Talk:Unnao dead bodies row

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Unnao dead bodies row appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 January 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that more than one hundred unidentified bodies, mostly females and children, were found floating in the Ganges in January 2015?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Unnao dead bodies row.

Wikipedia

Requested move 17 January 2015

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: not moved. Although there was some support for the idea that the current title, there was no consensus on what a better alternative should be. May be worth trying another RM with one of the suggestions (e.g. 2015 Unnao dead bodies incident). Number 5 7 23:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnao dead bodies row → 2015 Ganges dead bodies recovery – Or something that should have "2015" and "Ganges" in the title, like 2015 Ganges corpses recovery. "Unnao" is not known name. The bodies were found at the "Ganges", but there have been dead bodies at Ganges for years or centuries. Therefore, I added "2015" for further precision. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 07:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnao may be unknown to you, but it is known to me, and I've never been near it. There will be people to whom the Ganges is unknown. Precision is important. Imc (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support-ish: I'm not sure the proposed name is the best, and the present title is awful. "Row" rarely has the meaning intended here, and more often refers to things in a line. When I see this phrase, I picture a line-up of arranged corpses. Unnao is actually okay in the title, as it is more specific. Places do not have to be well-known to be used in article titles here, and using it obviates the need to add the year. As long as it's accurate. I'm not sure whether the nom is suggesting that Unnao is wrong or just too obscure for his/her preferences. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's your proposal then, SMcCandlish? George Ho (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't make one. Open to alternative suggestions, and am okay with the proposal give here, as long as it's accurate. Depends on the latent question I implied in "I'm not sure whether...". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - though I agree that the existing name is not ideal. Perhaps Unnao dead body recovery. Imc (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about 2015 Unnao dead bodies incident? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support move to "2015 Unnao dead bodies incident" — Brianhe (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per WP:ENGVAR, this is an attempt to remove the usual meaning of the word "row" from the title, which I strongly oppose. Indian articles can use Indian English, per WP:TIES. I also agree that it is important to be WP:PRECISE. RGloucester — ☎ 19:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - It would be a kind of over-expression. Delibzr (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unmarried?

How can they possibly know this? If post-mortems were not possible, they can only know the gender of the deceased and nothing else. And they can only know the gender from either the clothes, etc., that the bodies might have carried or by examining the pelvic bones. Can someone from the area please expand this aspect of the article? Thanks. 206.47.116.138 (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancies in title

It seems to me that as short and simple title as possible is best, i.e. the (strangely) unused and un-linked Unnao bodies.

That is:

In the titles of encyclopedia, news etc articles, "bodies" are always dead people, I would have thought?
I have also looked into the usage of "row" in Indian/South Asian English and it doesn't appear to be any different to other forms of English. That is, "argument", "debate", "controversy", "disagreement", etc. If anyone can provide sources or examples of a different usage I would be interested to see them. I don't see any evidence that this case was especially controversial, for one involving unexplained deaths are always going to be somewhat controversial,

Hence it seems that both "dead" and "row" are redundant in the title. Grant | Talk 04:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]