Talk:Al-Qadir Trust reference case

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hello! Hopefully you have a nice day today. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by creating an article. As your article have adhered to the policies of Wikipedia, I have marked it as reviewed.

Have a good day for you and your family!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 08:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 December 2024

It has been proposed in this section that Al-Qadir Trust reference case be renamed and moved to 190 million pound case.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Al-Qadir Trust reference case → 190 million pound case – WP:COMMONNAME for this case is "190 million pound case", overwhelming majority of sources use this term compared to the current title. Google Trends also shows higher usage for the proposed title, current title does non even register. If we search Google News and sort them by date, current title does not show up in a single news report while proposed title was featured in a news report published few hours ago. Proposed title might not seem very attractive to some folks but we do not go by the attractiveness of the title on Wikipedia but by what reliable sources prefer to use. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What does "reference" mean? The article doesn't seem to explain it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof The term “reference” means a request for inquiry. In certain legal cases in Pakistan, the process begins with the Prime Minister initiating a reference, which is then forwarded to the President. The President reviews and approves the reference before sending it to the court to initiate proceedings. This procedure is typically followed when the request for an inquiry involves a judge accused of misconduct. However, I am uncertain why it is being applied in this particular case. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Qadir Trust case is the most common name used by major publications to refer to this case. This is a case of recentism where some publications are now referring it as "190 million pounds case". I think we should deal with it like we did with Dunkin' Donuts or Twitter's renaming. There are many hits for the "Al-Qadir Trust case" (DAWN, Express Tribune, The News International), but very few for the "190 million pounds case" (DAWN, The Express Tribune, The News International). Based on my findings, I suggest moving the page to Al-Qadir Trust and removing the word "reference" as it is unnecessary. I oppose move to 190 million pounds case. Veldsenk (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Veldsenk This is last 12 months comparison, the term "Al-Qadir Trust case" is nowhere to be seen compared to "190 million pound case". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing this. I think there is a trend towards "190 million pounds case" but we should keep in mind that we rely on secondary sources on Wikipedia, so Google Trends (which are based on Google Search) may not be the best way to judge this. There is little academic work on this topic so Google Ngram may not be useful. I may support this if major publications use "190 million pound case" in January 2025 when the decision will be announced. For now, we should wait for a few weeks. Thanks. Veldsenk (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The correct grammar is "190-million-pound case". Regardless, I think this fails WP:PRECISE. C F A 16:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]