Talk:Port Blair

Requested move 13 September 2024

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. Per WP:SNOW (closed by non-admin page mover) — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 14:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Port Blair → Sri Vijaya Puram – The India government officially changed the name of the city from it's previous name of Port Blair to the new name of Sri Vijaya Puram — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 18:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Favonian (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Too soon, the city renamed today only. The WP:COMMONNAME wouldn't change for quite some time. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above. The name is still very new. The move should be done after it gains enough traction. Waonderer (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Name is still too unknown. Looks like it is only announced today. The existing redirect is sufficient for now. The Banner talk 19:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Far, far too soon - Bangalore was renamed in 2006, but we still use Bangalore, not Bengaluru - come back in a few years - Arjayay (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I have no issues with retaining existing name and only added to proposed move as there was a lot of traffic updating the city name at once. — Mr Xaero ^☎️ 19:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. It's far too soon to determine the common name. O.N.R. ^(talk) 19:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose too soon only renamed today WP:COMMONNAME will not change for sometime.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I support changing the name of Port Blair to Sri Vijaya Puram, as this is the original name of the place right now. Also, to add the old name inside in the article. VNC200 (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too soon, as already mentioned by other editors. Ekdalian (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too soon! Also, people will stil call it Port Blair for years Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Transport/Maritime transport task force, WikiProject Indian cities, WikiProject Transport, WikiProject Cities, and Noticeboard for India-related topics have been notified of this discussion. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose not a common name yet.Ratnahastin (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: To soon to change, the new name is not a WP:COMMONNAME yet. GrabUp - Talk 08:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and close per WP:SNOW. Dympies (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2024 (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.

Port Blair

The text you are removing is backed up by the given source. When you think the source is unreliable, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for a discussion about the merits of the source. The Banner talk 13:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Nobody doubts that the source India TV news is a Godi media source and the sentence has been refuted by the independent source. For example, this article from CNN said: "What seems patently clear to me is that this proposed rebranding has nothing to do with stamping out the vestiges of a reviled colonial past. The goal, which has been at the forefront of the Modi government’s agenda, is to erase every facet of Indian history that doesn’t feed its right-wing Hindu ideology." You should self-revert. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for making clear that you have a political agenda here. And please note that we work based on sources, not on opinions. The Banner talk 13:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FOC. These attempts to derail the discussion won't work. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The Banner but why are you using a government source?[1] Primary sources cannot be used in this case. Dympies (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources are not illegal but independent sources are preferred. So when you have them, please add them. The Banner talk 13:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

But even so, when he thinks that the source is a "lap dog media", the correct way is to discuss the merits of the source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The Banner talk 14:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have already provided you with a CNN source. You are not following the discussion. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

You mean the opinion piece? That is not a source conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 17:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

You should have refrained from using primary source since the edit war happened over the credibility of the cited source. The problem is not just with the source here but the information itself. Dympies (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

We follow the sources, not opinions. The Banner talk 17:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• @The Banner:, the statement about removal of colonial era stuff is POV and doesn't need to be in the lede. Additionally, the rationale for name change is undue weight in the lede. It can be mentioned in the body somewhere, not lede. @Ratnahastin: I agree with you that the source might be Godi but as long as it's unreliability is not properly established in RSN with a consensus, it is a reliable source for Wikipedia and there is no harm citing them. So, you can proceed to RSN for further discussions. Finally, you both are nearing WP:3RR in the article, a WP:CTOPS. Consider this as the 3RR warning given. Kindly refrain from reverting anyone anymore in this article. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)