Talk:Unnao dead bodies row

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 57 23:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

• Oppose - though I agree that the existing name is not ideal. Perhaps Unnao dead body recovery. Imc (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• How about 2015 Unnao dead bodies incident? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 14:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move to "2015 Unnao dead bodies incident" — Brianhe (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• 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)

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

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)

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)