Talk:Sudurpashchim Province

Should be merged with Far-Western Development Region, Nepal

As "Province No. 7" is just a new and temporary name for Far-Western Development Region, Nepal, it should be merged into that article. Batternut (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Latest photograph of Karnali Bridge.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Nepal map 2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 May 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudurpashchim Pradesh → Sudurpashchim – No need to add Pradesh in the title here. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I too have considered this before, but having thought a bit, I would oppose at this time. Nepal district articles have "District" at the end, municipality articles have "municipality", except the well-known cities, so "Pradesh" would be consistent. Secondly, All other named provinces are named after well-known rivers: Bagmati, Gandaki and Karnali. Dropping "Pradesh" would lead to unnecessary ambiguousness in their case; so again, for consistency with other provinces, which are better off with "Pradesh" than without, I would oppose at this time, and until such time as the provinces become sufficiently and reasonably unambiguously recognisable without the appendage. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging @Usedtobecool: Bagmati, Karnali and Gandaki Pradeshs are not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so Pradesh is needed in the name but this case is different. Sudurpashchim is redirected to Sudurpashchim Pradesh and it refers to Pradesh only. Only when there is need to disambiguate, municipality or rural municipality is added in the name otherwise it's better not to include municipality or rural municipality in the title. ~SS49~ {talk} 22:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SS49, "Sudurpashchim" rarely occurs in sources without being accompanied by "Pradesh" or the English "Province". WP:NCCS provides support for the idea of maintaining consistency among administrative divisions of the same type when possible; here, it is not only possible but to be recommended, IMO. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: I agree with you. ~SS49~ {talk} 10:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose On the Provincial Government website it is "Sudurpashchim Pradesh", so I think it should be same. --- 👤Raju💌 14:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it should be "Sudurpashchim Pradesh". See the official web page of "Sudurpashchim Pradesh". --Janak Bhatta (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bagmati Pradesh which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Dhangadhi1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 May 2025

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

– I think these provinces are usually called just “Bagmati”, “Koshi”, etc. in news and by people in Nepal. The word “Province” isn’t always used, and the shorter names are more natural. They still clearly refer to the provinces, so I don’t think there’s confusion. It would also make the titles shorter and easier to read. 07:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)washi 189 ^[T]/_[C] 07:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added associated moves per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Request all associated moves explicitly. Additional comments: Bagmati is a {{R from move}} to Bagmati River. When retargeted to the province in February 2022, Madhesh had been a redirect to Madheshi people for over four years. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Many of these are occupied titles, for which no effort at showing a primary topic has even been made. For example, why isn't Koshi Province (Japan) equally likely to just be called "Koshi"? BD2412 T 15:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, why do Pakistani provinces not refer to themselves as provinces, such as Sindh, not Sindh Province, or the Indian state Punjab, India, not Punjab State, India. Koshi Province (Japan) has just two sources. Washi 189 00:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Washi189. I hope you don't mind if I kindly ask please we focus on the move request you've opened here instead of other article titles. The article titling guidelines ask us to evaluate each situation separately, to better take into account their unique circumstances.

I will go through one of the original seven provinces you listed; if you could then discuss the six still remaining, it will not only help others better understand your thoughts but also help you better understand how enwiki names articles.

In revision 1292064607, you removed Lumbini Province. As you probably realized after opening this discussion, Lumbini (disambiguation) contains multiple things that reliable sources commonly call just "Lumbini". To determine what should be done at the page title Lumbini itself, we must determine the primary topic. Lumbini's case is fairly straightforward in that the primary topic by both usage and long-term significance is the birthplace of Buddha. We then must decide how to disambiguate the other things also called Lumbini; in the case of the province itself, WP:PLACEDAB says, When there are conventional means of disambiguation in standard English, use them, as in Red River of the North and Red River of the South, and in New York City (to distinguish from the state of New York) (wikilinks original); "Lumbini Province" (or "Lumbini province") is one such conventional means of disambiguation in standard English.

Hope that helps. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as present page titles are clear as is. BhagyaMani (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]