This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
@Black Falcon The district administration uses "Kumuram Bheem" only as of now. Please see [1]. In Regarding the state administration links you provided, it appears that they still need to update their websites. It always takes time. For eg, see the url above still shows "Asifabad" only. Also "Kumuram" is in classical Telugu, pure Telugu or bookish Telugu (different people call it differently). The word "Komaram" is in local dialect of Telugu in the district. I think local dialect should prevail above pure one, since it will more satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, I believe. So WP:BOLD. The Wikipedia community can always discuss same and take appropriate action (retain or revert). If the consensus is to retain old name/official name/common name, the only correct options would be Asifabad, Kumuram BheemorKomaram Bheem respectively, not a combination. Thanks Vatsmaxed (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Falcon Thanks, Both "Kumuram Bheem" and "Komaram Bheem" would be fine, but as per my opinion, "Komaram Bheem" would be better keeping in view of future. Also I agree that "district" should be used to be consistent with most other articles. Vatsmaxed (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vatsmaxed: I have moved the article to "Komaram Bheem district" (lowercase "district"), and I thank you for your willingness to share information during our exchange. Cheers, -- Black Falcon(talk)00:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DaxServer: Haven't dug deep into it but "Asifabad district" (including Komaram Bheem Asifabad; 265 hits) is routinely used in news over just "Komaram Bheem district" (60 hits).
What's the difference between the first page and the last page? Did I miss any search combinations?
[3] today; mentions Asifabad dist and then Kumuram Bheem Asifabad district and then reverts to Asifabad dist in the same article. sigh. TOI articles seem to mention Kumuram Bheem Asifabad
I don't really see a consistency here. For a page move to Kumaram Bheem Asifabad, or to any other, I'd say perhaps not now. The GO link (archived) you shared also has inconsistent names. Page #3 mentions it as "Kumarambheem" and "Komram Bheem"; #4 states "Komaram Bheem". Also from the name of the file, it looks like a draft? Do you have any link for the gazette notification?
Apart from it, I'd say removing the former name I added and stating "officially known as Kumaram Bheem Asifabad district" (citing [8] or an RS when the name is changed) might be due? -- DaxServer (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DaxServer: I was told by a fellow editor that we get inflated results in the first page. Regarding the name, I'll try to find the gazette notification. As of now, I'd support naming the article "Komaram Bheem Asifabad district" per WP:COMMONNAME and note other official and alternate spelling(s) in the lead. This is consistent with other districts in the state that are named after people (Jayashankar Bhupalpally district, Rajanna Sircilla district, Jogulamba Gadwal district etc) where its [person] + [district headquarters] format. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, an RM might help in getting views from other people, not sure about an RfC. Posting in WT:IN might be a good idea before opening an RM, actually? Re alternative spellings, I don't think in lead, but maybe a mention in a history section? I wouldn't put much emphasis on them as they just might be a spelling mistakes. Not to mention once again, a lot of inconsistencies. -- DaxServer (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If an alternate spelling is widely used, then it may be mention in the lead per WP:DUE. I think an RM can settle the issue. Opening a thread at WT:IN would split the discussion, although a note about RM would be helpful. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
-- Ab207 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
