there's no advertising of this issue to people who might care. So I linked this discussion at the MOS:CAPS talk page to see if we get any opinions from there. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I thought I'd linked here from those RMs, I meant to do that. Yes, that link from the MOS talk page is an excellent idea. Andrewa (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andrewa: It might take months to reach any consensus here on the issue of what the correct title, lettercase or suffix is to be used in the names of the districts of India. I say let's move only 6 article pages I've listed for RM as of now to achieve consistency and recognisability for the time being.

These 6 pages include Talk:Dakshina Kannada#Requested move 4 May 2020, Talk:South 24 Parganas#Requested move 4 May 2020 and Talk:Uttara Kannada#Requested move 4 May 2020 for my proposal of adding "district" suffix and Talk:Baramati District#Requested move 4 May 2020, Talk:Sri Ganganagar District#Requested move 4 May 2020, Talk:Tengnoupal District#Requested move 4 May 2020 for my proposal of using small "d" lettercase.

Whether to do a multi-move or not can be decided after we reach a consensus here. As for now these 6 districts should be dealt first because these are odd ones out and do not match the consistency with rest of 680+ districts. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 15:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Too bad you didn't group those into a 3-move for the case fix and a 3-move to add the natural disambiguator "district" to the ones missing it. It's a lot easier to respond to 2 questions than to 6. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Disagree that it's a good process to move these ones. If consensus is achieved on any of the RMs they will of course go ahead, and that consensus will then be helpful in the general discussion. But I'm not in favour of that process. I think it will help to motivate and shorten the more general discussion if we leave these articles as they are, pending that discussion.
It may take a while. It took eleven years to move the New York (state) article away from the base name New York even after we had consensus that it wasn't the primary topic. But that was a perfect storm. Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

RM discussion

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

– Procedural nomination to combine several related discussions happening at the moment — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Relist note: see consensus to lower the case of "District" where used; however, see no agreement yet about adding the "district" qualifier when presently absent in the title. So relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Please add any other related move discussions above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Just missing this one I think:
As for combining, it would be best to ask people who have already responded if they mind shutting those down and starting over. I'm OK with that, but in two groups for the two different issues, one of which I support and the other I'm neutral on. Dicklyon (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I see you already closed the others; so you need to at least notify the respondents there, or copy their responses to here. I'll take care of my own. Dicklyon (talk) 03:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support lowercase district; Neutral on addition of unnecessary disambiguators – As I said when separate RM discussions were open to downcase District, * Support per usage in sources ... in sources ... in sources. These should not be capped, per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, since they are not even nearly consistently capped in sources. As optional parts of the "more complete name" at described at WP:DISAMBIG they are good natural disambiguators; where there is not actual ambiguity, they are optional. I would not oppose a convention to always include them on Indian districts, but it's OK without them, too, on those other 3 move proposals. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support lowercase district per the evidence of Dicklyon, capitalisation is not "consistantly" used and does not meet the criteria for capitalisation per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Generally support adding district with rider that the article must be about the district. This article itself notes that "district" is usually appended because it is usually necessary to distinguish between the district and the locality for which it is named. It is therefore appears reasonable to invoke WP:CONSISTENT in the instances where the RM is to add "district". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pinging previous participants @Andrewa, Hemant Dabral, Aviator423, C1MM, Chandan Guha, Manasbose, and The Man in Question: if I have missed anyone, it is not intentional — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support lowercase district; Oppose addition of unnecessary disambiguators: Downcasing of districts to be done wherever needed as per WP:NCCAPS, because district name cannot always be established as proper name. Oppose needlessly adding district to names which are natural disambiguations, as per WP:DISAMB, and they have to be evaluated case by case basis.--Ab207 (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Lowercase please, according to MOS and the most-prominent English-language style guides. Tony (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support lowercase, district Per precedent and other district articles for India. Gotitbro (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support lowercase, district All the other India district articles on Wikipedia have this format, keeping consistency important C1MM (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (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.

Madhya Pradesh district count

Where did the 55 come from? The "List of districts of Madhya Pradesh" says it's 52 districts, not 55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.145.113 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

At the end of List of districts of Madhya Pradesh there is a section, "Future districts", that tells of three districts being created on 19 March 2020. Those districts have been included here, although two have red links. That accounts for the discrepancy. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_districts_in_India/Archive_1&oldid=1188854122"