Talk:Senate of Pakistan

There's work to be done...

I'm going to do some formatting and standardizing. If anyone has any suggestions, talk to me.Van Gulik 20:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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. 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: page returned to original name. Undoing recent contested move. Original title used a common natural disambiguator per WP:PRECISION. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Senate (Pakistan) → Senate of Pakistan – (see talk page) Green Giant (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This article was moved to it's current name on the grounds that it is the constitutional term. However, "Senate of Pakistan" is a common name used by government, media and others. Examples include the senate's official website, the election commission website, a UNESCO document, and articles by the Times of India, the Tribune, the Nation, and the News. In the the constitution, it is "implicit" that where the constitution uses the term "Senate", it is referring only to the Senate of Pakistan and therefore there is no need to continually disambiguate the term. The preface of the constitution of Pakistan uses the term "Senate of Pakistan". The original title of this article fulfills all of the five criteria suggested at "WP:Article titles" - recognizable, natural (in English), precise, concise, and consistent (at least it was until many of the similar articles were also moved by the same user with much the same reasoning). Green Giant (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Really? - We are squabbling over the choice of natural disambiguation vs parenthetical disambiguation? We have Senate articles using both forms. From WP:NCDAB "If there is a choice between using natural and parenthetical disambiguation, such as Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics), there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other. The choice between them is made by consensus, taking into account general naming criteria (e.g., consistency with the pattern used for similar articles)." From WP:NC-GAL: "When creating an article with a common title, be sure to disambiguate it properly: For example, Department of Justice (Canada), Minister for Foreign Affairs (Australia), Cabinet Office (Japan). Disambiguation is unnecessary if the country or other jurisdiction is a natural part of the subject's name (Statistics New Zealand, Royal Australian Navy), a common method of disambiguating in common speech exists (Cabinet of Germany, Prime Minister of Japan, Treasurer of Australia), or if the agency or office name is unique or is by far the most common meaning, or primary topic (Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Foreign and Commonwealth Office). Care should be taken to avoid convoluted or artificial constructions: Something of Something of Jurisdictionname". So we see that either form is correct, and acceptable. We need not be wasting time on this.--ZooFamily (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• No WP discussion is really a waste of time. The editor concerned has gone through a number of similar articles and moved them to what s/he assumes is the correct form. Had I noticed those other moves earlier I would have included them here too but once a request is rolling it is better not to add or remove things. If this is successful then it sets a precedent for the others, if not then they will need indivdual nominations. Green Giant (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2012 (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.

I have reverted this move because Green Giant did not inform me that this discussion is taking place, even though I have replied on his talk page User_talk:Green_Giant#Senate_of_Pakistan on 27 September 2012, one day after his move request. I have given the valid reasons there and they need to be included in this forum. This topic is not closed yet. Gryffindor (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Do a new requested move, or a move review. DrKay (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Listing of Senator as Jamaat-e-Islami Senator and not as Independent

Request Qwqwer to please have a look at the link Senator Mushtaq Ahmed which shows that Mushtaq Ahmed presently serving in Senate belongs to Jammat Islami - Im just trying to ensure that JI seat is NOT independent but belongs to a political party, humbly request that I do not want to go into an editing frenzy, so using this Talk page to ensure we can sort out any confusion, hope you understand - thank you Dr. Awab Alvi (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)