Talk:2008 India–Pakistan standoff

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2008 Indo-Pakistani standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160126072137/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD95A94M00 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD95A94M00

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090115142245/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD95AEORG0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD95AEORG0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 Indo-Pakistani standoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090113152637/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Zardari-vows-to--defend-country--s-sovereignty-till-the-last-breath-/402803/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Zardari-vows-to--defend-country--s-sovereignty-till-the-last-breath-/402803/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524153233/http://www.zeenews.com/nation/2008-12-25/493778news.html to http://www.zeenews.com/nation/2008-12-25/493778news.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2025

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (or at most no consensus). Several editors have suggested an RM in the other direction. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

---

• 2008 India–Pakistan standoff → 2008 Indo-Pakistani standoff2008 Indo-Pakistani standoff
• 2025 India–Pakistan conflict → 2025 Indo-Pakistani conflict
• 2025 India–Pakistan crisis → 2025 Indo-Pakistani crisis

– WP:CONSISTENT naming scheme: Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948, Indo-Pakistani water dispute of 1948, Indo-Pakistani war of 1965, Indo-Pakistani air war of 1965, Indo-Pakistani war of 1971, Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971, Indo-Pakistani air war of 1971.

Adjectival forms are more customary for conflicts on Wikipedia. Nominal forms for titles in the "[A]–[B] [conflict]" format are a more recent tendency and a feature of WP:NEWSSTYLE. "Indo-Pakistani conflict of 2025" and "Indo-Pakistani crisis of 2025" should also be considered, also for the sake of consistency. —Alalch E. 03:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Pakistan, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Military history, Noticeboard for India-related topics, and WikiProject History have been notified of this discussion.—Alalch E. 03:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - We need to keep it as clear as possible. "Indo" can also mean Indonesia. Shankargb (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Per WP:CONSISTENT Tornadoboy7 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Pakistan and Noticeboard for India-related topics have been notified of this discussion. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Per nom Coleisforeditor (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
• Incorrect punctuation proposed: This is showing an en dash for "Indo–Pakistani". That is incorrect. The existing mentioned "Indo-Pakistani" titles use a hyphen, not an en dash. The hyphen is correct for this combining form. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  @BarrelProof Thanks for noticing that. That's legitimately a punctuation error on my part, which I admit in retrospect. What do you think about my simply editing the nomination to account for it? That is not what the existing support !votes are likely to be concerned with, and it certainly can't affect the oppose !vote. —Alalch E. 22:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  OK. I went ahead and made that adjustment for you and struck out my comment. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. —Alalch E. 00:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 11:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support - Per WP:CONSISTENT. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - ngrams show that India-Pakistan is far more frequently found in book sources than "Indo-Pakistani". It's also clearly more WP:RECOGNIZEable for readers to simply see the two country names rather than the weird "Indo-" construction, which as noted above could be confused for Indonesia. We can achieve consistency by moving the other articles using "Indo-Pakistani" into line with "India–Pakistan". Finally, where's the evidence it's "news style" to say "India–Pakistan"? It's just much much clearer, and encyclopedias like Britanica are happy to call it that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support per nom Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZE as shown by Amakuru. India–Pakistan also brings six times (6X) more raw google search hits than does Indo-Pakistani. Thus there is lots evidence for COMMONNAME applying. If anything, WP:CONSISTENT should apply in the opposite direction and the other titles should be changed to India–Pakistan. —UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  However, Indo-Pakistani should be a redirect. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose (strongly) per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZE, per reasons listed by User:Amakuru. "ngrams show that India-Pakistan is far more frequently found in book sources than "Indo-Pakistani". It's also clearly more WP:RECOGNIZEable for readers to simply see the two country names rather than the weird "Indo-" construction, which as noted above could be confused for Indonesia. We can achieve consistency by moving the other articles using "Indo-Pakistani" into line with "India–Pakistan". Finally, where's the evidence it's "news style" to say "India–Pakistan"? It's just much much clearer, and encyclopedias like Britanica are happy to call it that." Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose The name Indo-Pakistani is not really the proper or common term to describe the two nations when put together. I'd say those articles should be titled with the words India and Pakistan in their name. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.