Jump to content

Talk:Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction railway station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 23 June 2023

[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: moved. The bulk of this lengthy discussion focused on which name was the WP:COMMONNAME, a line of discussion that – when taken alone – did not result in consensus: both sides of the discussion showed evidence to argue for their preferred title being the common name, and both sides criticized the methodology used by supporters of the other title. Neither side's evidence appeared significantly stronger than the other. Once the WP:COMMONNAME debate had been discounted, I found that the supporters of the move had a stronger body of additional arguments.

Edit: It was requested on my talk page that I provide more detail on my analysis of the additional arguments. I've opted to include that analysis here as well:

  • Some supporters of the move noted their preference for "Pt Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction" due to it being the station's official name. While official status is weighted less strongly than which name is the COMMONNAME, the lack of an apparent COMMONNAME means that this argument does gain relevance. There were several people who voiced this line of argument, but it was advanced most cogently by Kashmiri, who also noted that Unlike for a locality or a landmark where vernacular usage carries much more weight, this is primarily an official establishment where official naming by its owner does matter a lot. On the whole, the official-name argument seemed in keeping with the spirit of the WP:CRITERIA, had a variety of proponents, and does not appear to have been disputed except along the inconclusive COMMONNAME grounds, so I lent it a fair amount of weight.
  • In opposition to the move, it was argued that the station's article title should be WP:CONSISTENT with the town article at Mughalsarai (a title which was upheld by recent RM consensus). However, this argument was challenged by another participant in the discussion, who noted that there doesn't always need to be consistency between the titles of transit stations and the localities in which they are based; the example of airports was given as an analogy. While this argument too was aligned with the WP:CRITERIA, it was more disputed and was supported by relatively few participants, so I weighed it more lightly.

Thus, the overall balance of arguments appeared to favor the move. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mughalsarai Junction railway station → Pt Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction – The official name was changed many years ago, and now the new name is the common usage.

I am learning how to provide evidence for the same and which evidences are acceptable and which are not. Hence requesting other users to help in providing evidence.

The credibility of Wikipedia need to be preserved/improved by ensuring that ot provides reliable and updated information to it's users. Anubhavklal (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.totaltraininfo.com/station/ddu/
....
https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/uttar-pradesh-20-coaches-of-goods-train-derailed-at-ddu-gaya-route-no-casualties-reported/articleshow/94341513.cms
.....
https://www.financialexpress.com/business/railways-ghaziabad-pandit-deen-dayal-upadhya-section-becomes-indias-longest-rail-track-with-automatic-signaling-system-all-you-need-to-know-2938401/
.....
https://m.timesofindia.com/city/patna/track-electrification-work-in-ecr-almost-over/articleshow/100489296.cms
..... Anubhavklal (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per the sources and the move request above, it is not clear which might be the target, "Pt Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction" or "Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction" or "Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction". Please clarify. You have added three instances of this reference. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three instances are due to mistake in editing. Does that reduce the reason for making this move?
As per guidelines, whuchever is the common use - Pt, Pt. or Pandit - that should be used. Or whatever the consensus is.
Currently, the article says that the official name of the station is Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction. So perhaps that will be the most common version also. I am not aware how we compute which version is more common in case of such conflicts. Perhaps more experienced editors can help. Anubhavklal (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it "doesn't reduce the reason for making this move", just that it is cluttered, I'm removing two. It is important to determine whether it should be "Pt, Pt. or Pandit". The railway website's [1] version "Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction" should be the official one I believe. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also using a time frame from 1 July 2018 (after the name-changed in June 2018) to 1 July 2023 per WP:NAMECHANGES, we get 166 hits for "Mughalsarai Junction" and 128 hits for "Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction". Many of the recent articles, viz. [2] [3] [4] demonstrate continued usage of the established term "Mughalsarai Junction", hence the oppose. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also per this excerpt from WP:NAMECHANGES – "..if, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well,.." - the usage of the current name ("Mughalsarai Junction") in that many reliable sources is enough to demonstrate against the proposed move. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move. @Fylindfotberserk just normally searching is incorrect. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, only sources after the event are relevant to decide which term is more common in usage. Using your links, and adding a filter for the past one year, we get 10 results for "Mughalsarai Junction" and 39 for "Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction". IMO this shows a clear shift towards the new name.
    The reason there is this variation between Pt, Pt. , and Pandit is because they are the same phrase. Pt. is the abbreviation of Pandit. Out of the three, Pandit seems to be the most common one.
    @Anubhavklal I think the better move would be to Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction . Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, from 1 July 2018 (name changed in June 2018) to 1 July 2023 we get 166 hits for "Mughalsarai Junction" and 128 hits for "Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction". Well, there is a trend but per WP:NAMECHANGES – "..if, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well,..". Since reliable sources still use the older name, and the usage of the new name isn't proportionally that high (including the last one year time frame), I'm opposing it for being too soon. Secondly, it also depends on the name change of the city article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the counts claimed here are incorrect. The correct counts are 90 for the old title and 144 for the new title, as shown later. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk)
The articles written right after the change are not good for determining if it is still prevalent in the present day.
For past community consensus regarding this, see pages such as Ayodhya District , Ayodhya Junction railway station , Prayagraj , Prayagraj Junction railway station, and so on. For all of these, the old names were for a short period of time more common than the official name. Their names were changed as the usage of the new name exceeded the old one in recent sources. Thats why I searched for the past year and not the past five years as you did.
And I think four times as much use is a clear shift, and in my opinion cannot be categorised as "not proportionately that high". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked how many of those "recent one year sources" use the term "Mughalsarai Junction" in addition to the new name inside the article bodies? This is one such article, there would be many. This one too. This one is a week old source.
I'm going to follow whatever is written in the policy, that is "right after the name change", and not use any arbitrary range to suit a certain POV. The shift is there but not enough - too soon for me, and that's my opinion. Perhaps keep you opinion to yourself? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some do, sure. But by that metric, all of the articles that turned up in the search for "Mughalsarai Junction" in the last year use Deen Dayal Upadhyaya as well.
And no, the policy does not state "right after the name change". That is a clear misinterpretation of the policy. It checks in the present day if RS use the old name or have shifted mostly to the new one, like they have here. Again, see the community precedent, at different venues (including WP:MRV) that have upheld that a new name, if more common than the old name in recent sources, should be the title.
About keep you opinion to yourself?, thats a quite unhealthy comment in a discussion - where we are supposed to share opinions and evaluate those of others. Telling others to quiet down doesnt work as a strategy in a discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under which rule is one user supposed to "keep opinions to self" while other can impose his opinion on others even if it harms the overall credibility of Wikipedia?
I believe rules should be same for all and if rules need revision, for betterment of Wikipedia, that should also be debated Anubhavklal (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Anubhavklal (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The established part of the policy (random 'old' rev) clearly states written after the name change, so it is obvious from what period of time to choose the sources from. As for the in the present day part, it was recently added into the policy in the last two months citing some "Constantinople vs Instanbul" controversy. I don't see any consensus or discussion to add this line. I couldn't even find the phrase "present day" anywhere in the t/p archive dealing with 'Istanbul". Talk about unreliability of the policy itself.
And what about "Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succint and civil"? You could have very well posted your comments and moved on without pinging me into this unnecessary argument on MY OPINION. That's why I said keep your opinion and do not try to change mine. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anubhavklal: Now perhaps you understand what I'm trying to say here? I don't want people waste my time and theirs trying to change my opinion. I have demonstrated enough why I'm opposing it and am not going to change it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about changing each other's opinion. It is about betterment of Wikipedia. We all can have our own opinions and still reach consensus. Anubhavklal (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refer WP:CONS for consensus Anubhavklal (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't seen editors Opposing in a discussion before? That's part of the process for the "betterment of Wikipedia". - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you as a courtesy, as I was using your evidence to contradict your claims. I do not see how you can infer it to be a violation of WP:NPA.
And policies change, saying that we should ignore the current policy and use older versions is an unsupportable argument. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have a problem the first time, but you continued to insist that your arbitrary time range to choose sources is better than mine, which I find ingressive to my own opinion. Anyway, the current policy, or rather the specific line "in the present day" was recently added in April 2023, in this revision, part of which was reverted on 26 June 2023 (the current version). It is enough to demonstrate that it is not a consensus version of the policy, not to mention no discussion in the talk page particularly to add that specific line. The whole paragraph including the specific part I'm talking about − "If, on the other hand, a significant majority of sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the "old" name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, per WP:COMMONNAME" - was appended on 17 October 2015, making it well established. Pinging @Fowler&fowler, Johnbod, Bagumba, Mathglot, and Kwamikagami: for inputs. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pings seems ike WP:CANVASSING; care to explain why you did that?
And no, still, arguing that policies cant change does not allow you to ignore them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Care to read comments properly? That's no canvassing, I pinged them particularly in reference to the undiscussed change to the policy itself, hence in the followup line, and Where exactly I said policies can't change? All of your arguments rely on that specific part of the policy which doesn't have a consensus, added two months back, while the established part of the WP:NAMECHANGES policy is like 8 years old, which is what I'm following. Sometime back when I took part in RM discussion, that specific part of the policy was nowhere to be found. "does not allow you", and exactly why should I listen to you and who are you to dictate me on "my opinion"? All of your recommendations and comments here are based on contradicting my opinions and nothing more. For the last time, stop commenting on my opinion and wasting my time, or I might have to go to ANI for this blatant HARASSMENT and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are wrong, but I will not argue regarding that part since even your preferred version of the policy supports the new title.
And if you think that arguing against your logic is harassment, you are greatly misjudging our policies on discussions. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Akshadev™ 🔱 08:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet. Editors are reminded of that while google tests are useful for determining an article's common name we are required to base titles on reliable sources, and thus standard google searches (as opposed to, for example, news searches) are weak evidence that is likely to be discounted by a closer. BilledMammal (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, the search counts listed by me were news searches, not plain google searches. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it looks like we are close to reaching a consensus that official name and the common name are now the same.
In my opinion common name was earlier also same as today, only official name was changed to match the common name Anubhavklal (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, "no clear consensus" means the current article name stays. The sources linked here by me and Fowler are reliable. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say - consensus is reached. I was expressing hope that consensus looks like happening.
I don't agree that wrong name will stay if there is no consensus. There should be a process in Wikipedia to resolve such cases too Anubhavklal (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only F&F brought sources (of questionable applicability), you just showed old (and incorrect - See comment below) search results for a policy that focuses on the "present". You need to understand that Consensus is not Unanimity; Just because you disagree doesnt mean its not a consensus. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe read my comments properly instead of being antagonistic to everything I say. "No clear consensus" in a talk page, as mentioned by BilledMammal above, always leads to closure and whatever the change is proposed is not implemented. Haven't you seen people disagreeing in a consensus before? I showed enough evidence that the newly added part in the policy has no consensus in the talk page of the said policy. And do I have to reiterate again and again. The sources provided by me are fine and within the limits of WP:RS and the time range. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CON is the process Anubhavklal (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, your sources are wrong.
And Im not saying that its my opinion- You incorrectly stated the number of sources. (Like I said, see my comment below.)
Even if we go by your argument, the actual sources dont support your conclusion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Anubhavklal (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alright, I was being a bit lazy about doing this, but I will dig up the search counts for Google News.

In the past year:
72 results for Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction Railway station that dont mention Mughalsarai [5]
8 results for Mughalsarai Junction Railway Station that dont mention Deen Dayal Upadhyaya [6]

Since the name change (As Fylindfotberserk continuously insists on it, I will provide those numbers too, even if they are not needed per se by policy)
178 results for Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction Railway station that dont mention Mughalsarai [7]
32 results for Mughalsarai Junction Railway Station that dont mention Deen Dayal Upadhyaya [8]

I think its quite clear that the data shows that post rename, most RS have switched to the new name, and even more so in recent times.

Also, pointing out a discrepancy in this comment by Fylindfotberserk where they quoted this as "166 results" where in fact, upon cross checking it, I found only 90. The number for the new title, was also incorrectly stated; the correct count is 144.
Therefore, even through their style of searching, it is 90 results for old title vs 144 for new title. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More of this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior demonstrated in the form of the bold texted note added above. As for the discrepancy, I checked it properly. Google searches regularly display wrong number results (apparently based on geo-location and time), saw that happen before while discussing another topic with an admin two years back. As of now, I'm seeing different numbers, certainly not "90 results for old title vs 144 for the new one". Besides per WP:NAMECHANGES, the mere usage of the current name in that many reliable sources is enough to stay the move. I wonder if your recommendations and opinions can be "stand-alone", that is not based on contradicting other people's recommendations / opinions. A new approach perhaps? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The bold text is there to let the closer know, since several times I have seen closers close moves by just counting arguments and not verifying them.
As for the counts, I did it by counting manually, all the way to the back page. You are right to say google consistently shows wrong counts normally, your errors may have been due to relying on that. And pointing out that you incorrectly cited numbers isnt "Batlleground" behaviour, its not attacking you, its calling out an error in your arguments.
You cant still be arguing that the current title has stayed as the common name after all these results.
And the first two comparisons are stand alone, the third comparison is based on clarifying your inaccuracy. And its not contradicting "opinion", its contradicting an argument. Yet, both are permitted, else discussions would be useless on wikipedia. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The searches in Captain Jack Sparrow's post do not have the terms in inverted commas. For example, this one for Deen Dayal Upadhyay Junction Railway Station -Mughal -Mugal -Mughalsarai includes stuff for Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Medical College, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital Hari Nagar, etc. Though some of the news stories found are interesting, the numbers of results found are unreliable because they contain a great many false positives.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want it that way, it still remains the same comparison.
2 results for Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction Railway station that dont mention Mughalsarai [9]
ZERO results for Mughalsarai Junction Railway Station that dont mention Deen Dayal Upadhyaya [10]
The reason I didnt bring this up in my comparisons, is that while 2 articles vs 0 articles does show higher usage, it is better to have a larger set to look at. You claim that there are a few articles that mention others. The same will be true for Mughalsarai as well. Further, I dont think you can claim 80-90% of the articles to be about other topics, which would be needed for this argument to actually dent the numbers presented.
I dont think any of what you said actually undermines my analysis. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction has been name of of the active railway station for years. All railway time tables, websites, signboards even local and press usage has long changed to new name. Too redundant to keep using the "historical name" (Mughalsarai Junction) of an active railway station which might give erroneous information to Wiki readers.–JayB91 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Oppose the useful name for the Wikipedia article on Mughalsarai's railway station needs to reflect the name of Wikipedia's article about the town the station serves. There is currently a move discussion for that article. It does not make any sense at all to change the name of this article until the move discussion for the article on the town is resolved. If it is decided to move the article on the town to (for example) "Pt Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Nagar", then it would make good sense to move the article on the railway station to include those words. Similarly, if the article on the town is moved to "Deendayal Upadhyaya Nagar", then we need the "Deen Dayal" in the station name as one word "Deendayal". It is also plausible that the article on the town will be unmoved; in that case one solution would be to continue with the present article name for the railway station, but there would also be the option used by The Wire of using the new station name followed by Mughalsarai with a comma between them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, station's name doesn't have to reflect city name. Compare airport naming for instance. — kashmīrī TALK 19:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. There are too many stations where common name as well as official name doesn't match the place name Anubhavklal (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support More than 5 years has passed since the station was renamed in June 2018 so support this move.Pamelathequeen (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I don't see any more reasons here why old name must be retained, we should try to arrive at consensus. Else WP:ARB seems to be next step. Anubhavklal (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree with the move, @Anubhavklal ARBCOM is the last resort. There are many avenues prior to it. Perhaps cool off a bit and explore our policies et cetera. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    cool off is fine but need guidance in complying to policies. My intention is to support the Wikipedia in maintaining it's credibility. Anubhavklal (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't you just follow the advice and cool off? Your role here is not to "support Wikipedia", whatever it may mean (it generally means nothing, unless you are willing to donate to Wikimedia Foundation). You are here as one of thousands of contributors who strive to create good, useful content; however, in contrast to many you have a lot to learn with respect to the project's policies and procedures. An awful lot. I recommend that you stop responding to every expressed opinion in this RM, and especially stop annoying people with empty slogans like "betterment of Wikipedia", "support the Wikipedia", "consensus is the process", etc. etc. People know the process; if you have nothing to add in terms of reliable sources, just observe the discussion. — kashmīrī TALK 20:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Unlike for a locality or a landmark where vernacular usage carries much more weight, this is primarily an official establishment where official naming by its owner does matter a lot. Even as locals will keep referring to the establishment as Mughalsarai station perhaps for decades to come, countless others across India will be looking at train schedules and seeing "Pt Deen Dayal Upadhyaya". I believe Wikipedia should primarily focus on this broader readership.
To be clear, I opposed renaming Mughalsarai. — kashmīrī TALK 09:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your comments appear to be based on "perhaps" and "most likely in future". Wikipedia should be based on facts and should follow guidelines like WP:COMM and not on personal predictions about future. If common name in present is Pandit Deendayal nagar, then that is what Wikipedia should call it today. If your prediction comes true and people call it by a different name in future, I will support that rename too. Anubhavklal (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment of yours that I fail to make sense of (following this one). — kashmīrī TALK 13:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Close paraphrasing

[edit]

In December 2020, someone tagged the article for close paraphrasing and gave www.railwayrecruitment.co.in/railway-stations/mughalsarai-junction/ as an example. I ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which suggests there still might be a problem. One sentence was clearly copied word-for-word from a source, so I labelled that as a quotation and put a citation next to it.[11]

It is possible that some of the suspected close paraphrasing is a false positive - i.e. external websites closely paraphrased Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pandit_Deen_Dayal_Upadhyaya_Junction_railway_station&oldid=1219098798"