Talk:Adam's Bridge
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adam's Bridge article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
This question arises frequently on the talk page concerning Adam's Bridge.
Q1: Why is the article titled Adam's Bridge instead of Rama Setu, Rama's Bridge, Shree Ramsetu, Ram Setu or something else?
A1:
For the origins of different names, see the article. English Wikipedia's policy and convention (see WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) ) is that the title of an article should be the modern name generally used in English-language reliable sources, such as (in this case) scholarly works on geography, history and religion. Several discussions requesting the retitling of the article have been held since 2011, and the Wikipedia community's consensus has been that Adam's Bridge is the proper title per Wikipedia policy. Q2: Why was my request or comment removed?
A2:
Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to move the page or to change the name will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name, WP:Article titles, and WP:Reliable sources. |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and review the FAQ before commenting. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
![]() | 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. |
![]() | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Frequently asked questions; please read before posting
[edit]This question arises frequently on the talk page concerning Adam's Bridge.
- Why is the article titled Adam's Bridge instead of Rama Setu, Rama's Bridge, Shree Ramsetu, Ram Setu or something else?
For the origins of different names, see the Adam's Bridge § Etymology.
English Wikipedia's policy on article titles and guideline on naming conventions require that the title of an article be the modern name generally used in English-language reliable sources, such as (in this case) scholarly works on geography, history, and religion. Several discussions requesting the retitling of the article have been held since 2011, and the Wikipedia community's consensus has been that Adam's Bridge is the proper title in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
- Why was my request or comment removed?
Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to move the page or to change the name will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name, WP:Article titles, and WP:Reliable sources.
This section is permanently on this talk page and does not get archived. It is for mobile-device users for whom the the normal talk page header and FAQ are not shown.
Editwar at Ram Setu (film)
[edit]Your input is welcome at Talk:Ram_Setu_(film)#New_editwar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Reinstate moritorium
[edit]I propose reinstating the moratorium on rename requests for another year; they still come in. 331dot (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- 331dot, is this an ongoing problem? Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Virtually all the requests are made by drive-by editors who don't cite policy and don't stay here to engage with us. It's mostly editors from India who believe that this should be known by the local name, mostly as an anti-colonialism measure, or religious reason- but have never been able to show that it is the most commonly used name in English language sources. Even in India more broadly "Adam's Bridge" is sometimes used. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but these would still come, and they would be treated about the same with a moratorium, wouldn't they? Afaict, drive-by:s are mostly reverted for not making any WP-arguments, like [1]. Reverting per "read the FAQ" (and I have no objection to that) or "there's a moratorium" takes the same amount of work. But my knee-jerk reaction is that at this point in time, if someone wants to do an actual WP:RM#CM, they should be able to, thems the rules. And if that happens, we might slap another moratorium on this issue afterwards, thems also the rules. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to treating it this way. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- To put it another way, I think the FAQ
- "Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to move the page or to change the name will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name, WP:Article titles, and WP:Reliable sources."
- justifies the routine reverts. A moratorium at this point would IMO only stop an actual WP:RM#CM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to treating it this way. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but these would still come, and they would be treated about the same with a moratorium, wouldn't they? Afaict, drive-by:s are mostly reverted for not making any WP-arguments, like [1]. Reverting per "read the FAQ" (and I have no objection to that) or "there's a moratorium" takes the same amount of work. But my knee-jerk reaction is that at this point in time, if someone wants to do an actual WP:RM#CM, they should be able to, thems the rules. And if that happens, we might slap another moratorium on this issue afterwards, thems also the rules. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Virtually all the requests are made by drive-by editors who don't cite policy and don't stay here to engage with us. It's mostly editors from India who believe that this should be known by the local name, mostly as an anti-colonialism measure, or religious reason- but have never been able to show that it is the most commonly used name in English language sources. Even in India more broadly "Adam's Bridge" is sometimes used. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support as the Talk Page's history is littered with removed requests (almost all of which have no substance beyond the request itself, ie no sources/evidence). As in a previous moratorium discussion, I might suggest perhaps a longer moratorium. Paris1127 (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose current proposal as irrelevant, because we don't have a moratorium on rename requests (which are quickly removed per the FAQ above), we have a moratorium on formal WP:RM discussions. I support an extension of the current moratorium on RM discussions (by 2 years or more), but that isn't what's being proposed here. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pardon my poorly worded statement, that is what I am proposing. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, from where do we have a moratorium on formal WP:RM discussions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- See the big yellow box at the top listing the past discussions, the most recent of which imposed a 1 year moratorium, which has expired (actually if you scroll just past that discussion, that's where the moratorium was finalized). That is why we are having this discussion here now. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the expired one(s). I read you as that there was an active/current one I didn't know about. So I'm still at [2], if someone wants to to a proper WP:RM#CM at this point, they should be able to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- See the big yellow box at the top listing the past discussions, the most recent of which imposed a 1 year moratorium, which has expired (actually if you scroll just past that discussion, that's where the moratorium was finalized). That is why we are having this discussion here now. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support an extension of the current moratorium on RM discussions (by 2 years or more) - assuming that I have understood this - Arjayay (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no current moratorium, the last one expired in May. We can start a new one if we want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Technically, we're discussing whether to retroactively extend the "current" (recently expired) moratorium another couple of years. Or start a new one. Or we can do nothing and wait for the inevitable time-wasting RM proposal to appear. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm for the latter. The 2 last ones [3][4] were pretty short (but then, I'm comparing to those at Czech Republic). And we can still revert the drive-by:s per FAQ without a formal moratorium. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- You should compare the last two for this article, in the talk page archives. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- ?
- The second was about twice as big in words. Comments went on for about a week in both cases. Both had a solid conensus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's the point. A week of wasted community time. Nothing has changed since the last RM so why go through it again? ~Anachronist (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- IMO, waiting with a moratorium-suggestion until there actually is a new WP:RM#CM rhymes with "moratoriums should be used with caution, and only within limits, as they run counter to the general practice on Wikipedia that any editor may initiate a discussion on any topic related to the operations of the encyclopedia at any time (though not at any place)." That was an essay I just quoted. Consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's the point. A week of wasted community time. Nothing has changed since the last RM so why go through it again? ~Anachronist (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- You should compare the last two for this article, in the talk page archives. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm for the latter. The 2 last ones [3][4] were pretty short (but then, I'm comparing to those at Czech Republic). And we can still revert the drive-by:s per FAQ without a formal moratorium. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Technically, we're discussing whether to retroactively extend the "current" (recently expired) moratorium another couple of years. Or start a new one. Or we can do nothing and wait for the inevitable time-wasting RM proposal to appear. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is no current moratorium, the last one expired in May. We can start a new one if we want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Gråbergs Gråa Sång BilledMammal (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I support another moratorium in principle but I don't think it does any good. We still get drive-by move requests or other comments about the title on a weekly basis anyway. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- But those drive-by requests don't involve discussion. Revert and done, per the FAQ above. The moratorium is about formal WP:RM discussions. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia article FAQs
- B-Class Hinduism articles
- Mid-importance Hinduism articles
- B-Class Sri Lanka articles
- Mid-importance Sri Lanka articles
- WikiProject Sri Lanka articles
- B-Class India articles
- Mid-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class Indian geography articles
- High-importance Indian geography articles
- B-Class Indian geography articles of High-importance
- WikiProject Indian geography articles
- India articles without infoboxes
- WikiProject India articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics