Talk:Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Using the links results here was rather problematic. I looked at the links for inbound traffic and the current results are highly in favor of the current name. In addition, the links to the proposed name are skewed by its use in one template. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly → Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha — as it is more widely known by this name. Both The Indian Legislative Bodies website (http://legislativebodiesinindia.nic.in/ Legislative Bodies in India) and the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assemebly website (http://uplegisassembly.gov.in/) have mentioned its name as Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha.--Joy1963^Talk 15:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Since Hindi and English, both are official languages of india, states pick either one to call their legislatures. In this case and some other hindi speaking states name them in Hindi. Thus "Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha" is its actual name and "Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly" is the translation. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the reasons given by Joy and Sodabottle. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral; leaning towards oppose Tamil Nadu legislative assembly is often referred to as Tamil Nadu Satta Sabhai in Tamil. Does that mean we are going to move that page too? i dont think it will be a good idea. we should not confuse common name in English with common name in the local language. This should be considered in context with the fact that this is first and foremost English wikipedia. Let us have some uniformity and less confusion. --CarTick (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The wikipedia policy as stated in the WP:NC-GAL is "When writing articles on government bodies or offices with native titles not in English, an English translation should be favored, except when reliable sources in the English language commonly use the native title." Although each state legislative assembly is also referred by a name in the major languages of that particular state (the West Bengal LA is known as the Pashchimbanga Bidhan Sabha in Bengali, the Kerala LA is known as the Kerala Niyam Sabha in Malayalam), I did not suggest to move these titles. I only suggested to move the titles for only those states, where the reliable sources in English language use the Hindi title widely. Definitely, the title, Lok Sabha can not be changed to the House of the People, or the title, Rajya Sabha can not be changed to the Council of States for the sake of uniformity or avoiding confusion.Joy1963^Talk 02:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cartick, The case for TN is different. we use Tamil and English as official languages - Tamil for within TN and English for with rest of India. UP et al, have done away with English altogether and adopted Hindi for both intra and inter state communication. Thus TN assembly as two names - one in Tamil and one in English, where as UP assembly has only one name - in Hindi. The difference is clearly brought out in the legislative bodies of india site. Even in official English records, they prefer to transliterate and not translate. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. My Google Books searches (removing Wikipedia hits) show 281 results for "Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha", and about 590 results for "Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly", so it seems that the latter is more common in English usage. Dohn joe (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

the gbooks results for "uttar pradesh legislative assembly" are more because they include referrals to the pre-1950 Legislative Assembly. the UPLA was the predecessor (in the british raj) to the current setup in the indian republic. A more indicative search would for gnews articles, where vidhan sabha gets 83 hits for 1990-2011, while uttar pradesh legislative asembly gets 53 hits for 1950-2011. For the same time period (1990-2011), the number reduces to around 30. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My knowledge is very less about the search engines, but I found about 69,700 results for my search for "Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly 2011 -wikipedia" and about 351,000 results for "Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha 2011 -wikipedia", which may be an indication of the present comparative usage of these two. Please correct me, if I am wrong.Joy1963^Talk 04:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure. Many of the gnews and gbooks results for "Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly" are clearly about the current body, so both terms are currently used. This ngram also seems to show that UPLA shows up more often than UPVS. Dohn joe (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The existing name is more descriptive in English. --Bejnar (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

As already mentioned by Sodabottle, the existing name is the English translation of the original words in Hindi. So your point is definitely a valid one. But the question raised here is different. It is whether this translated name or its Hindi original should be the title of the article according to the wikipedia policy.Joy1963^Talk 08:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. Policy (WP:COMMONNAME) says don't change it. Plus common sense says don't change it. --Bejnar (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Following is the relevant wikipedia policy (WP:TITLE):

"There will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus. The principal criteria used by editors when deciding on a title for an article include:

• Recognizability – an ideal title will confirm, to readers who are familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic, that the article is indeed about that topic. One important aspect of this is the use of names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject.
• Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.
• Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously. For technical reasons, no two Wikipedia articles can have the same title. For information on how ambiguity is avoided in titles, see the Precision and disambiguation section below and the disambiguation guideline.
• Conciseness – shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones.
• Consistency – titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above."

My arguments are based on three criteria: recognizability, naturalness and consistency.

Joy1963^Talk 05:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Leaning Support. WP:COMMONNAME actually says to avoid name changes simply because one name form is "more correct" or "official" (more specifically, WP:OFFICIALNAME is helpful towards this point). However, in this particular case, the page hits clearly indicate that most of our readers are landing on this page through the "Uttar_Pradesh_Vidhan_Sabha" redirect: see [1] vs. [2]. That, along with the google search results, and a quick review of the references, supports this proposal.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that some of that volume comes from the recent changes in the links. --Bejnar (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6V2XvWRyE to http://eciresults.nic.in

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619093010/http://www.uplegassembly.nic.in/UPLL.HTML to http://www.uplegassembly.nic.in/UPLL.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619093010/http://www.uplegassembly.nic.in/UPLL.HTML to http://www.uplegassembly.nic.in/UPLL.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619093010/http://www.uplegassembly.nic.in/UPLL.HTML to http://www.uplegassembly.nic.in/UPLL.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619093010/http://www.uplegassembly.nic.in/UPLL.HTML to http://www.uplegassembly.nic.in/UPLL.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120105024731/http://upgov.nic.in/upinfo/const_setup.html to http://upgov.nic.in/upinfo/const_setup.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• UP Legislative Assembly Oct 2017.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

12th - 13th Assemblies - big gap

There is a one-year gap between the 12th and 13th assemblies, which implies no sitting government. What happened then? I think we need to explain it. - Sitush (talk) 07:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

MLAs not working properly.

After the 2017 Vidhan Sabha Elections it has been three years since the BJP Government has taken over the administration of state of Uttar Pradesh. We saw that BJP alone more than 300 seats and now the NDA Government has a total of 332 seats in the Legislative Assembly. But why do we elect a government for us? Do we elect a government only for promoting Hindutva or for creating a wall between different religions. No, we elect a government so that it frame policies which will benefit the people. We elect a government so that it provides it's poor citizens all the necessities of the life so that they can lead a comfortable life. But no, this Government is just only creating a wall between the people. The MLAs are not working properly. They are not doing anything which will benefit the people. The infrastructure in the capital city of Uttar Pradesh i.e. Lucknow is also of low standard. There are many people who will say that there is Metro rail, good roads, flyovers, international cricket stadium etc in Lucknow . What else do you want? I say I want a state in which there is no income inequality. A state where there is no power shortage, good education system (although the past governments have also done nothing to improve the quality of education in the state), less amount of deforestation, low level of pollution, low infant deaths, no cases of women molestation and better distribution of fruits of development. There are many parts in Uttar Pradesh where the infrastructure quality is very poor especially eastern UP.If the Government would take steps to develop the state on a good development policy based on socialism and human welfare then it would favour BJP in winning the LA elections once again as well as us who will proud to live in such a state. What others think about this topic I would like to know. Thank you. Vande Maateram! Reju2003 (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)