Talk:Asansol Junction railway station

Move

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved back to Asansol railway station. Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Asansol Junction Railway Station → Asansol railway station – The name of the page was Asansol railway station. That was correct. 'Junction' is not part of the name (see picture of the railway station) and as railway station is used for disambiguation it also is not part of the name and should be in small letters. Junction is a functional additional. Bubaikumar, a new comer, has wrongly moved it to 'Asansol Junction Railway Station'. I request that this page may be moved back to :Asansol railway station. - Chandan Guha (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I undid the bold move, per WP:BRD. He can discuss reasons for the move here if he still thinks the current title is not great. Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kolkata Suburban Railway

Skinsmoke has added the Category: Kolkata Suburban Railway to this page. Kolkata Suburban Railway is only up to Bardhaman railway station. - Chandan Guha (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Name of the railway station

Superfast1111 has wrongly moved the page 'Asansol railway station' to 'Asansol Junction railway station' ignoring the earlier move back (see above). It may be noted that: 1. His claim that it is correct as per Indian Railways is rather dubious and not verifiable. He should provide a verifiable reference. 2. Indian Railways extensively use 'Jn.' for junction stations as a functional suffix and not as part of the name, particularly on platform boards. The photograph bears out this argument. 3. If changes are made as per Indian Railways, why not just 'Jn.' instead of 'Junction', which is rarely, if ever, used by Indian Railways? 4. I propose that the name be moved back again to 'Asansol railway station'. - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. Lets stick to verifiable names.Trinidade (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chandan, Firstly i was unaware of the above discussion so my apologies for it. Anyway, take a look at [1], [2] and [3]. The station name is mentioned as Asansol Junction but also take a look at Ghaziabad. Every stationboard, platformboard image shows Ghaziabad Junction but the official website of Indian Railways says just Ghaziabad. So that takes care of point 1. As for points 2 & 3, Jn is an abbrevation for Junction and unlike a railway ticket we are not pressed for space so the full form should be used. For Point 4 - I disagree and request that the present name be retained.

Trinidade, good to hear from you.

Superfast1111 (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The claim of Superfast1111 that it is correct as per Indian Railways is not verifiable till now. Indian Railways is a huge organization with numerous non-standard functions and practices. Therefore, referring to some practices as standard is personal opinion. The picture in the infobox clearly shows the name as ‘Asansol’ (without Junction). This picture is of the main station building and entrance. There are boards inside the station showing Jn as functional suffix and not as name. One cannot say that the main entrance is wrong and the boards inside are right. Superfast1111 is mixing up functional suffix with the name. All junction stations can be suffixed with Jn but that is not necessarily the name of the station. Does Indian Railways have a list of railway stations? Superfast1111 has provided three other references – one is an inconclusive discussion on the subject, the other two probably had photographs but are now blank. - Chandan Guha (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry chandan, the image was deleted from commons and although i had placed a temperory undelete request but seems that has run its course. What they were showing were screen shots of the Indian Railways page which clearly showed Asansol Junction and Ghaziabad where every stationboard, platformboard, image shows Ghaziabad Junction but when you want to book a ticket, you get Ghaziabad. Try taking a look at [4] and [5] or [6]. Additionally i suggest you try to make an inquiry at www.indianrail.gov.in or www.irctc.co.in and see what you get.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Superfast1111 (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The websites Superfast1111 mentions are all private websites, but he has been claiming correctness as per Indian Railways. This case is simple. There is a photograph in the inbox with the correct station name, the other claim remains unverifiable. I have searched Indian Railway websites. I am not getting any clue. The page has been wrongly moved, it should be restored. - Chandan Guha (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• This should help you out. I dont know how long the image will be there [7] so pls be quick. It clearly shows Asansol Jucntion and Ghaziabad.

Superfast1111 (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Superfast1111 is completely ignoring the photograph in the Infobox. The station has been named by Indian Railways. I have mentioned earlier that there could be instances where Jn is used as functional suffix, but that is not part of the name. I would have been willing to accept a proper list of railway stations issued by Indian Railways. - Chandan Guha (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• No, Chandan I am not ignoring the image in the infobox but as with Ghaziabad i am not sure about the proper name. I agree the station has been name by Indian Railways & the screen shot i have provided also is of the Indian Railways web page which is a proper source of Information and it says Asansol Junction supporting my version. I doubt that Indian Railways is going to waste time with adding suffix to station name at some places and ignoring the rest. As for a proper list,we can try contact an official at Eastern Railway headquarters and confirming the same if you so desire.

Superfast1111 (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For the present I accept it, but your move still rests on unverifiable references. There should be at least one permanently verifiable reference. - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

My previous revert was based primarily on the over-capitalization. "Asansol junction" appears in about 139 books on Google book search, but "Asansol railway station" and "Asansol station" are more common than that. And "Asansol junction" very frequency has lower-case junction, suggesting it's not really a proper place name. The full "Asansol Junction railway station" appears in no book. So I would suggest reverting the recent move to the old title. Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Superfast1111 , I have undone a couple of your other recent moves, too. The "junction" and "flag" denotations do not appear to me to be part of the proper names of the stations. And I see you did many more earlier. I won't undo those, but would be happier to see a consensus about this. The appearance of "Junction" in a timetable heading is not great evidence, especially for whether it should be capitalized. Dicklyon (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asansol railway station. 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/20140510115649/http://www.indianrail.gov.in/7days_Avl.html to http://www.indianrail.gov.in/7days_Avl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)