Talk:Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction railway station

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mughalsarai Junction railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140510115649/http://www.indianrail.gov.in/7days_Avl.html to http://www.indianrail.gov.in/7days_Avl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Deen Dayal Upadhyaya junction

Please move this article to Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya junction only after demonstrating that it has become the common name via a move request. The station was officially renamed only a couple of weeks ago while an editor moved this page in June :S Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:DBigXray

Hi there,

If I understood your reasons correctly on the page move cancellation, I am hereby proving the links required to confirm the renaming.

Pls advise if I should post them on the talk page of the article also & can I move the article again.

• https://www.ndtv.com/cities/mughalsarai-railway-station-renamed-deen-dayal-upadhyay-junction-1883097
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/railways/mughalsarai-station-renamed-as-deen-dayal-upadhyay-junction/articleshow/65284418.cms
• https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/mughalsarai-junction-renamed-why-name-changed-after-156-years-1305650-2018-08-05

Superfast1111 (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Superfast1111, Thanks for your kind message on my talk page. Please understand that there is no doubt that the official name of this station has been changed. However Wikipedia articles are not based on the official name but rather on WP:COMMONNAME. For example Bangalore has been changed to Bengaluru officially several years back, yet the article is still on the old more common name. If you believe that DDU is the common name then you have to share evidence that DDU is the common name on the talk page to get consensus for a move. see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. FYI, IMHO The common name is still the old name and hence I will oppose such a move request. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks DbigXray for clarifying the matter. Accordingly, I will take no further action until further consensus takes place.

Superfast1111 (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is an article from today, and we can see that reliable media is still using Mughalsarai name and not DDU. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Nice find. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Prayagraj junction was also changed almost at same time as Deen Dayal but why seperate yardstick for them? Anubhavklal 19:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anubhavklal (talk • contribs)

The change for Allahabad Junction was sneaked through. If it had had proper member scrutiny, it would probably have been rejected.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way, to sneak through for this one also. It is gross injustice to users of Wikipedia, to deprive them of knowing the common name, just to preserve one own point of view/political position. Anubhavklal (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The article tells the users both names already.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes the article can still have old name also but I am talking about the title. Why to prevent moving to new title just because of political bias? Anubhavklal (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I have answered your question at User talk:Anubhavklal#June 2023.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44721655. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 08:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding infobox related revert

Toddy1, hi. All I did was add a mapframe caption "Interactive map". (with regard to this edit) Your edit summary "infoboxes are easier to edit if the parameters are all lined up" concerns spaces in the source code. This happened by itself, for whatever reason. I am not going to spend time removing spaces like this :)

I am going to make the same change, adding "Interactive map" to the mapframe caption, to see if I made a mistake with my last edit. If there are again spacing errors created elsewhere I will undo it myself. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so I made the same change. And yes, even though I only added "Interactive map" using the visual editor, spaces were removed automatically. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This has happened before, it has to do with switching between source and visual editor and where the original code in the previous/original edit has been entered. I've made the change I wanted, adding "Interactive map" (edit). FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Deen dayal junction.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Picture for the infobox

Mughalsarai Station 2	Mughalsarai Junction entrance

In my opinion the photograph in the infobox should be one that shows what the station looks like. One that shows little more than a sign with the station's name is not so useful. The above two photographs both achieve this. Mughalsarai Station 2 was the one in use in 2020. Does anyone have a preference?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree about the sign showing the name not being important (these are often added to get around WP:NOINDICSCRIPT and WP:COMMONNAME). As for the other images, the first shows a gantry, which could be almost any station, the second shows the exterior, which is more specific/recognisable as this specific station. So I prefer Mughalsarai Junction entrance. - Arjayay (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I have put Mughalsarai Junction entrance.jpg as the infobox picture and moved Mughalsarai Station 2.jpg to the gallery.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2023

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose: "Mughalsarai Junction" gets me 265 hits at Google/News, while "Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction" gets me 142 hits, "Pt Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction" 145 hits and "Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction" 90 hits, so still not the time in my opinion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

Note: the counts claimed here are incorrect. The correct counts are 92 for the old title and 145 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)

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)

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)

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)

Agree Anubhavklal (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

(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)

@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)

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)

Refer WP:CONS for consensus Anubhavklal (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose Among scholarly books (i.e. those published by internationally recognized academic presses) there is only one that mentions "Deen Dayal," whereas there are nearly 10 that mention only the "Mughalsari station" or refer to it in as many words. Of these, fully four have been published since 2019. I could provide the links, but I just lost all of them after I'd made a painstaking effort to compile them, so for now, I'll leave you all to find them. This is a clear oppose. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  PS Of the four, two are published by CUP, one by OUP, and one by Jadhavpur University Press. You should be able to locate them by specifying the publisher. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Scholarly" sources arent the best for a WP:NAMECHANGES case, as they very often favour the older name even when it has clearly stopped being the common name. See Talk:Ayodhya_district#Requested_move_14_March_2023, where similar arguments using google scholar were made and ultimately not considered. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Support Agree Anubhavklal (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per @CapnJackSp evidence.

— Akshadev™ 🔱 08:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:CON is the process Anubhavklal (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 92. The number for the new title, was correctly stated as 145.
Therefore, even through their style of searching, it is 92 results for old title vs 145 for new title. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)