The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 10:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Protected areas in Tamil Nadu → Protected areas of Tamil Nadu — revert to original article title (see Background above) — Marcus ( talk) 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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 naming conventions.

• Conditional support - Please note that the comments written above by Marcus334 which he states to be my arguments are in fact very selective comments which do not accurately illustrate my position, nor my manner. Because the quotes are taken out of context, the first three quotes do not convey what I had originally communicated. I will treat these in order:

1. The full quote should read "I believe the title "Protected areas in Tamil Nadu" is more appropriate in this case." I was simply stating my opinion before explaining my reasons why.
2. The second quote does not refer to a guideline, as Marcus334 suggests, but rather a "naming convention", as I stated. A naming convention is a title format that is commonly used for a particular type of article. The naming convention for "protected areas by region" articles may be determined by checking the titles of those articles: every one of them follows the title format (or naming convention) "Protected areas in x".
3. The third quote is also misinterpreted. The nonconforming articles to which Marcus334 refers are not articles in the "Protected areas by region" series (such as Protected areas in Canada, Protected areas in Brazil, Protected areas in Finland, etc.). The ones which he quotes which are in this series, he quotes as if they employed the naming convention "Protected areas of x" when they in fact employ "Protected areas in x" (see Protected areas in the United States, Protected areas in India, Protected areas in Kerala, etc.).

While my position was not properly represented in the first three instances, the fourth and fifth are accurate, and I stand by them. I believe that "Protected areas in x" is a valid naming convention for these articles, and while a switch to "Protected areas of x" would be unnecessary, it would still be valid. The important thing is that the titles are consistent. If this article is moved to "Protected areas of Tamil Nadu", the rest should be moved as well. Neelix ( talk) 00:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Further comment - I should also point out that I responded to the points he makes in this manner (to quote our previous discussion):

1. "Most of the sources for the article also employ the construction "Protected areas in" rather than "Protected areas of"."
2. "As for the suggestion to change the terminology on the pages which link to Protected areas in Tamil Nadu, this is not required, as is stated in this guideline."
3. This concern I have addressed above.
4. "This type of title standardization is one of my primary contributions to Wikipedia; in the majority of cases, no one has any concerns about the moves."
5. "There are plenty of articles about India-related topics with titles ending in "in Inda" (Islam in India, Public holidays in India, Transport in India, etc.). That's not the point. All the articles about protected areas in a particular region should be consistent in their titles." Neelix ( talk) 00:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support- as per Background above.
  • Rebuttal point #2, in opposing opinion above, talks around but does not address one of my main support points, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics) guideline:

"In general, country-specific articles should be named using the form: "(item) of (country). This will usually hold true in other geography-specific topics, such as for cities, continents, provinces, states, etc.

• Also rebuttal points 2. and 3. are based on the reason that "the naming convention for "protected areas by region" articles may be determined by checking the titles of those articles: every one of them follows the title format (or naming convention) "Protected areas in x"."

This is a baseless reason because these and many many more article titles were just changed from the of to in format. Check this by looking at history of any article in question, or better yet: Contributions=Neelix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus334 ( talk • contribs)

• • Response - I have already responded to the guideline quoted by Marcus334. As I stated before, there are many country-specific articles which do not and should not employ the form "(item) of (country)"; this is the general form, as the guideline states. It is not meant to be imposed in all areas. Islam in India, Public holidays in India, Transport in India, and many others employ the form "(item) in (country)", and that's been accepted by the community. The guideline being cited does not argue against that; it simply outlines a general form. As for the "baseless reason" Marcus334 quotes above, I was not implying that my edits are law, as he suggests. Rather, I was acknowledging the difficulty of moving all the articles as well as the pointlessness in doing so. The article titles are appropriate as they are. Neelix ( talk) 10:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Support. Moving large numbers of pages under a Wikiproject without consulting it is, as Captain Hook would say "Bad form". Looking at Wikiproject Protected Areas' formating standards we see:
  • Formatting of the level 1 article ( Protected area)
    • A general description;
    • A list of countries that have PAs (with links in the "Protected areas of X" format);
    • A link to the page " International protected areas".

• • Formatting of level 2 articles
    • A general description;
    • A list of PA types with a short explanation;
    • A list of PA's per PA type;
    • A list of states/provinces/... for PA' which are managed on that level (with links in the "Protected areas of X" format).
    • A link to the level 1 article and (an) external link(s), if available.

• • For test articles see: Protected areas of Australia, Protected areas of the United States

• • Formatting of level 3 articles
    • A general description;
    • A list of PA types with a short explanation (if that explanation differs from the explanation given on country level);
    • A list of PA's per PA type.
    • A link to the corresponding level 2 article and (an) external link(s), if available.

For a test article see: Protected areas of the Australian Capital Territory

So I think the naming convention is quite clear as "Protected area of". Rmhermen ( talk) 13:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• • Response - As I have stated before, I accept "Protected areas of x" as a valid naming convention, so long as it is implemented accross the board. Is your recommendation to move all the articles about protected areas by region? Neelix ( talk) 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • What if it isn't? Will you then make the other format standard across the board? Why? - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 20:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I would certainly suggest that one title format be accepted for all the articles about protected areas by region. Arbitrariness is never a good policy. It causes confusion when various title formats are haphazardly assigned. If one article is called "German history" and another is called "History of France", readers question whether the difference between the two title formats actually refers to a semantic difference. This confusion becomes particularly acute when the articles are connected via continental navboxes. Where there is no difference in meaning, there should be no difference in title format. Neelix ( talk) 21:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Yes, I tend to agree. The only cases in which we use arbitrariness as a general rule are intractable disputes such as British versus American spellings, or B.C./A.D. date formats versus B.C.E./C.E.. I don't see why this topic should be controversial, as those are. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 04:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Note: Wikipedia search for "Protected areas of" yields 3832 results.

Wikipedia search for "Protected areas in" yields 556 results, including the several dozens recently renamed.-- Marcus ( talk) 18:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

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