This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pakistan 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Your division of article into several sections is good, in fact, looking better than before. Division of Punjab into two sections is bit confusing or misleading to some extent. Wouldn't be good to merge both Punjab sections into one?. Will wait for 24 hours to merge myself, if no reply.
I hope my recent edit has addressed your concerns?
Yes, I agree it was a bit confusing, but no, (because of the length of time between the two periods), I don't think it's a good idea to merge the two sections into one.
The time-period with titles brought some clarity than before. Would it confuse, if two different periods in same Punjab section are introduced, as sub-sections?.
Good question. At the moment it's arranged in chronological order. (And obviously, that's what I personally prefer. I'll also mention that the sources tend to present things in chronological order.) But I don't suppose it really makes a lot of difference whether it is arranged chronologically or geographically - as long as (like you say) the sections and subsections are unambiguously labelled. Cheers,
Pdfpdf (
talk)
03:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)reply