Talk:Rajahmundry

Requested move 4 August 2021

 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Rajahmundry → Rajamahendravaram – The city's name has been changed officially into Rajahmendravaram. It's page name should also be changed on the lines of Tiruchirapalli, Thoothukudi & Thiruvananthapuram etc.,. Rajahmundry is the common name according to WP:COMMON NAME. But a new name becomes a common name only when it is used often in pages like Wikipedia and moreover the name is changed to represent the city's history, so the old name still can also be used as an also known name. So no issue when a new name is used as the previous name still is used in the page's detail section. So, I request to please move the page to Rajamahendravaram. Chinnusaikrish (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC) (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose as Rajahmundry (172,000) is being more widely used than Rajamahendravaram (24,600). Also 1 year moratorium. I also support speedy close on the grounds that the nominator has already raised the same request twice in the past 10 months, this being the third, and has failed to prove the WP:COMMONNAME. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close in addition to 1 year moratorium as suggested by DaxServer. There is no reason to set aside Rajahmundry which is still the COMMONNAME of the city. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose wait until press uses it. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. By nom's own admission the common name has not changed and this RM is an attempt to speed the process. But this is exactly the way in which we do not wish to see Wikipedia used, and that is a fundamental policy. I would support a moratorium, but perhaps a very tightly scoped TBAN prohibiting nom from ever raising another such RM would be more appropriate. They just do not get it. It's not punishment, but just to protect Wikipedia against this utter waste of time. Andrewa (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)