Talk:Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction – Kanpur section

A fact from Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction – Kanpur section appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 June 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Mughalsarai marshalling yard is the largest in Asia?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/June.

Wikipedia

Trains: in India / Operations Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indian railways.
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.

India: Railways Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indian railways (assessed as Low-importance).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mughalsarai–Kanpur section. 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) 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mughalsarai–Kanpur section. 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: 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) 17:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need to move the article to keep the realistic name[edit]

need to change the article name to match the respective station names Anubhavklal (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the city name, similar to Allahabad and its related articles. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the common name Prayagraj? Anubhavklal (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The names of most of the related articles were changed/moved when the consensus was reached to move the main article Allahabad to Prayagraj. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if nobody has commented on it so far, does it mean consensus is arrived? Or do we need to wait for some more time? Anubhavklal (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anubhavklal: No its not, an RfC requires 30 days, besides you haven't open a proper move request here. I believe it would be necessary. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to open a proper move request here? Can someone do it pls Anubhavklal (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do how you did here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia guidelines, it is 7 days (not 30 days) Anubhavklal (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will enact the request. If not, the request may be re-listed to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion closed as "no consensus". Time depends on the consensus if reached, if not then re-listed. If an WP:RfC is required in the case of continued dispute, it still requires 30 days to end. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 July 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moed to Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction – Kanpur section per rough consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mughalsarai–Kanpur section → Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Jn - Kanpur section – ref discussion on Talk page... Anubhavklal (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose : News sources for the time frame 1 July 2018 (after name change) to 1 July 2023 on "Mughalsarai–Kanpur section" using quotes gets me 1 hit, while "Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Jn - Kanpur section" gets me ZERO (NO RESULTS FOUND). Same with "Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Jn - Kanpur section" ZERO results - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This should depend on the article names of the stations. Currently these are Mughalsarai Junction and Kanpur Central, but there is a move discussion for Mughalsarai Junction. If the move discussion for Mughalsarai Junction results in a move, it would probably be sensible to move the various section articles related to Mughalsarai to reflect the changed name. The same would apply if Kanpur Central got moved. -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about Deendayal Upadhyaya nagar. But do you need to move Kanpur? Anubhavklal (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently move discussions for: (1) the town of Mughalsarai (see move discussion), (2) Mughalsarai's railway station (see move discussion), and (3) at least one route from Mughalsarai's railway station (the present move discussion). In my opinion, it would be best to resolve these in the order: 1st the name of the town, 2nd the name of the town's railway station, and 3rd the name of articles on routes to/from the railway station. In my opinion, the decision on (1) impacts on what is the best decision for (2), and the decisions on (1) and (2) impact on what is the best decision for (3).

Part of this is about whether to include the "Mughalsarai" name in the article title. Part of this is how to write the new name in English - unless there is a good reason not to, we should standardise on either "Deendayal" or "Deen Dayal" (what been proposed is that the station should use "Deen Dayal", but the town "Deendayal"). -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
:::Oppose Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Jn - Kanpur section. Weakly Support Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction – Kanpur section.
This article should either be called Mughalsarai–Kanpur section (because Mughalsarai is the commonly-used English-language name for the town), or it should be called Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction – Kanpur section (because Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction railway station is what we have agreed ought to be the name of the Mughalsarai railway station on Wikipedia).
The policy is that we should "strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical." (WP:CONSISTENT). Mughalsarai–Kanpur section is a lot more practical as an article name though.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find an official document that uses "Kanpur - Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay (CNB-DDU) section" as the name of this section: Indian Railways, Detailed Project Report of KAVACH Works in CNB-DDU Section of North Central Railway, 2021 A Google search appeared to show a second document, but it turned out to be another URL for the same document.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind.
As far as I am aware, there is no current commonly-used English name for this railway section. We know of a name used in an official document for this section. There is also merit it retaining the current article name because it uses the commonly-used English names for towns at either end of the section, and is therefore is easy to understand.

1st preference Mughalsarai–Kanpur section (uses the names of the towns).
2nd preference Kanpur - Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay (CNB-DDU) section (a name used in an official document).
Oppose Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Jn - Kanpur section. No evidence that the name is used outside of Wikipedia and not as easy to understand as a name based on the names of the towns. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(CNB-DDU) is just the abbreviated codes of the two station names. Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction - Kanpur section seems like the right choice here, since names of stations would be preferred over the names of towns. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Move of Mughalsarai–Kanpur section to Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction – Kanpur section. Lengthy discussion was already done in Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction railway station move page. Will we keep having every move discussion for every minor related page? Just be done with the inevitable already. –JayB91 (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This RM was opened at the same time as the main article discussion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction – Kanpur section - per WP:CONSISTENT, in particular WP:CONSUB. Since the discussion on parent page was closed as moved, this also warrants a move. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

@Anubhavklal: I don't get it why you keep changing the target article. Last time you tried to unilaterally move it to "Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya Jn –Kanpur section", now "Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Jn - Kanpur section". Not only it is difficult to verify which version to check for, it looks like you are trying to game the system. Stick to one version only. Your other move requests are also like that and so was your moves last few days. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what you mean by "target" article. Is there a rule that one can make only one request at a time? Should we not work together to make entire Wikipedia useful? Anubhavklal (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anubhavklal: Target article is name you are suggesting. You are changing it often, as if choosing from a list. The article will be moved to a single 'name space' that you mention above, not forked into multiple versions of it. And what's with the − "Should we not work together to make entire Wikipedia useful"? I see this in most of your comments? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need to work together because WP:CON is required. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions. Anubhavklal (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who says consensus is not required, but you need to be specific. Moving pages is a complex process. Very well, I check for this specific version. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is 7 days and only one person has objection. So how to reach consensus? @admin

Or do we need WP:ARB ?

. Anubhavklal (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So which of the two users who raised objections does not count as a person?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments didn't appear like objection. But if it was, of course both should be counted. Anubhavklal (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official name[edit]

HI Toddy1, I didn't check your comments on "Kanpur - Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay (CNB-DDU) section" above. Perhaps we need to have another RM since that's the official name, after some time maybe? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]