This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Article says at starting: The city population is 315,251 and the population of the Agglomeration is 413,616 (as per 2001 census). Then at section demographics say: As of 2001[update] India census[1], Rajahmundry had a population of 653,987. !!!!!!! How is possible. We need to go to another wikipedia for to know the real population? This happen too much.--83.33.216.35 (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Picture Gallery
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Could somebody or the author please specify the context for the poem posted above, which was removed from the main article space ? Thanks Jisha (Talk) 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
population of Rajahmundry city is 4,16,616 as per 2011 census not 3,43,953 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somanadh39 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Transwiki
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Content inappropriate for a wikipedia article has been transwikied to wikivoyage and commons--KTo288 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Serious Editing Needed
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article provides information, but needs serious editing of the grammar, style of presentation, citations and references. But don't want to make it a bone of contention, so will wait for serious editors to take notice and commission somebody for that job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.131.120 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Koti lingam history
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Rajahmundry is known as chinna Kasi as it got 1 crore of shiva Linga's. Please can i request the author to add information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.10.181 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 Rajahmundry'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.
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. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Rajahmundry
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If there is any official declaration like in the form of G.O., then it can be mentioned in the paragraph in a statement, but the article title doesn't change as per WP:COMMONNAME.--Vin09 (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
G.O.
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Can any one give the reference or source of information related to area and population regarding that G.O 84/99 dating 18 March 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocanad (talk • contribs) 22:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
How come the article does not mention anything about Ratnam pens?
Here I (Cocanad (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)) am giving the original GO 94 document [2] which gives reference for the merger of 21 villages in to Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation which projects the current city population to 4,20,000 as per the news source The New Indian Express. [3]
Its 4 am here, so please be aware I may not sound very nice.
hoary, anicut make no sense. i don't know what the original author was attempting to convey with those words. the article in general seems in need of attention, even besides the non-english words (anicut?)
I'll take another look at the article when its a more reasonable hour.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 Rajahmundry'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.
From Guntur: "The Case of Guntur, India"(PDF). DReAMS - Development of Resources and Access to Municipal Services. p. 1. Retrieved 15 June 2015.
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. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Undiscussed move revertedIn ictu oculi (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2016 (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.
@Vin09: I have reverted what was a sudden and clearly controversial change. @Imahesh3847: in cases like this it may take several years for a new name to be adopted, but by all means propose a move using a WP:RM template, starting at the stable existing title. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rajahmundry. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
The Triposo page is a Wikipedia mirror. It says right on the page that they copied from us. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Rajahmundry. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rajahmundry. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. - They may of changed name however judging by search results the old name is by far the most common one, As noted below we should wait until people use it and news sources use it. –Davey2010Talk 19:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Rajahmundry → Rajamahendravaram – The official name of the city was changed by the local state government back in October of 2015 which was also already mentioned in the article but the name of this wiki page was never changed yet. This proposal is made based on the reference placed here : [1]Sagavaj (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose if the government really push this then it may be that Hindu is ahead of the game, but for now wait 10 years until people in India rest of the world and GNews catch up. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: The name was changed in 2015 and the hindu article mentioned above was also published in 2015. It's been more than 2 years since that name change. This name change was also mentioned in the article which you can see in the first statement of the article. But, I think previous person doesn't exactly know how to change the name of the wiki page I guess. Sagavaj (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
This The Hindu article published 10 days ago uses the name 'Rajahmundry'. The onus is back on you Sagavaj to provide reliable sources proving common-name. Kind regards, Cesdeva (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Cesdeva: Please read the same article you posted but not the title. They might have just mentioned it in the title as people were not still used to it. I don't know the reason on why they mentioned that in the title but if you read the article, you can see that they mentioned that as Rajamahendravaram. -- Kind regards, Sagavaj (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I read it before I linked it thanks. The usage in the article is when The Hindu was quoting people, specifically, people who are in official positions. As you appear to have pointed out, the title usage by The Hindu is an indication that 'Rajahmundry' is the most common name. Kind regards, Cesdeva (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Support To provide much more reliable source, I place here the link to the Rajamahendravaram municipal corporation government website link : Official website. Thanks. Sagavaj (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose- There are 7,160,000 hits for Rajahmundry and just 2,380 for Rajamahendravaram, with both names being used more or less equally in news sources. Moreover, the city/government changing its name doesn't necessarily require it to be followed here. This source uses Rajahmundry in the title and Rajamahendravaram elsewhere in the article. As most mainstream sources haven't totally adopted the new name, I'm inclined to retaining the old name for now. This is what happened with other move discussions involving several Indian cities in the past year, even though the name change was made as far back as 2014. It's wise to wait for some more time as the name is accepted more widely. MT TrainTalk 06:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Cesdeva:@In ictu oculi:@Mark the train: Even I accept that it is not common yet especially among non-native speakers (including Indians in the other states) and since this page is in English, it also makes sense on wiki name page should be with the name which is commonly known for English speakers around the world but doesn't this makes as a solution as this can become as a step towards making the actual name common among non-native speakers and making them get acquainted to it by changing in the websites like this which is the source of information for many? -- Kind regards, Sagavaj (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
For many reasons it's not in the nature of an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia to try and influence change. We merely document facts in the most neutral way possible. If you read WP:YESPOV it may help you understand. I look forward to working with you in the future. Thanks, Cesdeva (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Next user speedy close please. This is not going to happen before news media makes the change. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2018 (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.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Population and Area of Rajahmundry
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Wikipedians! I have noticed that random numbers are being shown when it comes to the city population. Area also suffers from similar discrepancies. Official website of the local body mentions that the population is 343,903, therefore I have updated the population in this edit here. This newspaper article mentions that Rajahmundry got greater tag and the city population is now 5.79 Lakh with an area of 218.73 sq km, However I am yet to come across any official source confirming this change, Hence I believe it is prudent to omit the same. I request editors to come up with WP:RELIABLE SOURCE, before updating the population or reverting my edit. -Ab207 (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 25 November 2020
Latest comment: 3 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion
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 — we usually go by the common name, not the official name. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Rajahmundry → Rajamahendravaram – The page is about a city of Andhra Pradesh. It's name was officially changed from the earlier name (Rajahmundry) to Rajamahendravaram[1]. But the old name is still under usage here as the title. I request moving this page to the present official name Rajamahendravaram which makes it known to the people and also serves the purpose of letting the people know about the history of the city through the page.
Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. The official name is mentioned on the very first line, so letting the people know shouldn't be a problem. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Respected brother, I have gone through your explanation.
Per WP:COMMONNAME, Common names concept is applied mainly to the places or people who have an original name but not used and they use only the name "used or provided" by the media and other publications as the official name and also as a Common Name to let people understand it easily. But here in this case, I don't feel there is such confusion or complexity as the new name is only used by the people, media and all other publications. And this Common Name concept is not prevalent in India, as once the new name comes in place, it is used by all uniformly.
Every city's previous name is regarded as a COMMON NAME in India even after it's change to a new official name as it was used for many years. With this regard, I feel the new name cannot be treated as the official name by not using it in the page's title and just by having it in the first line in the page. Because people would only know after clicking it to see about the page. In other instances, only the name is used to denote something about the city. And if only the previous name is still in usage, people would assume it to be the official name or the old name still in the usage. This wouldn't serve the purpose of changing the name too. They would only know that by clicking and going through the page. I belong to the district of the respective city. So I want others to know about the city's heritage. And I don't feel anything wrong about changing the page's name as it is used in daily aspect and in all official works. And infact using the old name would be against the concept of WP:COMMONNAME as the confusion prevails between the old and new. I request you to think about my intention and support this. And if needed, the previous name or common name will be provided in the page's first line. Please go through this and understand our intention brother. Chinnusaikrish (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Chinnusaikrish:WP:COMMONNAME is determined by its prevalence in a majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. As far as I can tell, "Rajahmundry" is fairly being used, even after the name change which supposedly happened five years ago. The Hindu, The Times of India, Indian express, including regional newspapers like Deccan Chronicle, and The Hans India, all refer to the city as Rajahmundry. Google gives 2,25,00,000 hits to Rajahmundry, compared to meagre 5,36,000 for Rajamahendravaram, by which we can say Rajahmundry still stands as the COMMONNAME of the city. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Respected brother,
Let me bring to your notice about one thing.
The names used by the English Newspapers you referred to are depended on the "space" they are left with to write in the columns. Anything they write is decided by the space they get in the column of that page. If the space they are left with is only around 11 or 12 letters they choose RAJAHMUNDRY, as RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM cannot fit in that 11 or 12 letters space. But if they are left with around 17 or 18 letters, they use RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM without a doubt. This is known to all. You could even check this by yourself. So this example of the names being used by the newspapers doesn't fit as they are decided by the space in the paper's columns.
Let me putforth to you another example,
If the space they are left with is only about 5 letters, they use VIZAG. And if the space they are left is around 13 or 14 letters they use VISAKHAPATNAM. So you can't name VIZAG as the common name and put it as the titular name of VISAKHAPATNAM page with VIZAG becoming the common name as VISAKHAPATNAM is the official name. In fact, VIZAG is the most used common name by the people. But the name VISAKHAPATNAM is only used in all the Government Orders and all official works. I am saying exactly about this. Newspapers use either of the names.
I was not referring RAJAHMUNDRY as an unfair use. And the discussion here is not about fair usage as RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM also stands as a fair usage. You didn't mention why Rajamahendravaram should not be used as the title as if it was some prohibitory name. It is not my invented name. It is the official name given by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The name Rajamahendravaram is used in all G.O. purposes and all other official works. It is also used as RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM in all the regional Telugu Newspapers which you can go through.
And talking about google search results, One would want to search with the name VIZAG as it is only about 5 letters and it would also save his time in typing it. But he would not use VISAKHAPATNAM instead as it is 13 letters which consumes his time. He would surely search it with the name VIZAG which shouldn't be considered as a parameter to the name being used in the digital media. As not searching with the name VISAKHAPATNAM will not bring him in troubles. So he would use VIZAG. The same happens for the name RAJAHMUNDRY or some other short names.
If only the old names are used as titles, people tend to refer them by the old names and even search with the old names watching them being still used in websites like wikipedia and others without getting changed like what I was appealing. This is the reason why new names draw low google search results as they are not represented time to time properly in wesbites like wikipedia and the rest. Even the citizens of other states or countries refer it with the old names unless it is not changed in the websites like wikipedia which would obviously get low google results for the new name. If the names get changed, people would search it with the new names thinking them to be in the present use. That happens only with the name change. So, I request you to please rethink and support this brother. Chinnusaikrish (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Chinnusaikrish, Sounds like you do agree that Rajahmundry is the COMMONNAME but are expecting Wikipedia to take the leap of using the new name. But that's not how it works. In fact, it's the other way around. Wikipedia would use the new name only when people/media start using it, for which you haven't presented any evidence. And FYI, official and non-English sources don't carry much weight in determining the common name. Also note that in my earlier comment, I used the word "fairly" in the sense of "to a large extent", rather than fair/unfair use. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Ab207 Dear brother, I appeal to you to follow every line of my explanation without a miss.
It sounded to me that Rajahmundry is a common name as it is also a previous name which I told that in the beginning itself.
But I don't understand what makes you so repulsive to the name RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. I don't even understand why you are not ready to see the name changing from RAJAHMUNDRY TO RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM as if it's some prohibitory word in Wikipedia. You need to put your theory on this issue clearly.
Yes, I would definitely want wikipedia to take the leap. It's not any crime as projected by you from my side. It would actually make the things right. It would when the people change to call the name after looking at it in the Wikipedia.
You asked me to give any proofs which I proved it with VIZAG and VISAKHAPATNAM comparison about the "fairly" usage (large extent). You questioned me about the name RAJAHMUNDRY being used in the newspapers, I explained you about the "spacing system" in the Newspapers. You questioned me about the google results, I explained about the time management done by the people for searching. I don't understand What else you need exactly ?
You told me that "fairly" usage is the usage to a large extent.
What is large extent here ? I think people. So who are people here ? I think the people of that respective city and state. Not the people belonging to USA or UK.
So how to determine this extent ? Only by knowing after looking at what it is being called in the regional newspapers or official sources or even the English newspapers or by the "local people" like me. Your theory about not considering the regional newspapers or media or the official sources falls short as this is nothing but the LARGE EXTENT you were referring to.
If the local regional newspapers or the offcial government sources or the "local people" are not taken into consideration then what is the LARGE EXTENT you were referring to ? Or Is the LARGE EXTENT here is only YOU or some other state people ? As you were reluctant to the change of the name, you feel that LARGE EXTENT is also reluctant to this by assuming yourself as the LARGE EXTENT ? I would like you to clarify on this.
You first said the "new name" is shown in the first line, so no need to change the title especially. I now say the same. Let's change the title and use the old name in the first line itself as other name. That wouldn't be an issue. I even told you that I belong to the district of this respective city. You must understand the fact that RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM is also the common name and the official name. As you had asked me the proofs. I am ready to submit them which you can see below.
If you still have any doubts, I have explained even more to another user below. You could go through that and I request you again and again to support this. Thank you brother Chinnusaikrish (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
@Chinnusaikrish: Large extent in "independent, reliable English-language sources," not in official sources and local media. In case you are not aware, even the Telugu Wikipedia uses "Rajahmundry", because that's the commonly recognizable name. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ab207: Let me bring to your notice again that the large extent you were referring to about the "independent, reliable English-language sources" use the name as per the space they get in their column. You need to be knowing the fact that the name RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM is also used considerably daily. You might have been mistaken thinking that RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM is not at all used or prohibited by them. You could check the proof below. These proofs are from the "most reputed and reliable English-language sources" in India.
You must understand the fact that the OLD NAME will always be a common recognizable name as claimed by you because it was used for years. But that falls short in deciding the name because it is being used with the new name even in all the sources you showed as an example. You just can't overlap the old name on the name name forcefully just by saying it as the common name. Your theory of recognising too falls short as the new name is being used for years in all the reliable sources. Using the old name will lead into confusions to the visitors of wikipedia which was what I was telling again and again. The reliable sources use the new name but you prefer the old name in wikipedia, then what is the use of these sources to use that new name ? They too could continue with the old name claiming that as more recognisable. What is the use in changing the name then ? All those sources could continue with BOMBAY, CALCUTTA AND MADRAS instead of MUMBAI, KOLKATA AND CHENNAI claiming these new names as not much "recongisable" This recognisablity would only happen when the new name is used everytime which was what I was saying the new name.
FOR RECONGISABILITY, "usage" is needed. And if you don't "USE THE NEW NAME" recognisablity becomes weak. So this is a give and take issue which you are not able to understand. I sincerely request you to understand this and I hope you would surely understand this now.
You told about the usage of RAJAHMUNDRY even in Telugu Wikipedia. I would like to tell you that Wikipedia has the same policy in every language in it. It would use the same policy in every language. So don't consider it as some other different source and say that "new name is still not used there." If editors like you support this name change, then the title will also be changed there and in every language when requested to be moved. So that's not a considering thing. I request you to please support this and I believe you would support this surely.Chinnusaikrish (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Chinnusaikrish:, The new name may be occasionally used but I don't see any concrete evidence that it is preferred in general. As per Google hits, the old name outnumbers the new one in the ratio of 45:1, and there's no visible change in Google Ngram either. Ab207 (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Ab207 You need to understand one thing brother. As long as the new name stays as in the old format, people would search with the same old name which shows less hits in the google. People might also prefer it to search to save their time as searching needs typing. I told you about this even earlier. But you are very adamant on this. I don't understand why. If the new name comes in place, people would slowly start using the name. The same will also make them use the new name in the books which reflect in Google ngram as shown by you. And don't say it vaguely that it is not preferred in general. You might feel that it is not used in general. Please don't take google hits or searches as the usage parameter. You don't take the official sources or even the newspapers into consideration. What do you mean by "general" here ? Is it only you ? or the google searches which merely depend on the "time saving" attitude by the searchers. These shouldn't be taken into consideration. FYI, the google ngram graph shows more for the name Tuticorin but the name of that wikipedia page is THOOTHUKUDI, and the graph shows more for the name Trivandrum instead of Thiruvananthapuram but Trivandrum is not used as the titular name - Google ngram. The Graph shows more for Trichy but Tiruchirappalli is used as the titular name - Google ngram The graph shows more for Cuddapah but Kadapa is used as the titular name - Google ngram So now you need to rethink about ngram searches too. Please brother, I appeal you to understand and support this. If you pay a little attention to my words, you would understand my intention easily. Thanks Chinnusaikrish (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Chinnusaikrish: You were basically analyzing "why" Rajahmundry is still being used and how it can be changed, whereas our concern should only be "what" name is being used. If you go through WP:COMMONNAME, google search and google books are some of the tools to aid us in determining the common name. They cannot be disregarded. Why Thoothukudi or Thiruvananthapuram are named as such is a discussion that belongs to that corresponding page. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Ab207: I was putting before you the parameters cited by you that have gone wrong with the other cities whose official name is used as the title. Don't disregard this too. The parameter that you have cited needs to follow the same for the rest of the pages too. Don't just say it corresponds to that page. You should have an equal and uniform concern for everything and each page in wikipedia. Why were you so concerned only about this page ? Why don't you just treat this page as that of the other pages like Thoothukudi and Thiruvananthapuram. I belong to the district of the respective city. I have much more concern than you brother. You need to specifically say what bothers you or others if the name gets changed or why don't you just leave this page exactly like you did with Thoothukudi and Thiruvananthapuram. You have to answer this especially. I told you about the google search results format too. And you again treat it as the parameter. When someone types RAJA, "Rajahmundry" pops up down and they click it by saving the time. You should understand this phenomenon. So you shouldn't take google search results into consideration and say it is still being used. And the new name becomes more used only if wikipedia changes it's name which makes other treat it that way everytime. Please understand and support this brother. Chinnusaikrish (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Chinnusaikrish: I'm concerned about this page because there's a requested move here. I think I have already made my case. Since the thread has already become too long and unwieldy, let us now agree to disagree. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Ab207: I understood that brother. That was why I was asking you why not to leave it like the other pages. You asked me not to discuss anything in your talk page. You wanted the discussion only here. So please don't cite that as a reason. You could talk to me in the talk page.Chinnusaikrish (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Kailash29792 I would like to know from you about what that determines the Common Name. Is it the name used by Government of the respective city or the name used by Newspapers or the name used by people of the respective city ? If this is the case then the common name used is BENGALURU not Bangalore. You could check this by going through the G.O.s and Newspapers which write it as BENGALURU not BANGALORE. You just can't decide the common name vaguely by showing the unchanged title of the wikipedia page of that respective city as a proof as it was present in that page. I didn't understand your saying as the "new name is not yet the common name" by showing the wikipedia page which needs to be changed which was what I was appealing to. You would understand that "new name is the common name" only when you go through the Government orders related to that city and the name used by the newspapers and media about the respective city but not by looking at the wikipedia page which remains unchanged. It would be reasonably good if you show me any proof of the government sources wanting only BANGALORE as the title instead of BENGALURU.
According to your theory, Tuticorin must be used as the title instead of Thoothukudi of that page as it is also a common name and Trichy must be used as the title instead of Tiruchirapalli as it is also a common name. So I now request you to compare this example and you would understand this. Rajamahendravaram name was made official after an official G.O. by the government just like Thoothukudi and Tiruchirapalli. I hope you understand this now and I request you to support this after consideringChinnusaikrish (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Kailash29792 Please respond to the comparison I did. I have even requested you the same in your talk page. Not responding in this issue wouldn't look good. As an editor you need to stand by your words and explain why you did that not just by leaving your opinions and turning a blind eye. Would have been better if you hadn't passed your opinion instead of being completely silent. Chinnusaikrish (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. This is all that needs to be said. The rule is clear about it. This thread filled with sealioning and overall is a terrible waste of time. The user must be warned for not repeating such theatrics in future. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Walrus Ji: The discussion happening here is completely healthy and constructive. And the people involved here have no problem with that. Why are you worried about it ? I request you to check the discussion that had happened above and just put in your theory or opinions. If the editors put their view, they need to put in their theories elaborately. And if people like us give our opinions on their theories, they might change their mind after listening to others theories and would support the cause. And what do you mean to say ? Nothing should be discussed or asked to anyone in Wikipedia ? This is democracy brother. Don't incite or recommend warnings in an irrelevant manner. Infact you are the one who is threatening. I request Wikipedia to warn the user Walrus Ji on his irrelevant threats and rude behaviour.
And coming to Per WP:COMMONNAME Thoothukudi, Tiruchirapalli and Thiruvananthapuram shouldn't be the titles but they are. I request you to answer anything about this, not about the irrelevant issues. Why the rule doesn't apply to these as said by you ? If your answer seems to be justifying, I wouldn't be asking you or anyone anymore. A healthy and conclusive discussion is needed. It's not that you say something and everything ends with that. Don't just behave like nothing should be asked to you or anyone. Chinnusaikrish (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Please spare me the sealioning. I have said all I had to say. I do not wish to be pinged again from you. And I will block the pings from you if you ping me again.--Walrus Ji (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Also it seems you have some confusion about Wikipedia. Let me shock you by informing you that Wikipedia is not a democracy. You should read the linked page in full. No need to ping me, for reasons stated above.--Walrus Ji (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Chinnusaikrish, my view remains unchanged. The Bangalore rule applies here too. Kailash29792(talk) 15:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Do you mean your views apply to Thoothukudi, Tiruchirapalli and Thiruvananthapuram too or only to Rajahmundry ? You didn't answer to this ? Please explain why common name should only stay to Rajahmundry elaboratively brother.Chinnusaikrish (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
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.
Requested move 8 January 2021
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
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: Procedural close. Too soon after the previous request move, and again no reason given why WP:COMMONNAME should be ignored. Recommend further requests be rejected unless reasonable cause is given. (non-admin closure) Xyl 54 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Rajahmundry → Rajamahendravaram – The page is about a city of Andhra Pradesh. It's name was officially changed from the earlier name (Rajahmundry) to Rajamahendravaram [1] Requesting to move the page to the new name on the lines of Nur-Sultan, Tiruchirappalli, Thrissur, Thiruvananthapuram, Thoothukudi whose official names are being used as the title of their page in contrary to using their common names as the title of the page as per WP:COMMONNAME policy of Wikipedia.
Speedy close The user already requested move over a month ago with similar rationale, which resulted in consensus not to move. --Ab207 (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ab207 No, the consensus has not been reached brother. If I, as a user feel that there has been a consensus reached, I wouldn't be raising the issue of renaming the page again. You need to make sure your reason satisfies me on the other side too. Alright for a moment, let us agree that per WP:COMMONNAME policy, common name can also be used as the title of the page. But you must also say what bothers you or anyone if the name gets changed to the official name. What problems it might bring and say the negative aspects of having the official name as the title. This was what I was appealing to you right from the beginning. You were reluctant to the "name change" right from the beginning. So personally you have a particular reason on rejecting this proposal of the "name change". You have to put it out. In the same way I have a personal reason which I had put before early. I want to see the new name as it reflects the history of the place as citizen of the state. Now, why you as a user wouldn't want to see the name change ? If you give a clarification on this aspect then I might think about not raising the issue again. Chinnusaikrish (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I’m closing this on procedural grounds. This is the fourth time this move has been requested, the last less than two months ago. Again, no reason has been given why title policy to use common names in preference to official names should be ignored. I also recommend any further move requests like this be summarily rejected unless cause is given why WP:COMMONNAME should be set aside. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
Railway Bridge, Rajahmundry
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
