Talk:Gorakhpur (disambiguation)
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 11 May 2019
[edit]- 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. There is no support for this proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
– Three different places in different states of India are named Gorakhpur. Jpsorts (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Jpsorts and Muhandes: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- This was tried once and strongly contested. The reason still applies: primary topic: population 673,446 vs 13,068 & 4,333 for other cities. Also avoids fixing 652 linked pages. Not sure why an author who is perfectly aware of this tries WP:RM/TR again. --Muhandes (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I contested the move on the grounds that it's not a clear-cut case for disambiguation and the UP city seems to be a primary topic. I'm not a subject expert and hope that more knowledgeable editors will voice their opinions, but I think it's a RM rather than an uncontroversial technical move. Certes (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: This seems like a textbook example for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The two factors for determining if a primary topic exists are usually usage and significance. Looking at usage, the article traffic statistics are very clear and so are the incoming links statistics: [1] [2] [3]. Looking at secondary sources e.g. news, I did not do the full research but going through the first page of news articles, every time they speak of "Gorakhpur" it is the UP one.[1][2][3] When discussing the other Gorakhpurs, a qualification is used.[4] If the OP insists, full statistics can be collected, but I think it is a waste of time. Also consider a city with population of 673,446 will usually have more significance than the combined significance of two villages of population 13,068 and 4,333. But even if I'm wrong, I'm not sure why the OP attempted to push this again as a technical move, after being contested once. I truly try to assume good faith, but I also had to revert a few C&P moves on the same subject (and others). If this is all done in good faith, perhaps they misunderstand the policy? --Muhandes (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Pretty well demonstrated by others above, but to add: a absent unusual circumstances, administrative units (like districts or divisions) centred on a city don't challenge that city's primary topic status; the only other type of entry on the dab page are two villages: a major city has several orders of magnitude greater significance than small villages like these. – Uanfala (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Gorakhpur hospital case: SC refuses to interfere in suspension of Dr Kafeel Khan". The Times of India.
- ^ Gupta, Smita. "Gorakhpur: A story of priests and politics". businessline.
- ^ "Spotlight on Gorakhpur, Phulpur in last two phases of Lok Sabha polls". Moneycontrol.
- ^ "First phase Gorakhpur Haryana Atomic Power Plant expected to be completed in 2025". Business Standard India. 2 January 2019.
- Oppose per Uanfala, the administrative units would likely come under WP:DABCONCEPT so can be included in the stats for the Uttar Pradesh city. I would also note that the Uttar Pradesh city is a level 5 vital article and the other articles 2 are just stubs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2019 (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.