Talk:Parliament House, New Delhi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Parliament House, New Delhi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events.
Notice date: May 29, 2023. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

India: Delhi / Politics Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Not moved, 24 May 2023, to Parliament House of India, see discussion.
Moved, 10 June 2024, from New Parliament House, New Delhi to Parliament House, New Delhi, see discussion.

Requested move 24 May 2023

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. Other moves can be proposed separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 16:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, The new parliament building is set to be inaugurated on 28 may 2023 per the hindu NewIndia30 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait the current one is the functional parliament and when people look up Parliament House, they almost always mean to find the currently used building. Even when this new parliament becomes functional, It might take some time to become the primary topic. WP:CRYSTAL>>> Extorc.talk 18:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, it is not functioning yet, it'll be open from tomorrow 28/05/23, till then old parliament building is real one. Tesla car owner (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tesla car owner even after 28th, it might not be the primary topic. >>> Extorc.talk 10:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it's primary topic and its inaugration is in headlines in IND and we shouldn't say it's functioning until government India officially inaugurate it, untill then the old building is Parliament. Tesla car owner (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament will be functional by the time this request is closed, so please give your opinions accordingly. NewIndia30 (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is inauguration a constitutional process or a PR stunt? In my opinion it would be considered functional only if next parliamentary session is conducted in the new building.[1] Mixmon (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. ^ Second this, The names should stay the same until the first session of the Parliament starts, after which we should proceed with renaming.

SubtleChuckle (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its name should be changed only after the Parliamentary session starts in the new building. SandeepKumarMeena (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we can change the name after the first next session in the new building. KuldeepBurjBhalaike ^(Talk|Cont) 16:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:RS refer to this building as the new Parliament building [2]. As such, I'd advocate to move this page to New Parliament building, India. India, not New Delhi, dab stays at level where it is required. No opinions on the old building, I haven't conducted any search into that — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I propose

Parliament House, New Delhi → Old Parliament House, New Delhi

and the title of New Parliament House, New Delhi should remain unchanged. Both are Parliament Houses and calling one of them Parliament House might cause confusion and precision issues. Also, Parliament House of India is inconsistent with other Parliament Houses like Parliament House, Canberra in Australia as per WP:CONSISTENT. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:11, 31 May 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.

Removal of section "protests" from inauguration

This section is deemed unnecessary to the article in my opinion. This section should be moved to a separate article on the wrestlers' protests. This is about the Parliament and not about wrestlers or opposition parties protesting or being absent from it. Science nerd11112007 (talk) 07:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DUE. Reliable sources discussing the inauguration mention the protests, and we are therefore required to as well. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Science nerd11112007 exactly. protest didn't have to do with parliament. and i also in favour of removing NY Times mentioned view on it. NY Times is not supreme leader of earth that it's take to be mentioned in here and sengol topic too. it should be a neutral point of view. Themodifie7 (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in New Parliament House, New Delhi

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of New Parliament House, New Delhi's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "indianexpress1":

From Jawaharlal Nehru: Varshney, Ashutosh. 28 March 2015. "Faults and lines." The Indian Express. Retrieved on 16 June 2020.
From Sengol: "'Sengol' to be installed in the new parliament: Significance of the sceptre, first given to Nehru". www.indianexpress.com. New Delhi: The Indian Express. 25 May 2023. Archived from the original on 24 May 2023. Retrieved 25 May 2023.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 September 2023

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: Second move perfomed, first move not. Parliament House, New Delhi changed to a disambiguation page. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– The President of India has through a Gazette notification notified that the New Parliament building from 19 Sept is the seat of Parliament of India. And it is also starting to function from today itself. So we should now move this. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I think it is now appropriate to move the page, as the functioning of the new parliament has now started. Nsn2635 (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, Some evidence is needed that the names proposed are actually in use by reliable sources, weighting the analysis to those produced after the change. — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru The Old house just having the name as Parliament House might create a sense of confusion since it no longer is the seat of the Parliament. This is a official government building where just Old is to mentioned in the old building. This is subject to common sense according to me. I may be wrong with the rules. Just asking. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Partially): The old parliament house has been already renamed as Samvidhan Sadan by both the houses of parliament. So now the Move should change to Samvidhan Sadan for Parliament House, New delhi. And for New Parliament House, New Delhi it should be renamed Parliament House, New Delhi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan.jr.Singh (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on New name: As changed to Samvidhan Sadan, the page should be renamed as Samvidhan Sadan instead of Old Parliament House, New Delhi. Sarangem (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the view. But please edit it to mark Opposition to the Above proposed mation.

We can create a new move request (as i already suggested in the below added new section for discussion)

@ Karan.jr.Singh (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion has been sandwiched because of a wrong information by reliable sources and two users Karan.jr.Singh and Sarangem voting according to that, I would first advise them to reconsider their votes. If you people want to change your votes after I have given the correct information by quoting The Vice President of India, you can struck your previous comment and vote again. Secondly, because of a confusion, I for a healthy and broad discussion am pinging some users who voted in previous similar discussion. I invite you all to kindly give your votes. Extorc Tesla car owner Mixmon SubtleChuckle DaxServer PadFoot2008 SandeepKumarMeena Kuldeepburjbhalaike and all others who want to join. I want to remind everyone that the New Building is now functional. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Don't see why we shouldn't even if it might not be the common name yet. The current situation is just causing a lot of confusion. Parliament House → Old Parliament House, New Parliament House → Parliament House. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I think this is a bit of WP:IAR situation, or rather bending the rules a bit. At the core of the matter, there are two subjects to be moved, the new facility, and the old facility. On the new facility: WP:NAMECHANGE doesn't encourage WP:CRYSTAL when considering renames of current subjects. However, I don't think there is a disagreement that the new facility is the Parliament House of India moving forward, short of an act of mother nature or human folly. What should be examined is the name of the old facility. While there is a proclamation to give the old facility a new name, Samvidhan Sadan, I am reluctant to move to there as there have been attempts to move it to "Constitution House" as well, which apparently the English translation, and I do see an article ([3]) referring to the new name as such. As such to expedite the move, I think calling it the "old Parliament House" of India (mind the small 'o') in the interim is fine, until there is a widespread use of "Samvidhan Sadan" in the future. (While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, one other instance that we can look at is the Old Parliament House, Singapore, which was moved to The Arts House only in 2018, some 19 years after the construction of the new Parliament House, Singapore was completed in 1999, 14 years after its rebirth as The Art House in 2004, 13 years after the page was created in 2005 as the "Old Parliament House, Singapore". There wasn't much resistance being an undiscussed move that wasn't contested, then again the long intervals between real world development and page moves should have helped to assuage any COMMONNAME concerns back then.) If the moves here are to be executed, we will have to be mindful to run through the 400+ articles currently linked to "Parliament House, New Delhi" to ensure that the correct pages are being linked. – robertsky (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the creation of a dab page at base name if it is an alternative. – robertsky (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree these are good options for the names. if govt will rename them officially we can think them to rename later of mentioned the names in the article. KuldeepBurjBhalaike ^(Talk) 11:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support second, oppose first - I think for now it's best to have Parliament House, New Delhi be a dab between the two until more clear evidence demonstrates that one (almost certainly the new) is a primary topic because the move is all too recent. estar8806 (talk) ★ 12:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate until all incoming links are checked, or else we will end up with a bunch of old links intending the old building but pointing to the new one. BD2412 T 01:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support both - Per noms. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 13:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the second, then turn Parliament House, New Delhi into a dab. Largely per BD2412, this will be a mess for incoming links if we just swap them. I see no evidence presented so far that the new building is such an overwhelming primary topic that we need to do this in one go. Once all the links have been fixed and we have had a dab at the base title for say three months we can revisit and see if the new building has become the primary topic in that time. Jenks24 (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jenks24 and @BD2412 I started this discussion. I agree with the view that we can Disambiguate Parliament House, New Delhi.

We can move Parliament House, New Delhi to Old Parliament House, New Delhi and leave New Parliament House, New Delhi as it is. If someone has some issue with this then please put forward your views. And if no then we can close this. This has been going on for more than a month now. ShaanSengupta^Talk 11:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support second per Robertsky above, oppose first. Let "Parliament House" be a dab page between new and old for now. In fact, for Samvidhan Sadan, if there's an aversion to calling it "old Parliament House", the article can be titled "Former house of Indian parliament, New Delhi" if there's consensus for that (note the words "house" and "parliament" in lowercase, since the title would not be a proper noun) W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 11:14, 7 November 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.

Samvidhan Sadan (Old Parliament House) renamed officially

The old parliament building has been renamed as Samvidhan sadan and the NEW COMPLEX will be only called as the Parliament of India (announced during house proceedings of both loksabha and rajyasabha on 19 sept 2023) Hence the name changes should be Revised

Parliament House, New Delhi -> Samvidhan Sadan New Parliament House, New Delhi -> Parliament House, New Delhi Karan.jr.Singh (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Karan.jr.Singh Can't be done. Not a WP:COMMONNAME. The request above is a technical move but It is named today only. Wait until WP:RS starts using it. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the whole point is for the discussion on Renaming (or moving) an already existing page, It should be done to a REASONABLE name and not just a name which is LATER TO BE RENAMED (we know this already, as it is poised to become a museum). And GIVEN the fact that this is a SITUATION CREATED JUST TODAY. Due to the nature of this issue it would be appropriate to Rename the Old Parliament as Samvidhan Sadan, as this is its New identity (announced today, true) but THIS should be seen like creation of a new thing, as it has lost its identity as parliament of India (JUST Today itself)

So The whole point is..

Either leave as it is.. or move the page to SAMVIDHAN SADAN

@ Karan.jr.Singh (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Karan.jr.Singh Can't be done as you say because it would violate Wikipedia rule WP:COMMONNAME. Common name see preferred over Official names except in unforeseen cases. Please learn about rules and policies and then discuss. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 01:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have been involved in a debate regarding name change and i wanted to discuss it further here. I have read WP:COMMONNAME in detail, many times earlier too. But this situation seems not mentioned. When the Name of One, say thing, is officially transferred to ANOTHER (Thing). Like in this case. India's parliament house cannot have TWO seats, so there will be only One PARLIAMENT HOUSE (No new or Old, and this was made clear in both houses of p arliament that for all purposes floor and Lobbies of House will mean the Floor and lobbies of this building, and the previous building be recognised as SAMVIDHAN SADAN, and no link to 'parliament' Name. And as mentioned on that page ASSUMING the names as Old Parliament House and New Parliament House will be ambiguous (WP:COMMONNAME mentioned not to use such names). Now when the Move are discussed, already in progress, Why shouldn't that be Done to Samvidhan Sadan. @ Karan.jr.Singh (talk) 06:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your discussion will end here. The Vice President of India in the house has clearly said that The Central Hall will be known henceforth as 'Samvidhaan Sadan'. This means that the whole building is not renamed but just the Central Hall. Sources have misquoted the information. The PM proposed the name but the Central Hall has only got this name. This is what we know now. Please see the link. The Central Hall will be known henceforth as 'Samvidhaan Sadan'. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also not to mention that Samvidhan Sadan will probably never ever become the common name in English, probably not even in Hindi language sources. This along with many other renamings of historical building names in English to Hindi is just another stupid political ideological plot of the current ruling government, and other than to serve their ego and ideology, serves no purpose. Renaming of Wikipedia articles to Hindi names would be a violation of both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH and is undoubtedly a POV push. It's unfortunate that however a few articles do use Hindi translations instead of their English names on the English Wikipedia. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 This isn't foolishness of govt. But a mistake by reliable sources. The Prime Minister's statement was probably misinterpreted. The Vice President has clearly stated on the floor of the house that only the Central Hall of the Old Building is named as Samvidhan Sadan. I have given link of it above. It anyways was called Constituent Assembly House previously. So its sources that have made a mistake. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That might be some mis pronounciation, Please check What prime minister and Loksabha speaker says. old-parliament-building-renamed-samvidhan-sadan.

Please dont confuse it with Central hall. The Old building is actually renamed. And what Hon'ble VP meant was The building, where the Central Hall is, is renamed.

Lets keep the discussion to renaming of Old and New buildings only. Karan.jr.Singh (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION by Loksabha secretariat.

What was said might be an Human Error, but the Official Notification has been published already.

Notification by Loksabha Secretariat (Renaming of Old Parliament house) Karan.jr.Singh (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Sengupta please strike down your CONFUSING comments. And you may also verify the Gazette Notification of 19 September, it states the same.

Notification by Loksabha Secretariat (Renaming of Old Parliament house)

Please dont create confusion as you have pasted the same comment multiple times, Please edit (or strike them down).

@ Karan.jr.Singh (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Karan.jr.Singh I have simply edited out the confusing comments and have struck the things necessary. Thanks for correcting my info. I want to tell you that even after it is named as Samvidhan Sadan it can't be named so. As this word itself is not English and this is English Wikipedia. As nicely explained by @PadFoot2008. Plus a name kept just a couple of days before can't be considered WP:COMMONNAME until it is used by reliable sources at large. Thank you Shaan Sengupta^Talk 16:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you have your facts correct now.

Secondly the Name Not Being an english name is never a constraint for Wikipedia page naming policy. See Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam page. Rashtrapati Bhavan (this too is a Renamed Name) is not called Presidential Enclave and so on.

Most importantly, We are here to make a Consensus and @Shaan Sengupta NO One is AUTHORISED TO DECLARE what can be done and what cannot be done on Wikipedia. It will be decided after a nicely discussed process (ideally it should be).

So lets create a new Move Request Section. As this section has become messed up and more of Debate section than Voting Section. Thankyou. @ Karan.jr.Singh (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never declared. I just told you what others user said. As for Rashtrapati Bhavan we have hindi names of it because English media houses also use that word only. So its a common name. Nari Shakti... is a bill whose name can't bear altered. Rest is well explained in WP:COMMONNAME. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 01:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this page because a country parliament not called new parliament House I think this page changed in parliament House and the parliament House page(old parliament House) need to change into old parliament House. Musicalartist071 (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karan.jr.Singh You will be well advised to read Wikipedia policies before accusing others of "declaring" anything. WP:COMMONNAME is a Wikipedia rule, which must be followed while naming articles. And the common name of the former house of Indian parliament is not Samvidhan Sadan. On the other hand, Rashtrapati Bhavan is a common name. Kind regards, W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 07:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename of the Article

The article shall be renamed (announced during house proceedings of both Loksabha and Rajyasabha on 19 sept 2023) If there is any Administrator, please rename. Maheep Singh24 (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move 10 June 2024

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. (non-admin closure) NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 15:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Parliament House, New Delhi → Parliament House, New Delhi – "New Parliament House, New Delhi" was the original name of this template, and we should revert to The proper name:-"Parliament House, New Delhi". Maheep Singh24 (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support:- It's the WP:Common name now Maheep Singh24 (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It's fully functional now and the adjective "new" is not required anymore. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support:The new complex of Parliament House has been in use for more than a year already, and it's not used in any official context anymore

For example, Australia (a fellow Commonwealth member with a similar parliamentary system) also replaced its Parliament House in 1988. The new article is called Parliament House, Canberra, and not "New Parliament House, Canberra" KabirDH (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2024 (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.

@NightWolf1223... Premature closure. See Special:Diff/1234252591. – robertsky (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I am not contesting, but I had expected a relist at the minimum. seldom we see a long running RM discussion with no opposes. – robertsky (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]