Talk:Pune Metropolitan Region

Requested move 18 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed request. Number 57 20:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Pune Metropolitan Area → Pune Metropolitan Region – as per its authority name - "Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority Vin09 (talk) 09:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 28 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Pune Metropolitan Region → Pune metropolitan region – As with other metropolitan regions, this title is not a proper name, unlike the proper name of the associated development authority; see for example books like this one. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 17:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Oppose page move. This argument is grammatically sound when the phrase 'metropolitan region' is used in the general sense, e.g. Pune and its surrounding metropolitan region. However, the Government of Maharashtra in its notification (jump to page 6 for the English version) (re)defining the boundaries of the region defines and uses the capitalized phrase. I would argue that this definition makes it a proper noun on the lines of National Capital Region (India) and not national capital region, New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT–PA Combined Statistical Area, 'the county of Greater London' and not 'the county of greater London', and so on. There are inconsistencies in the usage, however, the common trend in the media is to use the capitalized version. This trend is also seen in the articles about other Indian metropolitan regions. Berlindian (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

References

That first ext-link doc you cited is full of excessive capitalization, as is their style (e.g. "By Order and in the Name of Governor of Maharashtra"). The article should be more about the metropolitan region than about that official declaration of a legal entity. It is not uncommon to see the lowercase in news when what's being referred to is the region, not the development authority: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc. A few others go half way, as "Pune Metropolitan region". Dicklyon (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I already mentioned that the media are inconsistent and I also agree that the Government of Maharashtra overcapitalize their documents. However, Pune Metropolitan Region is not just a descriptive phrase to denote the metropolitan area, but is a legally defined region with defined boundaries. It was first defined in 1967 as Pune Metropolitan Area and then redefined as Pune Metroplitan Region. It is common for former descriptive noun phrases to become proper names upon formal definition and be capitalized. For example, the New York metropolitan area (not capitalized) is the common appellation for a region with multiple definitions, each of which is capitalized: New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area and the New York–Newark, NY–NJ–CT–PA Combined Statistical Area. Similarly, the London metropolitan area lacking a formal definition is not capitalized, while its constituent formally defined conurbations of Greater London Built-up Area and Metropolitan Green Belt are capitalized. The difference lies with the existence of a legal/formal definition. In case of PMR a legal definition does exist and hence it is a proper name. That said the article can be about the region, (I don't see how it's not) and yet recognize the legal entity all at the same time. I also don't see the article benefiting from such a move at least not as much as it would by adding relevant information. Also, there's plenty information in the articles about each constituent city or town. Berlindian (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the book you cited uses the capitalized version in the very next paragraph. Berlindian (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

WP style is to avoid unnecessary capitalization, per MOS:CAPS. If the book has it both ways, it's pretty clear unnecessary. We generally avoid getting entangled in legal and official things, and prefer common names, which is where the caps here are clearly unnecessary. Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not think it is unnecessary since it is a proper name. See MOS:NAMECAPS. Berlindian (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Whether it's a proper name in common usage (as opposed to what the government's legal and PR departments dream up, which is almost always boosterism) is debatable. WP's guidelines say to minimise unnecessary capping—and so do the Oxford and Chicago style guides. The government of Maharshtra might also be a "legally defined" entity, but that is normally cast in lowercase—not by that government, of course, but by WP and many other prominent publishers. By long convention, we continue to cap the names of the actual place. Tony (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That very well may be but pageview stats are in favour of capitalization, 25:1 over two years and 54:1 over last month. Berlindian (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    That means nothing. Most pageviews are via links, and the links are all (or mostly) capped. Dicklyon (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

    • Well, you said it. Since most links are capitalized, it can be assumed that the capitalized version is the most common usage, at least among WP editors. Unless we are being prescriptive about 'proper' usage here, in which case I suggest adding all similarly named pages in one move request. Also, Tony, I just checked and Oxford style guide does make an exception for formal names. In any case, I still don't think a page which has existed with this name for two years, and before that I don't know how long with capitalized version of its former name, should be moved. I fail to see how that benefits this article, all the articles that link this article with caps, or all the others which follow this convention. Berlindian (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

      • I think there's confusion between sentence and title case going on. Tell me, is it because you fear the status of the subject might be reduced that you're coming in so strongly against the style proposal? Tony (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

        • Thank you for gauging my emotions and explaining them to me. There's no confusion on my side.

1. I maintain that this is a proper name with initials capitalized and not just a common phrase written in title case.
2. I think this is quite a pedantic exercise in prescriptive grammar when the 'rule' is quite routinely flouted. I have cited several examples, which somehow according to you is me being confused and afraid of some sort of pseudo status.
3. The original request claims that 'as with other metropolitan regions' which is demonstrably not the case and the user has gone and 'corrected' the usage at a few of the examples I cited. Logic would dictate that instead of calling hundreds of editors wrong and confused, a common discussion be started. How many people does it take for something to become a norm?
4. There is no point in moving pages one by one. Having a broader discussion on the issue, however, would be even better for consistency. There are several lists of metropolitan areas, and we could start a discussion by tagging all of the metropolitan areas in individual lists in one move request. If not this is pedantry. Berlindian (talk) 09:52, 5 June 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.