Jump to content

Talk:Adam's Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



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. There is currently a WP:MORATORIUM on such discussions, which ends 16 September, 2025.

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.

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)[reply]

331dot, is this an ongoing problem? Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm not opposed to treating it this way. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

For the interested, here's an ngram:[5] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...which demonstrates that nothing has changed, so new RM proposals will go nowhere and be a waste of time. Extrapolating those curves suggests that a moratorium on RM proposals for at least six more years would be appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? I hope your suggestion of this absurdly long moratorium wasn't serious. I agree that a moratorium is not needed for drive-by comments anyway, it won't help. If it is enacted, it should be done "with caution", as the policy suggests, not with half a decade at once. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extrapolations of data should never be taken seriously. I thought that was understood. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fairly solid support above for a new moratorium lasting at least one year, but no consensus for a duration longer than that. Therefore, I have re-inserted the statement about the moratorium in the FAQ at the top of this page and set the end date a year from this comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming Ramsetu to Ramsetu

[edit]

There has been many discussion on how people outside India knows this as Adam's Bridge and not RamSetu. And many discussions diverted to who built it, authenticity of Ramayana etc. 

 Such diversion is hurting the actual intent of the move request and hurting the core concept of wikipedia, to provide accurate information.
 From oldest scripture of India this structure is known as Rama-Setu, Ramsetu and so an so. So the world need to know what it is by its original name. Because some English scholars preferred to call it Adam's Bridge, and that name was told to everyone else by Wikipedia itself, doesn't change the fact that historically it has been known as Rama-Setu and everyone in India only know that name. 
 Today my friend from US asked me about "Adam's Bridge" and I had no idea. Then I came to know that people are being told that it is called Adam's bridge. The world need to be told what is the original name of the structure as per local history and scriptures.

Imagine a Chinese scholar publish the name "Jùshí zhèn" for Stonehenge and it becomes common name for it. Will Wikipedia tell that outside of England, everyone calls it "Jùshí zhèn" hence everyone must be told that name only? 

 Here the discussion should not be around who built it. Who named it to what and when. Fact must be established on the following points:
 - What is the name Indians use for the structure
 - What is the oldest available scripture that names this structure
 - How long the name has been used continuously in India, was there a discontinuity?

The decision need to taken here is: - Does Wikipedia want the world to know a structure by its original name? OR - Does Wikipedia want to propagate the name preferred by a few biased foreign scholars?

If the name "Adam's Bridge" has been told to the rest of the world by some article and to a larger extent Wikipedia has been a part of it propagating the wrong name; that doesn't means that mistake should not be correct.

Lets start critically review the articles that refer this structure by an alien name and their sources and origin of the name. Sudhir.khamari (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQ, and read the article. We discuss both names in the article. Meters (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a moratorium on discussions about renaming this article. The local name is described in this article. If you want to work to change policy that articles are titled based on the most common name in English language reliable sources, that's not done on this page. That would also be a massive undertaking affecting hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of articles. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sudhir.khamari: If you had actually read this article beyond just the title, you would not have written that screed. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam%27s_Bridge&oldid=1251679492"