Talk:Padmavathi Temple

Requested move 21 July 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Whether to remove the location is a different discussion, as there is not enough input here to decide. (Of course it gets more Ghits that way; that happens any time you remove a dab.) Placing the location after the name (as proposed) is clearer for readers who might think that "Tiruchanur" is a deity. — kwami (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Sri Padmavathi Ammavari Temple, Tiruchanur → Padmavathi Temple, Tiruchanur – as per naming conventions Vin09 (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

or can be moved to Tiruchanur Padmavathi Temple.--Vin09 (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Article titles are supposed to be the WP:Common name in English. Although Google searches are not the only factor, and often return wildly different results every time the search is re-run, they gave me the following results:-

• The current title Sri Padmavathi Ammavari Temple, Tiruchanur has 8,620 results
• The first proposal Padmavathi Temple, Tiruchanur has 20,100 results
• The second proposal Tiruchanur Padmavathi Temple has 20,400 results
• I then tried Sri Padmavathi Ammavari Temple which has 304,000 results.

The only Sri Padmavathi Ammavari Temple on Wikipedia, is this one, so we do not need to disambiguate the title by adding the location - For all I know there may be other Sri Padmavathi Ammavari Temples, but the only one that appears in the first 40 google-hits is this temple, although it is variously described as being at Tiruchanur, Tiruchanoor, Tirupati or Chittoor district.
So, even if there is another "Sri Padmavathi Ammavari Temple", within Wikipedia's guidelines there is no need to add the place-name, (especially as the place name can refer to the village, the town or the district, and is also spelled in different ways) until an article is written about another temple with the same name. - Arjayay (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Arjayay:But as per wiki Sri, Lord, Swamy are not required in titles. Like Tirumala Venkateswara Temple, Hanuman Temple, Sarangpur, Lakshmi Temple, Khajuraho India, Meenakshi Amman Temple etc.--Vin09 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point Vin09, but this doesn't normally apply if it is the proper, official, name; only if it is being applied to a person as an honorific.
This search shows that (ignoring Sri Lanka articles) there are 481 Wikipedia articles with "Sri" in the title, I can't refine the search to remove some names that shouldn't be there.
We accept Sri Avadhuth Kasinayana mandal, Sri Rampai LRT Station etc., as these are the official names and would be silly without them.
We also accept numerous temples such as Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple, Shivanasamudra Sri Vadaranyeswarar Temple, Sri Aghora Veerapathra Temple etc.. So, is Sri part of the official title, or not? - Arjayay (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Ok lets see any more views.--Vin09 (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

At first I also thought to remove "sri" but if it is an official name of the temple then we have strong reason to keep it. But still, even if it is a official name still we should look for which is a common name. For example, very famous temple of deity Vitthal is named as Vitthal Temple, Pandharpur while official name of the temple is Sri Vitthal Rukmini Temple. They have written official name in infobox of the article. Most of these articles are started by followers or devotees of that god and they will obviously start it with glorifying that particular god. Moreover I will support to keep city's name in title, because such locally popular gods usually has temple in every village, town and city in that region. Many times they are big and spacious but they just don't get any mention on online sources. Though this temple is probably the primary temple of this god, still there should be city's name, most of time temples are known by city name. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  12:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unnecessary disambiguation

In view of this post by the closer of the above RM, I have boldly removed the geographical disambiguator. There seems absolutely no justification for it.

I considered going to MR to reopen the RM on the grounds that the rationale as per naming conventions appears to be false and the closer appears to have been unaware of this, see the diff above and Talk:Meenakshi Amman Temple#This is a mess, or of raising a fresh RM, but as the target was a redlink and no sysop powers were needed, I decided that the bold approach was best in this instance. Andrewa (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)