Talk:2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute

Requested move 13 November 2019

 * 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 There's some discussion on whether to move to M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das & Ors but no consensus on that emerged. Anyone is free to submit an RM to probe that question specifically. (closed by non-admin page mover) Wug·a·po·des​ 08:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute → 2019 Supreme Court of India verdict on the Ayodhya dispute – More precised and proper title for the article. Hemant DabralTalk  03:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree because only refers them as "Supreme Court" implies that there are many Supreme courts in the world. So rename to that title "2019 Supreme Court of India verdict on Ayodhya dispute" Hanafi455 (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree There are many Supreme Courts in the World. Best to specify which one it is. CsikosLo (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But is there more than one Supreme Court in the world that has issued a verdict on the Ayodhya dispute? Also, shouldn't it be "the Ayodhya dispute"? —BarrelProof (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Added "the" in the proposed title. — Hemant DabralTalk  21:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no other Supreme Court in the world that gave verdict on the Ayodhya issue. People interested in this topic would already know that it is from the Supreme court of India. Others would understand when they read the very first paragraph. It is not required. Tessaracter (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree or oppose if readers set a president with other such articles, pertaining to other cases of other countries DistributorScientiae (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC).
 * Oppose Ayodhya is situated only in India and I don't think readers would be confused with the title header 2019 Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute. So I prefer to keep this title. Abishe (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose The site is in India and therefore it's only logical that the reference is to the Supreme Court of India. Making the title longer is unnecessary. Île flottante (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Ile flottante - float that island!! - and Absishe. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree - Title is too simple and we cannot assume that readers will know that Ayodhya is in India. Not our place. Newer title is better. Aviartm (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and change to M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das & Ors - According to other articles, titles of articles about case laws are their case names. Also, Indian case laws are cited in their full case names. For example:
 * Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.
 * Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
 * S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
 * Therefore, by naming convention, perhaps the title should be changed to its full case name.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Common names should be used as per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA if the common names are not inaccurate. See new section below. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 04:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
 * Therefore, by naming convention, perhaps the title should be changed to its full case name.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Common names should be used as per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA if the common names are not inaccurate. See new section below. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 04:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose and agree with that it should be changed to the actual case name.  I add several other Supreme Court of India decisions that follow this pattern:
 * Novartis v. Union of India & Others
 * Vishakha and others v State of Rajasthan
 * Rajbala v. State of Haryana
 * Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
 * It is not surprising that all of these articles are named in a similar way because they all follow which says  Consequently, this RM should be closed WP:NOTMOVED. I believe a new move request to the actual case name would gain the approval of all of those who were in favor of the current move and probably many of those who have opposed it, as it eliminates the question of whether to use "Supreme Court" or "Supreme Court of India".
 * I would suggest that "Ors" be spelled out as "Others" and that "v" have a full stop after it; this seems to be the convention in most of the SCI cases listed. We should probably also spell out "Thr Lrs" but I'm not sure what it means. YBG (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "(D)" means "deceased" and "Thr Lrs" means "through lawyers". — Hemant DabralTalk  08:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Pretty obvious that it is the Supreme Court of India in this case. I'm okay with renaming it to the case as suggested by YBG too. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Look at almost all the pages in Category:Supreme Court of India cases.  They use the name of the case, not a description of what happened.  2601:5C6:8080:100:8C37:97FB:FB05:D99A (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2019 Supreme Court of India verdict on Ayodhya dispute, support M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors per 廣九直通車 and Category:Supreme Court of India cases. – Levivich 03:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Not much difference. Current name should be retained as a reader is unlikely to type "M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors" on Google to search for this article. Common names should be used as long as they are not inaccurate as per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 04:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors if not, then 2019 Supreme Court of India verdict on Ayodhya dispute. ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan 💬 19:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Concise; country can be set out in lede and "Ayodhya" can be clicked.
 * As for the specific case name, it depends on which of that and "Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute" can be expected to ring the right bells in most people (from what has been written in papers etc). EDIT: I see there is already a section about that: "Full case-name for article title?"
 * 151.177.57.24 (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2019 (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.

Full case-name for article title?
As the creator of this article, I would like to explain why I didn't choose the full case-name for the Article title:- (I have used excessive emphasis to highlight, not to WP:SHOUT)

1)Recognizability: Recognizability is the first criteria in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Anyone searching for this article is obviously unlikely to type "M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors" on Google. They are likely to type something similar to the current article title. Ayodhya dispute is easily among the most contentious in human history; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here (just mentioning).

2)Comparison with Category:Supreme Court of India cases is unfair: All the articles listed in that category are single articles dedicated for whole topics. Whereas, there are nearly a half a dozen articles related to the Ayodhya dispute. Editors should understand that this article doesn't cover the entire Court case; it just covers the judgement-aspect of it. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 05:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Some users are citing to argue for full case name; that doesn’t apply here. As explained above, this article isn’t about the full case. It’s only about the judgement. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 06:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Standalone article?
Why do we need a standalone article for the verdict? It's obviously a very relevant part of the Ayodhya dispute, and needs to be covered in detail there anyway; and if it's bloating that article, then the logical subtopic to create a new article on is the case, not the verdict. This probably needs a merger. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merger – the main article Ayodhya dispute has no WP:PAGESIZE issues, and it seems like that's the article most readers would go to if they wanted information about this dispute and this court case. If merged, the current title, as well as M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, can be redirects. – Levivich 15:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: As per Levivich's argument. Should make a formal move proposal though. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 04:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merger: There is no compelling reason to have this be a separate article. There are several issues discussed on this talk page: (1) Should the title say "Supreme Court" or "Supreme Court of India"; (2) Should article title be the name of the legal case; and (3) Should there be a separate article for the verdict. Of these three issues, IMO we should decide this one first. YBG (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Conditionally supportbut the two articles also need to merged with Ayodhya  so the article has more complex, from background, dispute, verdict, etc. I have no problem that article size more than 100 kb Hanafi455 (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sunni Waqf board view
The article currently states the Sunni Waqf board view under "support". However, their view is more complicated than that. When the verdict was first announced, the Waqf's lawyer stated that "The Ayodhya verdict has a lot of contradictions. We will seek a review as we are not satisfied with the verdict" The board did decide on not to call for a review of the verdict, though this was not a unanimous decision. And the board is still not yet decided on whether it will accept or reject the plot of land the Supreme Court awarded to it. All of these viewpoints should be given coverage in the article.Bless sins (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please go ahead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)