Talk:Kharbav railway station

MOVE the page with no source

Tell me please, Superfast1111, how you can MOVE a page with no data to support you? Or do you just trust the sign photograph? As it turns out, Indiarailinfo supports you, but without a reference, no reader can trust the move or anything on the page. Rhadow (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rhadow, We need to be able to trust Indian Railways not to misspell the station names to begin with although it has happened in the past (https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/mumbai/other/vile-parle-ville-parle-vile-parale-virle-parle/articleshow/15753788.cms). The other problem is that local variations of the spellings may exist.

As far as trusting the sign photograph is concerned, since I took the image myself I would like to trust it.

Lastly, if you visit IRCTC website (which is a fully owned subsidiary of Indian Railways), it also spells the name as "Kharbav".

Screen Shot for Dispute resolution

I take it that your query has been satisfactorily addressed. Superfast1111 (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Superfast1111, you are to be commended for yeoman's duty improving all these articles. Yes, the spelling of this station is Kharbav, substantiated by an Indiarailinfo reference, added after your change. It is a primary source, sufficient for a routine detail like station name. Unfortunately, it is insufficient to establish notability. If it is the only source, it has to be one we rely on. Are Indiarailinfo entries ever wrong? Occasionally perhaps. But personal observations, even photographs of a sign, are WP:OR. Correctness is not the objective of WP, it is replication of reliable sources, which are occasionally wrong. I would ask that if you MOVE other articles, you supply a reference, that's all. You went to the effort to create a screen shot. Is it too much to ask that you add this reference to the article? Rhadow (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Hello once again Rhadow, Policies unfortunately are quite complex & read more like something written by a lawyer like a legal document rather than by a layman (who I believe comprise the bulk of Wikipedia editors). This results in the matter remaining un-clarified (My correspondence with Yann between 26-28 September).

Once he addressed the specific issue, the matter was understood by me & addressed right away. Why to complicate matters when a simple solution exists.

Policy

The problem was the Advertisement which could have been simply stated rather I was sent on a wild goose chase of Derivative Works. Simplifying the wordings or addressing the specific situation would have helped. Superfast1111 (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Derivative works are not the point. The point is that NO articles should exist without references, as this one did. Rhadow (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)