Talk:Gurgaon

Article name should be changed from Gurgaon to Gurugram

As everyone knows in Wikipedia, since 2016 the name Gurgaon has been changed to Gurugram. So the name of the article should be changed to Gurugram and Gurgaon should be a redirect. RayAdvait (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Would require an RfC for move here in the talk page. There were three RfCs in the past as you can see [here] and the result was not moved. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@RayAdvait Pls go through the recent discussions at Talk:Gurgaon/Archive 1. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC to change the article name to Gurugram

As everyone knows in Wikipedia, since 2016 the name Gurgaon has been changed to Gurugram. So the name of the article should be changed to Gurugram and Gurgaon should be a redirect. The name of the article has been outdated for 6 years and please change the name. RayAdvait (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Please follow the advice you received in the preceding section. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Kashmiri, we cannot retain former name, the current name is Gurugram and not Gurgaon. Why do we need rfc ? it is common sense? If that is the case, then we should retain the city names Bombay and Madras. The advise received in preceding section is some editor's personal opinion. Personal opinions doesn't work in this case. The Govt officially designated it as Gurugram city in (Gurugram District) - https://gurugram.gov.in/department/municipal-corporation-gurugram/ Fostera12 (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

Gurgaon Was Ruled By Jat King Maharaja Surajmal After the capture of delhi Maharaja Surajmals Son Maharaja Jwahar Singh Made A Temple In Village Gurgaon 103.95.83.111 (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Official name is Gurugram

Hi to whomsoever it may concern. We cannot retain former names of cities, the current name is Gurugram and not Gurgaon. Why do we need rfc ? it is common sense? If that is the case, then we should retain the city names Bombay and Madras. The advise received in preceding section is some editor's personal opinion. Personal opinions doesn't work in this case. News paper articles can write anything, they just take info from wikipedia, it is called mirroring of wikipedia. Coming to books and articles, there are still millions of articles calling cities as Bombay and Madras before their official name change. You cant take it as a standard, and forcefully rub your opinions on other editors. Your personal interest with Gurgaon instead of Gurugram cannot be endorsed by other editors. The Govt officially designated it as Gurugram city in (Gurugram District) - https://gurugram.gov.in/department/municipal-corporation-gurugram/ And why should we endorse somebody's personal preference Gurgaon in Infobox Fostera12 (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed before: go to Talk:Gurgaon/Archive 1 and search for "requested move" to see the last four discussions. The last one was in 2020, so it's not too early to reconsider the case by starting another discussion. See WP:RM#CM for how to do that. But first, you need to be aware of the article naming policy, and especially the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Official names. – Uanfala (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of this just ignores and some of it blatantly contradicts Wikipedia policy, which represents a great deal of work and consensus by many editors.

But you do make a good point regarding citeogenesis. While Wikipedia is not a reliable source, many reliable sources reflect Wikipedia. But if they do, they reflect a change in the English language. And there's no reason that our article names should not reflect that change once it has occurred, even if we have been part of it. They should not anticipate it, and certainly should not attempt to produce change however much we might want to support it. But after the fact, we should reflect it.

Other citeogenesis incidents are problematic, but not this sort. Andrewa (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi request you to initiate new discussion here WP:RM#CM, I went through it but im not clear how to do it, you help initiate the topic, and I will take it forward Fostera12 (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The detailed how-to is at WP:RSPM. But before initiating such a proposal, I would really advise you to read the previous discussions and project pages I've linked above. If you don't address the issues there, the proposal is likely to get rapidly shot down again. – Uanfala (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

In one of the move requests that took place several years ago, I noted in response to a comment about Google Trends that "Gurgaon" remained more common than "Gurugram". That appears to remain the case. The current name of the article is not based upon anyone's personal opinion, but rather upon Wikipedia policies like WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIAL, which on Wikipedia normally take precedence over names mandated by governments. Regarding the application of print sources, our standard is that we follow them rather than tell them what to write, and in the case of something like "Bombay", a title change was made due to a shift in real-world usage after the official name change per WP:NAMECHANGES. If the common name changes then it is unlikely anyone will object to moving the article, but clear evidence of a shift in usage is what is necessary. Dekimasuよ! 16:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that we'll have, at one point, to move Gurgaon to the WP:OFFICIALNAME irrespective of the colloquial usage in India or of Google Trends results. When should it happen? I think it's good to have a discussion soon. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You are of course free to raise a requested move, but I suggest that you make a concerted effort to understand WP:OFFICIALNAME which you cite above. It seems to me that it explicitly contradicts the idea that the colloquial usage in India or of Google Trends results should or even can be overlooked as you suggest, and therefore gives no support to your belief that we'll have, at one point, to move Gurgaon to the WP:OFFICIALNAME. So I give the move no hope of happening. But that's the way to remove any doubt that you have. Andrewa (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, WP:COMMONNAME is not the Holy Grail, there are other important considerations when naming articles on Wikipedia. To give a few examples, the article about what was and is commonly called Macedonia is currently titled North Macedonia and earlier was for many years under Republic of Macedonia. Similarly, We used Myanmar from the very beginning, even though the name is contested and Burma/Birma appears more widespread in common usage across the region. The capital of Kazakhstan alternated between Astana and Nursultan as soon as the official name changed. Because there's another convention: WP:MPN – Wikipedia should prefer current place names.

While I did not support an immediate name change of Gurgaon or Allahabad, seeing it as a short-lived propaganda exercise, it appears now, five years down the line, that the new names are gradually taking hold. So, a page move here seems inevitable and is no longer a question of if but of when. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, consensus can change.

But on the other hand Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We move the article when the common name has changed. Until you have evidence of that I suggest patience. Andrewa (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me say it again: common name is not the only criterion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

True. I should have said evidence that supports a move in accordance to Wikipedia:article titles, not just evidence.

But may I in turn say again, the official name and other primary sources are not nearly as important as usage in reliable secondary sources, which we take as good evidence of the common name. Andrewa (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

...are not nearly as important as... Please point to a policy that says which of the two (OFFICIALNAME vs COMMONNAME) is more important.

By the way, from the above comment, you don't seem to understand the concept of primary vs secondary sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

(Without taking a position on this particular article) WP:AT and, in particular, WP:UCRN are fairly clear that, ceteris paribus, common name is the more important. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

You say Please point to a policy that says which of the two (OFFICIALNAME vs COMMONNAME) is more important.... I think user:RegentsPark has already covered this well. It's not hard to find IMO.

You say you don't seem to understand the concept of primary vs secondary sources. Please discuss the content not the contributor. I think you're disagreeing that primary sources are not nearly as important as usage in reliable secondary sources, which we take as good evidence of the common name. But can you clarify? Do you disagree with that? How exactly? Or if not, what is your point? Andrewa (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)