Talk:One Hundred and Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India

Article Title

Dear @PadFoot2008, Greetings.

This is regarding the renaming of this article page from Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam to Women's Reservation Bill 2023, you performed on 23 September 2023.

Assuming that you already have an idea of forced hindification, I won't try to explain you about the linguistics and etymology. However, I am writing this to point out something which has a tendency to be overlooked in these instances.

WP:EN states that the title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources. It seems you are emphasizing on the name of the subject that is most common in the English language. Please consider the other part - as you would find it in reliable sources - as well. The sources mention the name of this legislation AS IT IS. The references of Indian media publications cited in the article are of good repute. Even the international sources under WP:RS/P like BBC and Time use the same terminology AS IT IS. The 128th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2023 was officially introduced in Indian parliament as Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam.

One might counter this with the argument that the article names not originally in English language/Latin script, must be translated/transliterated into terms/characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English. Nonetheless, if there is a common English form of the name, then it is preferred over a systematically transliterated name. This makes sense as this is, after all, English Wikipedia!

But it is to be noted that where there is an English word or an exonym for the subject but a native version is more common in English-language usage, the English name should be mentioned but should not be used as the article title. Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used - as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam is the obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by almost all the sources listed. Although official and original names can be often used for article titles (with discretion), the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.

WP:ENGLISH is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

Consider another edit with same logic where usage of the native word Sansad Bhavan (with wikilink) was changed to the English terminology of Parliament House. This is an interesting contrast to the existing article page of Vigyan Bhawan. In general and widely popular usage, nobody calls it as Science Building! Even though it is not from English origin, Vigyan Bhawan is the logical article page name.

There can be numerous such examples. Nobody knows Victory Tower in Delhi. There is no Wikipedia article on Delhi's "Victory Tower". But you can read all about it in the article Qutb Minar. Those who built it and brought it into existence, they named it as Qutb Minar. That is how it is most commonly known. Ever heard of the famous Crown Palace in India? The one which is in Agra and considered to be among the seven wonders! Yes, the Taj Mahal. It was named by its creator and the whole world refers it by its original name. Hardly a few Indians can relate with the Clean India Mission, but almost all citizens recognize Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan. On a global scene, how many people have heard about Moon-Carriage? I bet the term Chandrayaan is widely popular.

Referring to anything in the same terminology which it originally acquired from its creators makes sense. The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all frequently used names by which its subject is widely known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin script, this representation should be included along with a Latin alphabet transliteration. If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources. But in this case, sources in both English and non-English languages refer to this legislation as Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam. It is not our business to predict popularity and/or usage, but rather to observe what is and has been in use and will therefore be familiar to our readers.

In the previous decade, the legislation was called as Women's Reservation Bill, 2010. This time it has been given a new and unique name - which all the reliable sources talks about. At the end, even though we may be driven by our own limited understanding and inclinations, the goal of editors must be to provide reliable information AS IT IS.

Your contributions to Wikipedia is highly appreciated. Thank You. Happy Editing! Anand2202 (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I have seen the news regarding this, and had never even heard the name before coming across this article. Wikipedia guidelines mention that it is important that the name must be a common name in English language sources not the official one. Most simply call it the Women's Reservation Bill, not Nari Shakti ... as you claim. I don't imagine it ever becoming commonly referred to as in the other name. Also, most monuments in non-English countries like Germany and France are obviously in German and French respectively, not in English, but we still use their English translations. All acts introduced in the French and German legislatures are in French and German, respectively. We still use English translations as this is the English Wikipedia. Besides most people are likely to search up Women's Reservation Bill 2023 not Nari Shakti ..., probably even in the Hindi Wikipedia; do read WP:COMMONNAME. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Move to Women's Reservation Bill (2023)

Taking note of the pages already existing related to this matter, for the sake of consistency in Naming, can we change the Name to a Single Common Format, as one have parentheses for year other doesn't. Women's Reservation Bill (2010) and this current one as Women's Reservation Bill 2023

@Anand2202 @PadFoot2008 Tagging you as you were recently involved with the topic. Karan.jr.Singh (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Karan.jr.Singh, you have my support but please create a new section and use Template:Requested move. It's syntax looks something like this:

{{subst:Requested move | NewName|reason=Why... }}

PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)