Talk:Miani Sahib Graveyard

Cemeteries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries 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.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Move?[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. A quick look at the sources that were functional today showed Graveyard was used. If in fact there are more, or better, sources that support lower casing this, then a new discussion listing these will be needed. I'll add that the uppercase form was used in the first version of the article and that influenced my decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miani Sahib graveyard → Miani Sahib Graveyard – Relisted. Favonian (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official title George Ponderevo (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this was moved to the contested section by Dicklyon (talk · contribs) with this rationale: "Miani Sahib graveyard is lowercased this way in most books". Jenks24 (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – since as I pointed out, it's typically lowercase in sources, suggesting that the generic part of the name is not treated as part of a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.