Talk:BAPS Shri Swaminarayan mandir (Robbinsville, New Jersey)

Duplicate of Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Jersey)

I've declined the A10 in favour of starting a discussion. @Schwinnspeed: deliberately split this from Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Jersey) but it is not clear why these are two separate topics. CAn you please explain what is going on? -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Whpq:. My thoughts were pretty straightforward but to recap, there is no new information on this page that isn't on the original page. The original page has more info and history. Both pages are of the same location/temple. This page just strips out info from the original page (some of which has been contentious recently and attempts to have it removed on that page are ongoing. See history and talk page of the original page). If there is anything new on this page that isn't on the other one, maybe I am missing it and it can probably be added there. I don't see a reason to have two separate pages for the same place is all. Thanks for reviewing Kbhatt22 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: - I agree this article should be WP:BLAR'ED to Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Jersey). - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Whpq: Thanks for the opportunity to provide background and context. These are NOT the same temple - they are two separate structures that are on the same campus. This page is in reference to the Robbinsville temple, which was inaugurated in 2014. The other page is in reference to Swaminarayan Akshardham, which opened in 2023. Before the page move was made, there was substantial discussion on the talk page [1], [2], establishing that a single page with intricate details about both structures was confusing. There were several instances where photos, milestone dates, architectural stats for one (i.e., the smaller temple), would be confused with the other (which is the 2nd largest hindu temple and has received significant coverage around this fact).

The information is not duplicative, I'd highly encourage @Kbhatt22 and @Ratnahastin to look at it a little more closely. There are relevant facts and figures that are notable for each and should be covered on their own subpage per WP:Notability and WP:Summary, even if they are part of the same complex. There are countless examples of this where wikipedia has separate pages for distinct landmarks that may sit on a single complex: Disneyworld and Space Mountain (Magic Kingdom), Ellis Island and Statue of Liberty, Rockerfeller Center and 30 Rockefeller Plaza, or St. Peter's Basilica, St. Peter's Baldachin, Vatican City are a few instances that come immediately to mind.

I acknowledge there is ongoing discussion on the other page about contentious content but I see no reason to bring that onto this page for something that was built a decade before and still remains a distinct and separate entity. The page doesn't strip out relevant details as @Kbhatt22 is suggesting.

Again, @Kbhatt22 @Ratnahastin, I'd highly encourage a closer read of the actual content. And an actual discussion vs a speedy delete nomination or deleting content within a few hours citing WP:BLAR. @Whpq, appreciate you starting this conversation and allowing others to contribute. Schwinnspeed (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It is the same campus by your own description. It has the same geographical coordinates and the same address. It should live on the original page and just capture the historical progression, which it already did, of this temple from start to now. There really is no reason to capture the first 10 years on one page and the last 2 or 3 on another. Its duplicating the information because the original page still has the history of the first 10 years. It also has a robust enough section for what you are trying to replicate on this page 1. Kbhatt22 (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's a redundant content fork. Ideally it should be summarised and merged to the main article again. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22This was the reason I provided a few examples of landmarks above that are on the same campus (ie., same address) that have different pages - this is not a new concept - these are distinct structures with different notable attributes. This pretty clearly fits the criteria for WP:N and WP:Summary. What content do you feel like is duplicated here? Regardless it warrants a discussion and not a speedy deletion or WP:BLAR Schwinnspeed (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The examples are not good comparisons. Disney world is almost 28,000 acres. This temple in question is a mere fraction at 185 acres with the temple occupying a small portion of that. Disney world is not on the same address as you are suggesting. It spans hundreds of different addresses actually. Same with Rockefeller plaza and having 19 separate buildings with different addresses along 49th and 50th. If anything your examples show that the two pages in question lack unique addresses. Simply put, a temple was made in 2010 with plans for a bigger one that was completed in 2020 on the same grounds. There is no need to have this as two separate pages. There are other globally prominent Hindu temples such as Chhatarpur and Prambanan that have way more temples on the same compound and are not broken out in the way you are trying to do here. Swaminarayan himself, founder of this entire faith, has 6 temples he created and none of them are split out into multiple pages and they are original to the faiths creation. There is no reason to split the baps temple into two pages. Seems excessive and inconsistent with how other Hindu temples have been treated on Wiki. The baps has a long history of POV pushing by pro baps socks 1 resulting in dozens of accounts being banned over the years. Its best not to emulate that behavior by treating the baps temple differently then the consistent nature of how Hindu temples are shared for informational use on Wiki. @Whpq: I think thoughts have been shared and ultimately leave the decision in your hands. Kbhatt22 (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

One point being missed here Whpq is that this page is a child article of the parent article per WP:SUMMARY. To summarize, during the discussion, Schwinnspeed had pointed out on the talk [1] that because there are two main structures on the campus (as mentioned in the article), which were built and opened at two different times, lead to confusion- like the infobox had info related to the structure that opened in 2014, even though the main topic of the article was the new structure that opened in 2023, and there were different construction/inauguration dates etc. So then consensus at that time [2] was to create a child article per WP:SUMMARY.

As it says "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article. It also contains a link back to the parent article and enough information about the broader parent subject to place the subject in context for the reader, even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles."

So regardless if the structures share the same coordinates/geolocation or even size, it has nothing to do with the policy given that other Wikipedia pages have used this approach. In fact, the other two temples mentioned such as Chhatarpur Temple and Prambanan could possibly also have child articles for their other structures/temples depending on if they meet notability criteria of their own. @Kbhatt22 would be happy to work with you on these to help improve them, if interested. But, in any case, I also don't understand how POV pushing is relevant here. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Eucalyptusmint. I appreciate you understanding that all the other Hindu temples do not get separate pages for components of them. That is a standard practice for Hindu temples across Wiki and I do not think the baps should get special treatment. Consistency is a good thing.

Sorry to tag you for a quick opinion @Joshua_Jonathan if you have a moment. Feeling a tinge of deja vu but hoping this is a quick skim read for your thoughts. Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Utterly confusing articles. Both are shoe-horsed with details about 'largest this-and-that', sacred this-and-that, and laundry-lists with measures of length, height, etc. - but not a decent introductory sentence which says that 'the BAPS mandir-complex contains two mandirs, namely....' The articles are imprenetable for an outsider. My suggestion (sorry Kbhatt22): split-off the other mandir as well, and rename the campus-section as an overview and introductory article - and keep uninvolved (non-BAPS, non-Hindu) readers in mind; as it is now, it's a confusing bore to read, bowling down to 'look how big my mandir is!' Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't be sorry at all as I always welcome your assessment and guidance. I think what you propose makes sense. I just needed salient reasoning as vague comparisons to Disney world weren't making a whole lot of sense and the articles as they sat had too much fluff. Concise, maybe shortened, non braggadocious overviews work I think. Kbhatt22 (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Do you think the charitable section really adds any value to this page? Kbhatt22 (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Whpq,

Initially I expressed my concerns and disagreed regarding the decision to split the page, but most of the users came to consensus that article needed to be split. Reviewing the reasons now, I don’t have any counterarguments to offer as to why the page should not be split.

That said, my primary concern lies with the behavior of @Kbhatt22. While I understand the importance of referencing the SPI investigation to provide historical context, the accusations being made—essentially alleging a conspiracy to split pages with the intent to remove specific content—are troubling. The exact words:

"A common practice of the socks from 2021 was when the desired narrative was not allowed, create a new page with desired narrative, let the discussion on the original page die down, merge the original page into the duplicate after some staged consensus stacking and during the merge add or remove the desired content."

He acknowledges in the next sentence that this isn’t happening here, so I guess it is not relevant to the decision about this situation. But, I think it would be helpful if he could provide specific instances from 2021 BAPS SPI investigation where these exact kind of manipulations by sock accounts occurred - for my reference?

@Ratnahastin - there was also a concern raised about SPAs- here, and @Kbhatt22's edit history, it appears most, if not almost all, of their edits are in one topic, pushing a particular POV coupled with a pattern of revisiting previously formed consensus and making unfounded accusations, I believe this behavior warrants attention and appropriate action.

Thanks

SpunkyGeek (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@SpunkyGeek: Well hello. I don't think my behavior has ever been questionable as I do my best to source edits the best I can and make minor enhancements. My statement you are quoting is simply letting @Ratnahastin know of prior sock behavior. Letting him know there is history of such behavior in the past. I made it clear, per your own omission, that I am not saying its happening here but to his concerns, there have been instances of bad acting on this content space before. I am also not one of the accounts Ratnahastin is calling into question as SPA. Lets not sidetrack with personal attacks and keep this discussion focused. Kbhatt22 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22, how can you be so certain that @Ratnahastin wasn’t referring to you—unless there’s some indirect communication taking place (which, I trust, is not the case)?

Examining your edit history in comparison with the editors involved in the split discussion, it is evident that you have made significant contributions to Swaminarayan-related topics, which is not true for other editors. A notable portion of your edits are focused on these subjects, revealing a clear pattern of consistent involvement. Interestingly, your activity appears to have resumed on Wikipedia (since last year) primarily after significant edits were made to these pages - 1 and 2 —edits you seemingly disagreed with. Additionally, all your edits are exclusively on Swaminarayan-related topics from February 2023.  

Given these observations, if @Ratnahastin wasn’t referring to you, then to whom was it addressed?

However, @Whpq we might have to run a SPA test  – as Kbhatt22 seems to be the odd one out here – basically to check if he’s pushing a particular POV on these pages or not.

Nothing personal - just some obvious observations.

Thanks SpunkyGeek (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You are assuming so much bad faith that it is becoming difficult to make sense out of what you are saying. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

@SpunkyGeek Those are some very weak arguments to distract from the ongoing discussion of this page. My edits are sourced and I went off articles that come in the news. My edits last year were the only coverage of that branch that made the news and it started from an IP removing sourced info. You are grasping for straws. Do you have anything to contribute to the actual discussion here of merit? Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for my delayed response. I've not had much time for Wikipedia recently, and for the near future. This is really a content issue as to whether a separate article is warranted. This doesn't need any administrative action to decide so the regular discussion should be used to resove it as you ahve been doing. Just be sure to assume good fatih and be civil in the discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Consensus oppose Qalb alasid (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge

I propose merging BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir Robbinsville into Swaminarayan Akshardham (New Jersey). This temple exists on the same campus and has the same coordinates as the Akshardham one. Akshardham article also includes information about many structures on the campus such as BAPS Swaminarayan Research Institute,Welcome Center,Nilkanth Plaza and Brahma Kund. There is no reason to have a separate article for a temple already on the campus. This article is also a redundant content fork that is already somewhat covered there, however some content from here can be summarised and introduced over there too while keeping WP:DUE weightage in mind. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - and suggest to create a short, introductory article on the BAPS Robertsville temple complex, linking to separate articles on both mandirs. CE the articles for clarification. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: see reasons [3] [4] that were previously identified in the thread originally started by admin whpq Schwinnspeed (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per @Schwinnspeed Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 16:21, 10 December 2024 (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.