Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 64

< Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Bearcat in topic Mayors
Archive 60←Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66→Archive 70

Multiple Indicscript in infoboxes are out of control

Latest comment: 7 years ago213 comments23 people in discussion

Just one of the IPs constantly adding multiple Indicscripts to infoboxes. I'm considering opening an RfC on this (wherein we impose a limit to one, or even zero Indicscripts per infobox). Because I thought we had consensus, and suddenly we didn't. Which I actually was originally for. But now I am seeing that we're left with a situation which seems increasingly unmanageable—for those of us in the front line, that is. Or is it not a problem having multiple Indicscripts per infobox? El_C 09:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please do start an RfC. Get an admin on board. I really feel there shouldn't be any non-English Indian scripts in either the lead sentence or the infobox. Even in language pages, it is better to have a picture with an ancient, or for that matter, not so ancient, insciption written in the language's script. I say that out of frustration with the India-related pages born of long experience, after more than ten years on Wikipedia. I firmly believe that if you make any exception, the POV-pushers will find a loophole. So, zero for lead sentence, and zero for infobox. Look at Britannica's Sanskrit- or Hindi language; they don't have scripts up top. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I am an admin and I was enforcing WP:INDICSCRIPT (see this), including issuing blocks to repeat offenders. El_C 05:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
That's User:Shivamj again. Pinging @Doug Weller:. I agree. It's time to get rid of this whole indic script thing. India, with its multiplicity of languages and scripts, is not well designed for the inclusion of indic scripts anywhere in our articles. --regentspark (comment) 11:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with F&F and RP. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with the need to curb the exuberance of scripts in certain cases, but I think any overall ban would be ridiculous. – Uanfala (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Uanfala: How will you curb it, without banning it? Please be specific. "Ridiculous" is no actionable strategy for curbing it. How many scripts will you allow for India? If you say, "Hindi and English," the official languages of the Republic of India, then should they apply only to the official names of that republic? How many scripts for Kashmir, which not long ago had four or five? For Sanskrit, which of the modes of transmission from its 3500 year-old history will you use to represent it in the infobox: oral 1500BCE-500 CE, Brahmi 200BCE to 200CE, Sarada 200CE to (?) or Devanagari (?) to today? For Uttarakhand, a state in India—whose politicians, have made Sanskrit a second official language, despite very few speakers of Sanskrit there—will you render the state's name in Hindi and Sanskrit only, giving no hint of Garhwali or Kumaoni that actually are spoken there? For British Raj whose official languages were English, Persian, and Hindustani, which ones will you allow, and will Hindustani be written in the Nastaliq script or Devanagari? If both, which one will be higher in the infobox, or come first in the lead sentence? For a BLP, such as Raghuram Rajan, whose name is ancestrally Tamil, but who appears never to have lived in South India, and for all we know, might not be a speaker of Tamil, should we allow a Tamil rendering? If not, should we similarly disallow all such scripts in any Indian BLP? If not, when do we allow and when not? In other words, how are people who are looking to maintain Wikipedia—across many pages in whose material they have little expertise—to proceed? Or are you suggesting that in effect we proceed on a case-by-case basis by having thousands of little talk page RfCs and let those who are awake decide where to roll out the carpet for Napolini and worry where his train will stop? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the examples, they'll definitely be useful for testing any future proposals. However, I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. I've commented before on the topic, and I'd be happy to comment again if a new RfC is started. I raised my voice in this thread only to prevent the false appearance of unanimity. – Uanfala (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Then you should have said just that, for in any discussion whether an actual RfC or one leading to it, statements that betray displeasure but don't betray rationale, are of little value. You may agree with someone's arguments for reasons that they have already given, but if you disagree, then you need to explain why. But, fair enough, @El C:, why don't you start an RfC? Here, I imagine. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Indicscript in infoboxes

Summary--There is strong consensus to oppose Indicscripts in infoboxes.

Details and analysis--The primary widely prevalent reason among the participants to clamp down on the use of Indic scripts was because of the inncessant edit-warring and disruption associated with ethno-lingiustic editing on the topic.

The opposers to this proposal have argued that the idea of blanket bans on native scripts in infoboxes is not a solution and is analogical to the idea of throwing the baby out with the bathwater .But in the light of the arguments put forward, the benefits of the policy seem to far-outweigh the detrimentous effects.The assumption that some users will repeatedly keep adding indicscripts to infoboxes, even after being informed of the IS convention does not ring well with me since policy-based warnings and subsequent preventative remedies work clearly well in lessening diruptiove activities, which is clearly impossible in absence of any consensus for the same..

Further, some has oppposed the idea of creating a project-specific rule--specifically when this has not to be invoked/used in other multi-language projects.But at the same time, it's really hard-pressing to think of articles where a single script would suffice in a country like India sprewn with hundreds of names( in different languages) covering a same topic/subject.

Further, when the opposers were presented with specific cases which included choosing from a variety of IndicScript choices, their answer fails to satify me. Also, while this formulation may lead to a missing out on sources on the subject due to an inability to transliterate, the chance of a user proficient in both the languages but unable to transliterate is just meagre esp. when when there is nothing preventing the inclusion of these scripts in the body of the article.

While some has suggested a middle ground of one IndicScript per infobox the culmination of the same looks to be more disastrous---given that the participants are numerous and thus the competition more intense!

Caveats-

  • There is consensus articles that discuss a particular Indic script and articles on texts composed in a particular script would be exempt to this formulation.
  • On borderline cases of usage of IndicScripts such as in in Template:Infobox Chinese an admin may use his/her discretionary authority.
  • There has been cases of conflicts between this formulation and other general policy- based pages.Consensus is absent.Winged Blades Godric 06:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Amended and clarified upon request at 16:32, 5 May 2017 (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.

Should we allow for Indicscript/s in infoboxes? (See this). El_C 05:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have applied the Snowball clause to WP:INDICSCRIPT due to the 12:2 ratio supporting total restriction. (See this). El_C 02:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

See discussion below for reasons why this was improperly applied. The discussion continues still. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 23:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Vote

  • I came back to read through this in detail when I noticed that everybody else disagreed with me, but I find that I am not changing my mind. The chief argument here is the disruption caused by warring over different languages. This is a very reasonable objection. But we have very many pages for which the choice of a single language is not seriously in dispute. Geographical articles fit this description, but so do a number of biographies. In situations where a single language cannot be established, then leaving them all out makes sense. So why would this help, I hear folks ask (Fowler&fowler asks below). The primary reason I can think of is that in very many sources I have read about Indian topics, transliterations into English vary tremendously, whereas (presumably) there is a single version in the native language. I would imagine this would help the substantial number of readers who do come from the Indian continent. I understand that we need restrictions to deal with the disruption, but this seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I can readily accept that there are some pages where a unique INDIC SCRIPT could add value. But allowing that would only be an invitation for others to add them everywhere else. Our editors are not that judicious or discerning.
Secondly, it is not really clear to an average editor when a unique script would serve the purpose. For example, we just had Capankajsmilyo argue below that it would be appropriate for Hindu deities, completely unmindful of the fact that those deities are owned by speakers of every Indian language and even some overseas languages.
We are wanting to clamp down, not because we are against indic scripts, but because we have had to put up with far too much disruption. That disruption would only increase by allowing a single script. Then there will be a single slot for everybody to fight over! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: I get where you're coming from, I really do: god knows I've reverted my own share of indic scripts, and warring over them. All I'm saying is that our fellow editors inability to understand a thoughtful guideline is not, in my mind, sufficient reason to formulate a draconian one. After all, even consensus saying that we cannot add indic scripts is not going to stop newbies from adding them, just as the current indic scripts guideline does not prevent them from adding indic scripts to the leads of articles. I would formulate something like "No indic scripts shall be used in the infobox or the lead of an article to denote the subject of the article, except when the subject has a clearly identifiable native language, in which case this is the only language to be used." We can add corollaries, saying that if the native language is in serious dispute, then the indic script will be removed altogether. I do not see this as being that much harder to enforce than the other system. Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde, I'm hard pressed to think of articles where a single script would suffice. And that holds even for geographical articles. Even allowing for that, I can't really see any benefit in including a local script. Anyone who uses an English language encyclopedia, already knows enough English to parse an English language transliteration of a local name. Add to that the fact that practically everything in India is already spelled out in English (we rarely have to figure out the transliteration ourselves), what's the point in including அண்ணா சாலை for Anna Salai? --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
off the track
Trying to figure out the native script version based on the English transcription of a name requires knowledge not so much of English, as of the respective Indian language. But even then, trying to intuit how something is spelt in the native scripts might work, after some experience, for names of people or organisations, but try as I might, I can never do that with place names. – Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Uanfala, in most cases we already have existing English transliterations for Indian place names. We don't really need to do any figuring out on our own. --regentspark (comment) 20:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I thought you were referring to the situation of trying to figure out how something is written in the Indic script. – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
RP, you may have a point. I'll think about this a little more. Vanamonde (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No, none at all, as explained in my comments in the previous subsection, and below. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No None at all. If we allow even one there will be battles over which one. Using indic scripts has no benefit whatsoever for our readers so we gain nothing by including them in the first place. --regentspark (comment) 13:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No --Vin09 (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No - they are just an absolute pain and pretty much impossible to police, as Fowler&fowler has gone to some lengths to explain. They create edit wars, enable vandals and add nothing. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes – there should be no blanket bans on native scripts in infoboxes. I don't see why for India-related articles such content should be any less useful than in the rest of wikipedia. For the vast majority of articles the choice of native script doesn't present any problems at all, and banning its use across the board because of a minority of cases is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However, the minority of problematic articles is still substantial and ways should be found to deal with them. One possible solution is to have the following rule: if in a given article the choice of script becomes contentious, then the native script name should be removed altogether and not brought back until the opposing sides come to an agreement – let the ethnonationalists battle it out among themselves. Another possible solution is to get the native scripts out of the positions of symbolic prominence – the infobox and the first sentence (where they are currently banned anyway). If the native names are enumerated in prose at the end of the lede, it's less likely to get people quarrelling over what's included and in what order. – Uanfala (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The reason why Indic scripts differ from "the rest of Wikipedia" is because of the sheer number of possibilities. This has been mentioned on numerous occasions, including in the original RfC for INDICSCRIPT. There are, for example, well over 200 official languages in India, not forgetting the many local variants. I may be wrong but I cannot think of any other country that comes close to this situation. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Papua New Guinea might, given the hundreds of languages that have evolved in their isolated valleys, but I don't think we have very many Wikipedias in those languages, let alone articles. Vanamonde (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I really don't see how this might have an effect on the usefulness. And in any given case, the "sheer number of possibilities" would hardly exceed one. On a side note, I don't know where this idea about India's special place comes from. Most of the world is multilingual and there's no reason why India should be treated differently from say, Italy or Nigeria. – Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Most of the world doesn't have over 200 official languages. Indeed, many only have the one. On the other hand, the incidence of multiple scripts in Indic articles is significant. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Whenever there's conflict in opinions about what to include in an infobox (and such conflicts are the problem that this RfC is trying to solve, no?), the contention doesn't revolve around 200 official languages, it revolves around a small number of choices (rarely more than two). This is not different from what is found in most of the world. India isn't special, it's the US and England, with their monolithic language traditions, that are the odd ones out. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not interested in Indian rivers and I have no opinions on what scripts should be included in their articles and in what order. My point was that this isn't a particularly difficult problem and a solution can be reached (and maintained) using whatever mechanisms there are for handling other similar matters (e.g. whether the article should be called Krishna or Krishnaveni or Krushna). And having several native names listed in the infobox isn't an idiosyncrasy of Indian rivers, it's the usual state of affairs for non-minor rivers in most of the world. Rhine, for example, has five, Severn has two, Tisza has six and Mekong has more than I can count. – Uanfala (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Uanfala: Sorry I am even less interested in engaging editors who talk in generalities, who disappear for five days, after posting a general statement and before returning to post another general statement. Obviously the solution has not been reached by "whatever mechanisms there are for handling other similar matters;" otherwise, this RfC would not be taking place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I'm going to reiterate: giving examples of articles for which the choice of Indian languages is completely contentious (and yes of course, there are many) does not lead logically to the conclusion that we should ban all Indian language names across the board. There are many cases, like for example the small Tamil city Salem, Tamil Nadu, for which the appearance of Tamil script in the infobox (and the lead, before the previous RfC) was completely uncontroversial and uncontested. Do you and El_C really think that such an article should be rid of its relevant, official, non-contentious, and very-much used Tamil local name? I'm all for banning Indic scripts whenever the choice is actually controversial or contentious, but removing them from an article like Salem, Tamil Nadu for no good reason simply on analogy that many India-related articles seem contentious really looks un-encyclopedic and runs afoul of other guidelines we have here. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 17:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Sorry, I guess I shouldn't have taken a holiday if this would cause such offence :) Apologies also for speaking in general terms, but when we're discussing a guideline that would potentially apply to over one and a half hundred thousand articles, I think it's good to have the bird's eye view of things. However, if you insist on the specifics, I've had a look at the three examples of "problematic" pages you linked to, and I don't think I'm able to see how they can support the point you seem to be making. The first of them – Krishna River has had, over the last eight months, about fifty edits, none of which were concerned with what scripts to include or in what order, so I presume that if it has remained stable for that long, the current state has received consensus. On the other hand, I did see four edits that had to do with whether scripts should be included at all: the addition of scripts to the lede [1] (and their removal [2]), and the removal of the established scripts from the infobox [3] (plus the immediate reversal [4]). None of these edits would have been done if NOINDICSCRIPTS didn't exist. What I'm seeing here is a guideline that creates contention where none prevoiusly existed.
The second example was Brahmaputra River, which doesn't really fall under the scope of INDICSCRIPT. Its last fifty edits span half a year and true enough, two of them concerned the native name in the infobox: the removal of the Devanagari spelling [5] and its re-insertion [6]. I don't have an opinion on whether Devanagari should be included (again, this is not an area I'm editing in), but I think it's easily justifiable on two grounds. It has etymological relevance as the de facto standard for Sanskrit, the language its name comes from, and its inclusion would parallel the established practice of listing the Latin names of English rivers. And it's also the script used for Hindi, a language that relevant literature is likely to be written in. As for your third example – Godavari, among the last fifty edits spanning about nine months, one had to do with the script [7]. That doesn't strike me as indicative of a controversy. And the script that was added with this edit clearly belongs there – it's the script used in the territories that over half of the length of the river falls within.
So far for the actual "controversies". If there have been controversies on these articles that happened more than a year ago, you're welcome to point them out. And if your point was that the choice of scripts in these pages was contentious in principle, then frankly I don't see how that differs from anything else that can potentially be a locus of controversy. We don't remove for example population figures when users are edit-warring over them, and we certainly don't remove them simply because they could start edit-warring. – Uanfala (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Uanfala: I did not say that those pages had edit warring. I asked simply how you will decide what scripts to include and in which order, were you pressed to make that decision. I had originally posted the rest of my reply here. But seeing that it might be of interest more generally, I am now moving it to the discussion section, where too I will ping you. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I believe I've answered the relevant part of this question. – Uanfala (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)*I was careful with what I wrote for a reason. I'm in the UK and there are several accepted languages - Welsh and Gaelic, for example. Similarly, Canada has at least two, as does Belgium. But, honestly, I am forever seeing attempts similar to those that Fowler&fowler describes. I am aware of WP:SYSTEMIC but we do have to bear in mind the practicalities. Your experience may be different. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, then you're probably also aware that the current proposal of erasing all non-English names will only further entrench the already strong anglophone bias that Indian articles have. – Uanfala (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Er, this is the English-language Wikipedia. Of course it is Anglophone - there wouldn't be much point in writing articles in, say, Swahili. That isn't strong bias but rather the raison d'etre (sic) for this version of the project. - Sitush (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You're right that articles on the English wikipedia are written in English, of course I'm not talking about that. The bias is in the choice of sources that are used for writing these articles. That's not something we can do much about, but at least we shouldn't be making it unreasonably difficult for readers to find sources in the native languages. It's bad enough already that articles disfavour native-language sources, it'll become worse if by removing native-script names we take away the one reliable hook that readers can use to find such sources themselves. – Uanfala (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Finally an actual reason for inclusion :) But, Uanfala, Indic scripts in the infobox aren't going to help. If a user can't render அண்ணா சாலை for Anna Salai, or be able to offer one or two alternative renditions for the English Anna Salai, they are hardly likely to be able to read the contents of whatever they find on the Internet when searching for அண்ணா சாலை. While I grant you that there may be the occasional case where a script may help find a reference or two but "unreasonably difficult", I think not. Especially when there is nothing preventing the inclusion of these scripts in the body of the article and would be easily found by anyone interested enough in the topic to look for more information. (With apologies to that august street in Chennai and a disclaimer that அண்ணா சாலை is, in actuality, Greek to me!)--regentspark (comment) 20:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, I was suspecting there might be a mismatch of assumptions about the use of native names in infoboxes. Still, given how ubiquitous native scripts are throughout the whole of wikipedia. I presumed that it couldn't have been more than a rhetorical device when several voters stated that native names were "of no use".
And as for your example: an educated native speaker of Tamil will be able to figure out how Anna Salai is spelt in Tamil. But the set of educated native speakers doesn't go anywhere near exhausting the set of possible users of a language. There are the primary school students who don't quite have their spelling right yet, or the second-language users who might be able to read some Tamil but who don't know enough to be able to guess the precise spelling. And there are the people who don't know any Tamil at all, but who want to be able to recognise the shape of the name when written on a street sign. But even for the educated native speakers it might not always be easy to intuit the native spelling based on the English rendition. I'm a native speaker of a language whose customary English transliteration is much more straightforward than anything you can commonly find in India, and yet when it comes to placenames I haven't heard before, I sometimes find that it takes several tries until I'm able to recover the native name from the English rendition.
As for the suggestion of including the native name somewhere in the article outside the infobox and lede – that would work as long as it's in a standardised and prominent place, where readers looking for it will be able to find it. I can't think of any decent way of doing that, and even if there is one, then the fact that it's easy for readers to find will mean that it'll also be easy for POV-warriors to care about – and we're back where we started. – Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Uanfala, my point is that any reader who is going to use the native script to look for material in that script (to add to the article) has to be reasonably competent in reading and understanding that script (as well as in English). If they are, they will, in most cases, be competent enough to translate from the Roman to the Indic. We might miss out on the occasional instance when an editor finds it hard (such as you with Bulgarian) but, in the scheme of things, that's not going to be a big thing. Frankly, the base rate probability of editors looking for references in non-Roman scripts is already so low that the conditional probability of our missing out on that big reference because of a missing Indic script in the infobox is vanishingly tiny. This is a total non-issue. --regentspark (comment) 21:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the point I was trying to make in my previous comment was that your point rests on unwarranted assumptions about who uses wikipedia articles and for what purposes (and just to clarify: I was having in mind a reader who wants to find out more about the topic of the given article, not necessarily the editor who would want to use what they've found out to expand that article). I do agree with you that not great many readers are interested in the native names, but that observation applies with equal force to almost anything that finds its way into an infobox. How many people care about a city's geographic longitude and latitude? or a chemical compound's standard identifier? or the binomial authority for a plant name? And yet these things are all useful and they invariably feature in any infobox where they're relevant. If usefulness of native scripts is a non-issue, then the current proposal should have been made at a more general level as it's clearly not specific to Indian topics (and no, India's multilingualism is not special, and neither is the propensity of its vandals to fight over native scripts). – Uanfala (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Uanfala, @RP: The best place for including sources in a native language is in the main article, or Bibliography / Further reading section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Including sources in a native language is an altogether different matter from including the native-language names. – Uanfala (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
For example, Narendra Modi's signature is in Gujarati. Having his Gujarati name, doesn't cause any harm, it adds to infobox. Other politicians and persons can also have native names based on signature language. Similarly dieties like Shiva, Rama, Krishna, etc, Hindi can be used. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Images are okay—the problem is IS text incessantly edit warred over by IPs. See bottom of Discussion. El_C 12:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I was not talking about images. I guess the discussion here is about native_names, transliteration, and similar params. Please correct me if I am mistaken. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This is exactly the problem with allowing any script. You are already beginning to claim that the "dieties like Shiva, Rama, Krishna" are associated with Hindi. They speak Hindi? Really? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
In that case, we should get rid of transliterations, I guess? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No - Infoboxes are getting too lengthy and clumsy. IM3847 (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No Too many issues as described by others, and little or no benefit to the reader. First Light (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No, per RP, others. Go one step further... request our coding wizards to take the Indic script fields out of all India-related infoboxes. We have infoboxes where there are a few randomly selected script fields. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • YES for certain categories, NO for everything else. I suggest allowing scripts for two categories: (1) names of human settlements, allowing the official languages of respective state; rationale: this is in line with other countries where in some case existence of local script helps reading e.g. Google Maps. (2) names of literary works, with script in their original language (e.g., Devanagari for Sanskrit works). I vote no to everything else, and especially to person names. — kashmiri TALK 17:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Kashmiri: Sorry the Google Maps objection has been resolved by Google themselves, just today, see here. As for books, how will you be transcribing works such as the Rg Veda, composed orally ca. 1400 BCE and unwritten per Shruti convention well into late medieval times? Why would Devanagari be privileged? Please also read my response to Basawala below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
This is not about just Google Maps but about the settlemen's official names (which also appear on various online GIS systems, incl. Google Maps). The way these names are written on official state documents in official state languages. I honestly do not foresee here any problems whatsoever as state languages are well defined and not contentious. As to the Vedas, I wasn't aware Devanagari is no longer the script used to write down Vedic Sanskrit (despite being it for centuries). Are you perhaps suggesting we should just add audio clips as "original_title"? — kashmiri TALK 19:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: A slight error was mine: I meant "how will you be transcribing the name in the infobox of Rg Veda, composed ..."? As for your response, Sanskrit, my friend, is a dead language, despite the smattering of men who every ten years declare it their mother tongue in the Indian census, but their mothers don't. When it was a living language, there is no evidence there was a favored script, or even a script. The oldest manuscripts of the Rg Veda in India are in the Śarada script. If you write Devanagari in the infobox, someone else will replace it with Śarada, another will replace it with the still older Brahmi or even Kharosthi. Forget the audio, as you'll be debating a lifetime which of the pundits who enunciate the name Rg Veda has the correct pronunciation. There is no Wikipedia policy that the infobox native script name of a dead language has to be a current official language of a country in which it was formerly spoken. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I think your argument is going a tad too far. Are you really suggesting that we should ban Gaelic native names (Scotland, Wales, etc.) from infoboxes because someone may write them in runes? I think everyone here agrees that Devanagari is the predominant script for Sanskrit, Tamil script is the script used for Tamil language, etc. No, nobody will replace Nagari anything with Śarada, nor will anyone replace Gaelic names with runes. Let's keep common sense. — kashmiri TALK 22:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: This RfC is being conduction in WT:INDIA and not WT:SCOTLAND. Please stick to WT:INDIA examples. Sanskrit is a dead language, it was already dead in 1000 CE, in the heyday of Gaelic. Geelic didn't quite die out Scotland (although its monolingual speakers did). Gaelic still has dialects. Sanskrit never had dialects because even in its glory days, it was not really an everyday spoken language, just one of high culture, to which road signs and Wikipedia pages do not belong. I'm afraid this is as far as I go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
And as to your link, Google Maps still shows some geogrpahical place names in Indic scripts [8] [9], etc. — kashmiri TALK 20:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: It depends on what language setting you choose. Here is your second location in Varanasi in English setting. I don't see any Hindi. And here is the same in the Hindi Google Maps setting. I don't see any English except in a few hotel names. So what is the logic here? That a mostly monolingual Hindi speaker, armed with a smart phone, cruising in Varanasi, will be using the English Wikipedia to interpret street names on Google maps, with language parameter set to English, but will be resolutely ignoring the Google maps, with language parameter set to Hindi? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: You are missing the point. Having a native name can sometimes be very helpful. Tell me please where in India, Kutwa town is located, other than in UP, and how it should be pronounced. — kashmiri TALK 22:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see what you're gett at. How will having Kutwa rendered in Devanagari help a reader figure out where Kutwa is located and how it should be pronounced? --regentspark (comment) 22:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Kashmiri: Are you attempting to waste my time with Google Maps 101 questions? All one does is to type Kutwa, India in Google maps. Four locations appear, two in Bihar and two in UP, none of which are spelled "Kutwa," by the way, but "Khutwa" or "Kuthwa". Now change language to Hindi, and all four appear in glorious Devanagari. Why would you be so silly as to want to know how it is pronounced. Just show your smart phone with Google maps to the first human you encounter in Khutwa or Kuthwa, if they are not literate, they'll direct you to the nearest literate human, and they'll tell you how to get to your street address in Khutwa or Kuthwa. You seriously think that poor old Wikipedia can compete with a multi-billion dollar company like Google? This is as far as I go in replying to silly questions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. Banning scripts does not solve the problem; non-veteran users will still keep adding scripts whatever the policy is. Also, this RfC conflicts with convention in other domains (like geographic entities), in which the convention is to add relevant scripts. There are India-related geographic entities in which the official languages are well defined and correlate with the languages spoken there, and for these articles, a ban on having scripts in infoboxes would be completely unnecessary. However I'd be willing to accept this policy only as a fall-back guideline, and only if it's written in such a way such that there's an avenue for local languages to be allowed (especially but not limited to geographic articles), after a consensus is formed from discussion on a relevant talk page. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 18:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Basawala: Do you have statistics that non-veteran users will repeatedly keep adding the INDICSCRIPT, after being informed of the IS convention, after being warned, and after being temporarily blocked? There is already a convention in place for the lead. If you want to changed that convention, by citing some Wikipedia-wide precedent, please have another RfC for the lead first. You have to tell us why that convention should not be extended to the infobox. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I was able to keep Indicscript from infoboxes in the past with warnings and blocks, and it'll work again. And now we have the hidden note. El_C 21:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No - per F&F, ElC, and Sitush. Inclusion of INDICSCRIPT within infoboxes is overwhelmingly a net negative. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No Leaving an opening that allows exceptions is a pointless time sink because once someone has their favorite Indic script displayed, the next person quite reasonably insists on theirs. There is no objective and reasonable way to resolve the issue other than to have none, and editors supporting Indic scripts have dodged every request to explain how the real problem of drive-by additions could be managed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Limit to one. Some info which require to add their language or the national language. Where we can not write or required a reference, should allow. Mahajandeepakv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I'm open to allowing one Indicscript (IS) per infobox, but couldn't structure the RfC vote to account for that preference. On the one hand, one IS per infobox can be useful—on the other, it does open the floodgates to those (especially IPs, it seems) devoted to adding as many IS as possible. I'm open to persuasion. El_C 05:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree with El_C here. There should be a limit of one IS but in extremely rare cases such as when a majority in a state/district speak two major languages, we could allow two. But never more than that. In case, more than two are being called for, we could stick with the one which is used by the majority. I don't want to go with the official languages here as they can keep on changing. Yashovardhan (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't agree on using even one, if we use the language used by the majority, wouldn't it be biased against the language used by the minority? In my humble opinion, it would either violate WP:NPOV or at least appear as if it is violating WP:NPOV. Ind akash (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • After having battled for upward of ten years POV-warriors of every India-related linguistic-subnationalism there is on Wikipedia, I am firmly of the belief that Indic scripts belong neither to the lead nor to the infobox, not even in Wikipedia Indic language pages. I have not come to this decision easily, as the histories of many pages will show (see, for example, my edit of long ago in Kashmir). I have already given examples in the subsection above this RfC's. Here is one more example. In describing it, I will also attempt to note some of the main issues here. The page in question is Jana Gana Mana. Please look at its last two revisions (at the time of editing): current revision, made 17 minutes ago, previous revision, made 1 hr 20 min ago. Notice the back and forth? This kind of back and forth has been happening for many years. What are the issues here? Well, the page Jana Gana Mana is about India's national anthem. The anthem was written in Sanskritized Bengali by poet Rabindranath Tagore in 1911. In 1950, the first stanza of the song became the national anthem of the brand-new Republic of India (and there are minutes of India's constituent assembly in 1950 that attest to this). Some 50 years later, approximately between 1998 and 2002, a time when a Hindu/Hindi nationalist government was in power in India, a Government portal appeared on the internet, and began to claim that it is the Hindi version of Jana Gana Mana that India's constitutent assembly voted on in 1950. Please see the discussion in Talk:Jana Gana Mana for the evidence. Soon other sources, such as Britannica began to say that it is the Hindi version as well, and Wikipedia had to go along with that interpretation, and we still do. What does "Hindi version mean?" By the expression "Hindi version," apparently, the Government of India does not mean a Hindi translation of the song (such as one called Subh Sukh Chain of Subhas Chandra Bose and the INA); rather, it means "Hindi pronunciation of the song." (After all it is a song and needs to be sung aloud by human beings who need some pronunciation guide.) Some Wikipedians have reasoned that if the Hindi pronunciation is favored, the Hindi script is favored as well, though the government's own web site has the song written out in only its English language (Romanized) transliteration! See here! So, summing up, we have a song, which was written in Bengali, which the government says was accepted as India's national anthem in its Hindi pronunciation, but which the government transcribes in English! Coming back to infoboxes, what scripts does one include? Do we allow the Hindi script, the Bengali script, or both? And most importantly, in what spelling do we render the Hindi script? This is often a problem with Indic scripts—there are many competing spellings of an unfamiliar or foreign word in the same script, in addition, of course, to their being many scripts. I could spend all day giving examples, but the real question is this: How much time do Wikipedians want to spend in futile attempts to bring order to something that has no order, not in the sources, not in official pronouncements, and certainly not in the language affinities of some editors, who will not be going away any time soon? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Of course there are tons of examples for which the decision of which script to use is unclear or in fact impossible, and I thank you for the illustrative example, but this itself doesn't warrant a blanket ban; the logic doesn't follow. You'd have to argue that this is the case with all (or pretty much all) India-related articles, which I don't believe is the case. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 19:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • From an enforcement standpoint, I can appreciate the emerging but clear consensus for none at all. So soon, I will be re-adding the infobox clause to WP:INDICSCRIPT and will be enforcing it... ruthlessly. We had some peace and quiet in Indian-related infoboxes, until Basawala turned it on its head claiming there was no consensus for me adding it—since then, things have been nightmarish, with IPs constantly taking advantage of the one area they could still add IS and get away with it. I like the aesthetic of having one IS, but as was demonstrated above, it may just not be worth it. El_C 15:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I find Uanfala's suggestion we "let the ethnonationalists battle it out among themselves" to be highly problematic. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid. El_C 19:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I want to make a note here, for future reference, that we are talking only about edited text in the lead and the infobox. The Sanskrit page could very well have in its infobox a picture of an ancient Sanskrit inscription (such as Latin does for example.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I am fine with that. The problem is SPAs (mainly IPs) edit warring over or otherwise adding as much IS text as they can. In a neverending disruptive cycle. El_C 19:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • El_C: Few suggestions: [1] in problem articles where editors persistently add scripts, we add a comment such as <!-- Please do not add any Indic script in this infobox, per WP:INDICSCRIPT policy. --> (hopefully AGF, such a note will reduce incidences); [2] Clarify in the policy that this only applies to pages that belong to WP:INDIA, it does not apply to articles of other South Asian countries, nor to articles that discuss a particular Indic script, nor to texts composed in a particular script. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest that if the region overlaps in WP:INDIA, INDICSCRIPTS policy should apply. Mithila is one example, Bengali, Kashmiri, Sindhi, etc-related articles are other examples. For why, please see the explanation by RP and others above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, related to India, broadly construed, is what I also had in mind. El_C 13:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There is potential for conflict with overlapping WikiProjects, since the other projects weren't notified and likely didn't !vote on this issue. It may be prudent to notify some of those projects about this RfC before it's closed. It likely won't change the outcome, and would minimize any later surprise to other projects and their members. First Light (talk) 03:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree to both. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
You are very welcome. El_C 02:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
El_C, your use of WP:SNOW is improper here, cf "The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement." (Nevertheless I'm not going to bother rolling back what you edited on the improper basis of SNOW.) I do appreciate you starting this RfC, but it has not run for nearly the time it should, and we shouldn't end it yet, especially given the variety of issues that haven't been resolved. We should also publicize this on the forums which this policy will affect the most, namely Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 18:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
12:2 seems rather overwhelming. And there were no further participants for a few days. El_C 21:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been inactive lately, but I would have appreciated it if you had pinged me, El_C, given that you did mention me and that I've been one of the main proponents for Indic scripts in geographic pages when both relevant and uncontroversial to established users, which is exactly in line with the geographic naming conventions here (see #2). My question is this: what's the use of a blanket ban on Indic scripts, when there exist articles for which it's pretty much uncontroversial what the script is? Sure, there are much fewer for India-related topics than say for China-related ones, but they do exist. And a second question: why are we changing content guidelines due to the activity of disruptive and novice users? It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the response to their activity should be to change the guidelines themselves, as opposed to guidelines on how we deal with problematic editors. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 18:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
discussion of pings, humour
I did ping you—you just didn't show up. El_C 21:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
No. You mentioned my username in black text without pinging it. Anyways, doesn't matter now, I'm back (a little). ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 22:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
As long as I don't use {{no ping}}, what is the difference? El_C 10:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
El_C, Simply mentioning a user in plain text doesn't send any notifications. You have to either link to their user page, or use one of the {{ping}} templates. – Uanfala (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Plain text always works for my notifications—that's why {{no ping}} exists. El_C 10:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
{{no ping}} exists to link to users without pinging them. Unless I'm completely mistaken or you're using some magic to get around the limitations of the mediawiki software, it seems like you're confusing a plain link to a user (which sends a notification), with a plain text edit that simply contains a string of characters that happen to be a user name (which doesn't). May be worth pointing to WP:PING. – Uanfala (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
There is a tide in the affairs of men all creatures great and small, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures. Marcus Junius Brutus«Talk» Marcus Junius Brutus, Porcia Catonis Brutus, Rover Buster Brutus, and Mama Kitty Brutus«Talk» 19:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
.... Seriously? ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 20:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Corrected.M&P&R&M«Talk» 20:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Some civility would do nicely here, I'd think. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 22:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Many apologies. Scratched. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Vote count as of 12:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC) 14 who voted No, who are for removing all Indicsripts from WP:INDIA infoboxes; 3 who voted yes who will allow some and 1 who voted limit to one. The initial discussion began on 17 April, RfC itself on 19 April. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Corrected Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    @Fowler&fowler: You forgot the "limit to one" vote. And this is a policy whose kinks still need to be worked out (I see for example that Ms Sarah Welch mentioned in passing some exceptions, despite voting no, but I don't see a real discussion of how exceptions would work, and how/if they should be written into the guideline), so don't forget that it's not just about tallying the votes. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 18:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • (Moved from its own section, with the title "language-specific pronunciations, transliterations/transcriptions, etc.", since this seems uncontroversial): The main rationale of banning Indic scripts as I see it is that the choice of languages is generally too contentious, given how many languages there are. Then it's only logical that we also ban Indian language-specific pronunciations and transcriptions too in the infobox, right? To choose which local pronunciation to include will usually amount to the same thing as choosing which language to use. (This was a big concern with the result of the previous RfC that I have, since banning scripts but allowing pronunciations does not seem at all consistent to me. For example, Mahatma Gandhi includes pronunciation in Hindustani but not Gujarati, which seems arbitrary to me. I realize this problem is mainly applicable to the previous RfC, but it should be addressed for infoboxes too.) ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 19:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I suppose it's completely uncontroversial that any pronunciation/IPA/IAST transcription that is biased towards or reflects a particular choice of language(s) (possibly to the exclusion of others?) should be banned as well, from the lead, and if the wp:indicscript guideline is extended to the infobox, the infobox as well. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 23:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
      • It is now one week since this RfC began. The Ayes are in full retreat, except of course for the usual rearguards who are creating distracions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
        • I hate having to reiterate this, but it's good to be civil and to remind ourselves that WP:CONSENSUS-building does not mean a poll. It's pretty bad faith to accuse me of creating distractions when I'm genuinely trying to clear things up, all while you haven't even addressed the two or so simple questions I've posed at you (although neither has El_C). (Fine I'll remind you: 1. What is your position on cases like Salem, Tamil Nadu that are uncontroversial? 2. See section below; given that you said you were against any exception, do you disagree with the current ones or the ones proposed by Ms Sarah Welch?) ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 03:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • While I reiterate that consensus is rather clear here, despite a few new objections. Myself, I don't have a strong opinion on exceptions, though I tend to be inclined against it, due to considerations of clarity and simplicity. But, from an enforcement standpoint, it seems like a bad idea to allow for the constant Indicscript disruption to continue as it did before. We can't go back. It's just not worth it. El_C 03:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • El_C, I do sympathize, but I really don't think we should let the behavior of disruptive users influence what we put inside our content guidelines. I'm curious if you have a precedent for that, though. I agree though, I don't see an easy way to deal with it otherwise. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 04:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • So I'm still waiting to hear opinions about how this guideline should interact with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which permits relevant foreign names (of course, permitted locally official name, which are quite obviously relevant), and limiting our attention to cases where the relevant names are not contentious, (yes I know there are many contentious ones, but Salem, Tamil Nadu has never been contentious for example). (Even Uttar Pradesh, which has Hindi official and Urdu co-official isn't that contentious, although feel free to go on Talk:Uttar Pradesh and respond, if you think it is, haha.) Would anyone (looking at you, El_C) be against it if we add a clause permitting scripts in geographic entities for which the local official language(s) are clear and non-contentious? Perhaps adding:

    Alternative names in an Indian script may sometimes be permitted on geographic articles when relevant, as long as the guidelines laid out in WP:PLACE are followed.

If you are against adding this line (or a modified version) to WP:INDICSCRIPT, is it because you intend for this guideline, which is a Wikiproject India guideline, to override the MOS Naming conventions guideline or for other reasons? Thanks. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 03:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, I have no strong opinion, so turning to me isn't your best bet. I told you at the time that we needed an RfC, and I think you agree that I was right. As mentioned directly above, I'm inclined against it, but if it's well organized and it uses both a list + hidden notes, I can live with it. Others may say different. El_C 03:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that, El_C. Your comment made sense either way. I thought the changes I made were pretty superficial. I wasn't asking about whether this RfC should have been made there; it was about how a guideline in the WP:INDIA space should interact with other guidelines namely WP:PLACE. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 04:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pinging Fowler&fowler. If you (and everyone else with your position) are fine with the above proposed line, I'll change my vote to a no (and then we'd pretty much have consensus). I know you may still have objections, but WP:PLACE really is quite detailed, and it addresses a lot of the concerns raised on this RfC (specific to geographic names). As special as India may be, the geographic naming on other places can be quite contentious/annoying as well, and the guidelines on WP:PLACE does a good job of addressing them, I think. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 04:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless we have an organized list and hidden notes about each and every exception, I object to modifying this RfC for blanket exceptions, especially seeing that we already have consensus. I was originally for IS in infoboxes, but I've seen the difference 1st hand. El_C 04:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No I'm not fine Basawala, and please don't waste my time by pinging me. You are in the gray zone between aggressive filibustering and earnest vandalism. No, you can't change an RfC which already has consensus, an RfC you didn't create, for which, in fact, you turned up airily late, and then proceeded to shift the blame of your tardiness on the organizer (who, by the way, didn't ping anyone). You are now champing at the bit to have the rules bent so that you can run a different race. Well please organize that race at the venue of your choosing. @El C: please go ahead and close the RfC. There is consensus. Ultimately we don't do our duty to those who had appeared here in a timely fashion, participated in the discussion, and voted their conscience, if we allow ourselves to be hijacked by the miniscule but suddenly very vocal minority of dissenters. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll let someone else close the RfC, but I already applied the changes to WP:INDICSCRIPT, as 12:2 seemed like overwhelming consensus—as is 14:4. All that's left are the clarifications to be decided (which may or may not include Basawala's exceptions—I'm going to go with the flow). El_C 06:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler and El_C, your accusations of near-vandalism and WP:BLUDGEON are offensive. And there is no deadline on Wikipedia. And no, we don't have consensus. We currently have guidelines that conflict, as WP:INDICSCRIPT and WP:PLACE clearly do, and this is a real problem, no matter how much you try to ignore this problem by discrediting me. FWIW, I care more that these two guidelines are consistent with each other than what the guideline actually is. There needs to eventually be consensus on how these two guidelines interact; right now neither guideline has precedence over the other. If you think that should be worked out later but shouldn't be in the scope of this RfC, I'll shelve this objection for now. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 17:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:INDIA has precedence over Indian topics. Again, we are not going to let you override this RfC through the back door. El_C 23:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In this case, WP:INDIA does carry more weight than WP:PLACE, but I don't see why it should override it. The conflict between the two is a problem and at the very least we should get input from the editors there. – Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Guidelines are created by community consensus. There's nothing anywhere that says Wikiproject-space guidelines override Wikipedia-namespace MOS guidelines, the consensus is what matters the most. In fact, WP:INDICSCRIPT ought to be moved to a Wikipedia-namespace page. In fact, it's Wikipedia policy for guidelines not to conflict, so that will need to be addressed. And right now, the RfC isn't even categorized under "policies and guidelines", which is what we all agree WP:INDICSCRIPT is, so I'm going to fix this now. Best wait to see if there are any new voices before formally requesting closure. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 23:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
By all means link to this RfC anywhere you see fit. I hold the position that WP:INDIA is the place to get consensus on all Indian topics. Full stop. El_C 23:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I will quote from the Wikiproject Council, which you should take a look at, El_C: "Editors who are working on such an advice page or section are encouraged to carefully study the main policies, guidelines, and relevant well-accepted general Wikipedia essays. The good advice pages do not conflict with the site-wide pages, and avoid unnecessary duplication of material from them." I will also quote from WP:CONSENSUS#Level of consensus: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." As per Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Good policy for proposals, creating this RfC under the "Policies and guidelines" category is the proper way to propose a new Wikipedia-wide guideline. I changed that here but I don't know if Legobot will actually update the main RfC list page, but for this RfC to override WP:PLACE, we need to make sure what we have here isn't just local Wikiproject consensus. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 23:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:INDIA consensus includes and overrides all Indian topics—I don't accept your interpretation in this case. El_C 00:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
No, that's just wrong. What you just said is a violation of WP:Consensus#Level of consensus and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#WikiProjects do not own articles. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
What are we fighting for, and where we go from here. I have hitherto focused on examples and special cases. Here now, in my view, is the logic of why we should do away with all Indic-scripts in the lead and infoboxes of WP:INDIA articles. a) We know that scripts (in the lead and infoboxes) are a subject of edit warring on many such pages, though by no means all, b) We know that while scripts convey important information for some, they—especially when appearing in the lead/infobox—also have POV implications of ethno-linguistic branding of people, places and things, which can be problematic, c) We know that the average Wikipedian who is attempting ot maintain these pages on the English Wikipedia, or one that randomly stumbles upon them, is unlikely to be able to figure out which script-based-edit (in the lead/infobox) is correct and which is not, thereby increasing the possibility of our putting out incorrect information in a prominent place in the article, d) We know that the person mediating in a script-related edit war has little knowledge about who is right and who is not, and more importantly, e) we know that for pretty much any India-related topic, in which an Indic script has likelihood of appearing in the lead/infobox, there is already a Wikipedia article on that topic written in that script. For example, for Thatta, a town in Sind, we also have the article in Sindi. For another example, for Krishna River, a major river in Southern India whose drainage basin includes Mahrashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh, there are already also articles on the river in Marathi (spoken in Maharashra), Kannada (spoken in Karnataka), Telugu (spoken in Andhra Pradesh), and Urdu (spoken by a minority in Telangana), and in addition, in India's official language Hindi. What additional benefit will we offer by adding three measly scripts in the infobox of the English Wikipedia? Most importantly, and generally, we have to ask, whom are these pages for? Wikipedia serves the world community. The India-related pages are not just for India, let alone for an ethnic-linguistic community within India, but for the much larger English-using world community. Most people when encountering an unfamiliar page name, are most interested in the pronunciation of the name, and in the meaning, if it has a meaning. The script gives no clue to either. As we have already seen, the script is of even less use to the Wikipedian who uses the Indic language of the script, for there is already a Wikipedia article in the script. Instead of fighting over scripts, we should be spending our energies on the many .ogg and .oga files, uploaded by a very small handful of Wikipedians, many years ago, telling the world how a Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's, etc.'s, name is pronounced. Many of these files have, as is to be expected, the slight phonetic variations of the speaker's milieu, which is fine, as long as the pronunciations are within the range of what is considered acceptable. But these topics have never been discussed. We have never asked whether the pronunciations (both IPA and .ogg) should be rendered in Indian English, or in one of the local languages that might be associated with the topic. Should the .ogg file in Kaziranga National Park, also be translating and pronouncing the "National Park" bit in Assamese? I believe answering such questions is where our effort should be directed. It is all well and good to say that the rules of such and such project allow two scripts and such and such one script, but in the end we have to also examine what real benefit there is to the average person who reads Wikipedia. (Pinging @Uanfala: as I had originally posted this in reply to him.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Thank you for your most cogent defense so far, and I share many of your sentiments. I'm still of the opinion though that relevance concerns should take precedence (especially ones from established guidelines like WP:PLACE and WP:LEDE), and that we don't have enough reason for a near-categorical ban. Your argument touched upon how we here determine whether something is relevant; I'm hesitant for there to be a policy on this that would deem an entire class of things non-relevant, especially when all non-Indian scripts, even ones with fewer users and with fewer English-speakers who can read them, like Georgian and Armenian, are currently allowed and often judged relevant. I want to reach a consensus here, too. My best compromise would be the following: that WP:INDICSCRIPT, with an extension to banning infoboxes, should be clarified as a guideline with lower precedence than current MOS-category guidelines, like WP:PLACE and WP:LEDE, and (perhaps) with an exception explicitly permitting Indian scripts to be used if consensus is reached on the talkpage. (I realize this will not be done in practice, but so won't removal of Indian scripts from all the places where we have it now. We won't have thousands of little discussions, we'll simply permit them.) ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 04:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The India-related pages are not just for India, let alone for an ethnic-linguistic community within India, but for the much larger English-using world community. Yes, well said. It's cost-benefit, in the final analysis. I note that Basawala's "compromise" doesn't touch on any of the considerations I, myself, raised about exceptions (namely, having it undertaken in an organized fashion). But anyway, WP:INDIA should have higher precedence over Indian topics. El_C 07:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I would also like to thank Fowler&fowler for the reasoned statement in support of the proposal! I'll try to go through the points one by one. I believe that a) has already been addressed at length, with the two main objections being: 1) that there may be many articles that receive edit-warring over scripts, but these are still several orders of magnitude fewer in number than the set of articles that the proposed rule would apply to; 2) that problems relating to editor behaviour shouldn't be addressed with guidelines about content. The next point b), about the potential for inclusion of native scripts to be seen as a form of ethno-linguistic branding, is an intersting one, and probably the strongest argument so far. Again, there's the question of scope: how many articles does that apply to, relative to the total number under the scope of INDICSCRIPT? I really don't see this "branding" to be an issue with populated places, or films, or literary works, or almost anything else I can think of. Even in the case of biographies, where we would want to be the most sensitive about this, this is irrelevant in the majority of cases: there are no issues I can think of in say, adding the Gujaratati name of a politician from the Gujarat Assembly, or the Kannada name of a Kannada-language singer. And the problem, where it exists, is not limited to scripts: it is actually exacerbated when the pronunciation has to be included: a native-script name usually represents several neighbouring languages (for example the Bengali script is used for both Bengali and Assamese, as well as almost anything else inbetween), but this would be pronounced differently in each of those languages. Well, I guess IPs haven't editwarred over pronunciations to the necessary extent to spur the community into coming up with a ban on non-English pronunciations. On a general note, it seems to me that any sensible attempt at a solution to the problem of ethno-linguistic branding could draw inspiration from the concise, but nuanced guidelines on the use of flags, which tackle a very similar problem.
    The next two points, c) and d), have to do with the open nature of wikipedia and the fact that people will add bad content. But the Indic scripts are probably one of the areas where this is least problematic. An IP might add some made-up content based on bogus refs and that's usually not going to be noticed until an editor starts rewriting the article years later. On the other hand, if IP editor John Doe adds an obscenity in a native script, then there's bound to come along another IP, a Jack or a Jill, who will fix that. True, it would be nice if our regular dedicated editors were also able to spot these, and one way to help that happen is to make it so that any Indic-script string of characters will automatically get appended with the ISO transliteration of this string. It shouldn't be technically difficult to design a template to do that – this is something I was thinking of doing before I found out how hostile to scripts is the current environment.
    The last point e) was to the effect that Indic scripts are redundant as all articles already have equivalents in the wikipedias in the relevant languages. I really wish that were the case! There's no corresponding Hindi-wikipedia article about this city/town in Uttar Pradesh, there's no Oriya article about this dish from Odissa, or Maithili article about this Maithili-language writer, no Sanskrit article about this Hindu goddess, or Manipuri one about these islands of Manipur. Hey, there even can't be any Manipuri article about anything related to Manipur as there doesn't exist a Manipuri-language wikipedia. For a very large number of articles, if not the majority, the native-script name can be found only in the infobox.
    At any rate, I'm ready to support any proposal to deal with the Indic-script edit-warring and the potential for ethnic branding, as long as it has a more well-defined scope and actually tries to address the specific problems it's meant to solve. – Uanfala (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Jais, by the way, the birthplace of Jaisi, is a Muslim town, and it has an Urdu version. Don't know about the dish, but it is a stub, as is everything else with the exception of the Manipur island and the Godess. The goddess rides a domestic cat, an animal which survives in India only in Muslim, low-caste, and tribal areas, the caste-Hindus having banished it with their abysmally silly superstitions. You you can be sure that the goddess is no "Aryan" goddess, requiring a Sanskrit name. The Manipur article I can't hep with as it doesn't have any script. In such arguments it is best to look at the generic, not the outliers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
These "outliers" (which might as well turn out to be in the majority) are affected by the result of this RfC to the same extent as any imaginary "generic" article. The Muslim town is in a Hindi-majority state and probably there're more likely to be sources about it in Hindi than Urdu; the goddess (as clear from its article) is found in a large number of Sanskrit texts; the Manipuri article might not have a script at present but if this proposal passes it would mean that no script could be added to it; and if the rest are stubs so what? There are 88 thousand stubs within the scope of the project, and that's more than half of its total articles, should they go to the dogs or are you suggesting that there should be an exception to INDICSCRIPT about stubs? – Uanfala (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, and my guess was good, it is a Muslim town with a 62% Muslim majority in the 2011 Census of India Urdu remains the predominant language of UP Muslims, not Hindi. In any case, urban UP, much of it the creation of Muslims, has significant Muslim minorities > 30%. As for the goddess, there too my guess was good, it is a pre-Aryan folk goddess. It is enough that the preeminent pre-Aryan languages, Tamil, be represented. In any case, the alleged Sanskrit speakers of India, who typically run back home and take a bath every time they see a black cat, would not be interested in naming such an evil animal, nor its divine rider, in the language of the Gods. We are concerned about the scripts because on average their presence increases the edit-warring and costs of maintenance on the English wikipedia. Stubs typically don't have edit warring. The English Wikipedia is not a charity. What will these hypothetical English users who want to see their native language's script in the infobox, but who are not motivated to write an article on the topic in their native language, gain by their script so appearing? What information will they derive? And what will they do with that information? Nothing, which I am told is "Shunya" in Sanskrit. This is my last post here. Need I remind everyone the vote count is 14 to 3(1) against any IS in infoboxes in India-related pages. That is a consensus, and it is now time to close this RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The fact that 2/3 of the town are Muslim doesn't change the fact that most news sources about it are likely to be in Hindi, nor does the goddess' being pre-Aryan change the fact that it is found in numerous Sanskrit texts. You can quibble all you want about two of the five examples I gave off the top of my head, but that still leaves the central problem intact: infobox srcipts are not redundant. (Your point about the stubs I take to be a humorous conceit). I really wish that instead of quibbling about the dots and the commas, we could start working towards a solution that works. And no, it's not time for a close. The RfC has barely run for ten days, most relevant projects have only recently been notified, and with a vote count of 14:6 and the many problems with the proposal still unaddressed I don't see how at this stage any close other than "no consensus" could be justified. – Uanfala (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, then you shouldn't have cast the poor guesswork from top of your head to the wind, and you are doing it again, for, most news sources about Jais are in Urdu or English. So what, if the goddess is found in Sanskrit texts, what is the English Wikipedia to do about it? It is found in many Bengali texts too. Why do you expect the English Wikipedia to be the charity organization? Why don't you appear at Goddess's Oriya language page and pester them about adding the Sanskrit name to their infobox. In fact, Hindi is the official language of India, shouldn't you all three voluble dissenters be in the talk pages of the Hindi Wikipedia and wasting their time? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The Sanskrit name is in the infobox of the Oriya article you link to, and has been there since it was created :) Anyway, I really don't want to be going on with this quibbling. – Uanfala (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Says the dissenter, "The Sanskrit name is in the infobox." But since when, my dear dissenter, did the Latin alphabet become an Indicscript? You have sunk another nail in the coffin of your proposal. Keep going. You don't need me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
The Sanskrit name is both in the IAST transliteration and, on the line immediately above, in Devanagari. – Uanfala (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
But the article's Sanskrit language sources, by your own pointer to the article's English language page, go back to 800 BCE, when Devanagari did not exist, nor did Nagari, or Sarada, Brahmi, or even Kharosthi. Why then is the Devanagari in the article's Oriya language infobox not simply the Hindi language script? And if you really are referring to the language of the 10,000 Hindi/Hindu nationalists who lie every ten years in India's census to claim Sanskrit to be their mother tongue, then why should this miniscule proportion of India's population, the alleged speakers of a dead language, who do favor the Devanagari script, be so accommodated? After all, it is you who claimed that Urdu, spoken, and written (in Nastaliq), by a much larger proportion, and by a majority in Jais, didn't count, the infobox still needed Hindi (Devanagari) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Templates

Is Template:Infobox Chinese also covered in this discussion? It has been used on many articles related to India like Gautama Buddha. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Good question. I drafted this RfC primarily due to disruption at Indian cities. And when it comes to cities at least, my watchlist has about the same number of Chinese cities as Indian ones (a few hundred, overall), but I just don't see that much disruption (or that many edits, for that matter) on the former—not even close. It seems, as of late, that something like every third edit to an Indian city is IS-related, which is utterly ridiculous. Myself, I'm inclined for Chinese wikiproject members to decide for themselves what is appropriate for Chinese topics. Again, as far as the ethnonationalist issues plaguing Indian topics, that does not seem to be as pressing in Chinese ones. I tend to think Infobox Chinese ought to be exempt from INDICSCRIPT, but I remain open to other views. El_C 01:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@El_C: The Template:Infobox Chinese includes fields for Indic scripts. Seems like a potential window loophole to the problem RP and others are trying to address. One way to shut that window too, is to not allow any script infoboxes on WP:INDIA pages. That seems fair under "broadly construed" umbrella. It would appear one-sided and unfair to newbies, and for decent reasons, if the community allows Chinese/ Myanmar/ Thai/ Arabic/ zillion non-English scripts on WP:INDIA pages, but blocks Indic scripts. The most consistent way forward may be to interpret "broadly construed" as not allowing any non-English scripts in infoboxes wherever Indic scripts are not allowed because the article falls within the scope of the INDICSCRIPT policy. If we allow a window into WP:INDIA articles with Chinese script etc template, a lot of OR and disruptive stuff is likely to enter through that window. @RegentsPark: your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I would like to further bring to notice another template, viz., Template:Infobox name module. I guess it would be best to migrate the language thing to wikidata altogether and get rid of it on WP:India pages. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the author hinted of the trouble arising when there is overlap of WP:INDIA topics with other languages/areas, in which case we end up excluding IS relative to other non-English scripts. Certainly, this is something to be clarified (which is why I left the clarification field in INDICSCRIPT as pending)—but I do not have a strong opinion and I am overall inclined to defer to and fall back on your (and RP and FF, et al.) experience in this area. El_C 06:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Gautama Buddha
Bengali name
Bengaliগৌতম বুদ্ধ
Nepali name
Nepaliगौतम बुद्ध
Sanskrit name
Sanskritगौतम बुद्ध
No change or fine tuning in any template is needed. Sure there will always be a few counter examples, but the China-, or for that matter, Pakistan- or other South Asia-related page editors typically don't edit war over these issues. WP:INDIA appears on a lot of pages. Some, such as Alexander the Great, have primary stewardship in other Wikiprojects and no consensus on WP:INDIA can be used to remove the Greek script from that page. This is a consensus for Indic scripts. Lets move on and implement it. If the counter examples become significant problems, we can revisit the issue later, but I don't think they will. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Did you miss the insertion of Indic scripts through the Chinese/other templates? I have added the trimmed version of the template box to illustrate (see the article and its edit history for the full version). If you edit this section, you will see the steady addition of many Indic scripts such as Telugu, etc through the Chinese template. Yep, there is vandalism and edit warring with Indic scripts in Buddhism-space articles. Probably why the OP asked for clarification. I suggest we do not ignore this window / loophole that would allow the use of Infobox:Chinese etc in WP:INDIA space articles to circumvent the proposed guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I didn't but I did misinterpret you to be asking that the Indic language parameters be removed from the Chinese infoboxes. But we can't remove the Chinese infoboxes everywhere on WP:INDIA projects either. Have to play it by ear. We can remove it on a culturally broad-ranging article such as Gautam Buddha, and I just did (and we don't need the INDICSCRIPT attribution for it), but not on articles such as Xuanzang (in which the orthography, Romanization, etc are important features) or Faxian, not even, I imagine, on Dwarkanath Kotnis (were the China-area editors to add the Chinese infobox there). Like you said "broadly construed." I think it is probably best to remove INDICSCRIPT only, and let some data gather for some reasonable time, six months, a year, and revisit it, if the problem still remains. PS I haven't had coffee. So I might have missed something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, Xuanzang and Faxian are not an issue, Infobox:Chinese is fine for them, neither of those articles currently use any Indic script fields anyway. You make some good points. Perhaps, we should let the admins struggle use their best judgment in interpreting the "broadly construed" part of the INDICSCRIPT guideline when borderline cases such as Infobox:Chinese appear. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Conflict with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)

This RfC conflicts with a naming conventions guidelines, which is quite detailed, and in my opinion, quite reasonable. For example, "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted." This RfC certainly can override the conventions on that page, but given that this is a MOS-category page which has greater scope than any single Wikiproject, a lot of the result of the RfC would have to be reflected there. I've pinged the talk page, and we should wait a while longer to see. In the meantime, we should edit the conventions page to reflect the WP:INDIA RfC about the lead, which isn't mentioned there yet. What do users who have voted no think about how we should consolidate WP:INDICSCRIPT with MOS geographic naming conventions? ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 20:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Conflicts_between_advice_pages, this will need to be worked out somehow. I suppose the unstated majority opinion here would be that WP:PLACE needs to be updated and overridden with WP:INDICSCRIPT, which I disagree with, but there's no more for me to say. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 23:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
There's also another conflict with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Usage_in_first_sentence: Relevant foreign-language names, such as in an article on a person who does not themselves write their name in English, are encouraged. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 04:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

How would exceptions work?

In this discussion, I've seen Ms Sarah Welch list several exceptions to the guideline that would be desired, with no immediate pushback. However, at least Fowler&fowler has stated that they do not want exceptions. Currently, there is a clause in the text of WP:INDICSCRIPT which lists an exception, i.e. language articles and articles on scripts themselves. This was added in later (meaning, later than the inception of the guideline through the previous RfC) by Kwamikagami and is not from the result of the previous RfC (afaict) and could very well be contested (well, maybe already is, by at least Fowler&fowler and others' position here). How do others, including El_C feel about listing exceptions as part of the guideline's wording? (I'd also like to point out, that no matter how strongly this guideline is worded, it's only a guideline, which by definition allows for exceptions. If the exception clause is removed from WP:INDICSCRIPT, scripts can still be added back into language pages and wherever else, but only after clear and strong consensus exists on the talkpage that this guideline should be exempted there.) ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 23:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Basawala: You didn't specify the cases where I suggested scripts should be fine: [1] articles that discuss a particular Indic script, [2] articles on texts composed in a particular script (of course, when verifiable in reliable sources). Unless I missed it, I haven't yet seen any objections to these two suggestions. You mention Kwamikagami's note on language articles. That might make sense if the script is verifiable in reliable source. Just like the Infobox:Chinese case, where F&f suggests we let the admins use their discretion till there is more data. Wikipedia community can always reconsider / expand / revise the INDICSCRIPT policy in the future. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Yes, thanks for listing your exceptions, and of course I agree that these should be exceptions. If you search the term "exception" in this RfC, you'll see there are opinions against any exceptions whatsoever. I'm not sure that was meant directly against you, but these opinions and yours do clash at face value, so that's what we're trying to resolve. I'm still not sure whether you advocate for the text of WP:INDICSCRIPT to mention these exceptions or not, could you clarify? I didn't follow the discussion about Infobox:Chinese and am not exactly sure what you mean. But this is an RfC that will lead to a revision of the textual content of WP:INDICSCRIPT (btw it's a guideline not a policy), so that's what I'm hoping to clarify from you. Thanks. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 02:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, since the way you stated your exceptions is a bit different from what's on there now, and there's no opposition yet as far as either of us can tell, I'm just going to be bold and add those in. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 03:11, 26 April 2017 (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.

Status?

Do we have consensus? Should we get rid of "native name" and transliterations params from Indian infoboxes? What is the status? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The status is:
  1. After 12:2 result and discussion, I applied the changes to WP:INDICSCRIPT and I consider them to now be in effect, even if clarifications are pending.
  2. I considered the RfC concluded under WP:SNOW due to the 12:2 result and weight of overall discussion (and no discussion for a few days), but opted not to actually close an RfC I, myself, opened. But anyone else is free to do so. Then, ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ and a few others suddenly turn up. The vote now is 14:4.
  3. There is a small but vocal minority, represented almost entirely by ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ, which I think, wishes to retain as much IS as they can despite the overwhelming consensus we've had against this very thing. They may or may not succeed in getting exceptions added (I am of the opinions that "stable" exceptions can only be permitted if they are well-organized, with an accompanying list and hidden notes). And that is where we are now at, in a breath. El_C 07:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No we don't, not until the guideline conflict is addressed. And I object to your accusation that I want to retain as much IS as possible; you can that I sometimes oppose retaining them too. I'm in favor of a guideline that doesn't contradict other guidelines and which is worded as to not permit spurious overapplication. The fact that this revision of WP:INDICSCRIPT often conflicts with WP:PLACE is too glaring a problem. Either settle this in this RfC, or explicitly shelve this problem for later. Then we may have consensus. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 17:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with the majority here. But framing a policy is one thing, and implementing it is a different arena altogether. How do admins and others intend to implement this? There are a lot of articles (probably thousands or more) containing Indic scripts, that are covered by this policy. They include dieties, biographies, geographical locations, mythical characters and many more. Only certain scripts and languages are covered by exceptions I suppose. What would be the roadmap? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
How about Narendra Modi, Rama, Krishna, Gujarat, Haryana, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare for a start? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You can further look at South Indian scripts being used at Krishnadevaraya, T. V. Sadasiva Pandarathar, Silan Kadirgamar, Pandyan dynasty, etc. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention most of the subdivisions of good ol' Tamil Nadu. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 17:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Anyways, @Capankajsmilyo:, what's going to happen is exactly what RegentsPark says below. Not many users are willing to go out of their way to systematically remove them, they'll probably be removed without discussion from the most prominent topics though (for example bigger cities in TN, as opposed to smaller more obscure divisions). There's no easy way to have everything look consistent across all articles. And it's not just admins who will implement this (other than, e.g., banning users who repeatedly violate norms), that's not how WP works. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 18:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The guideline enables the removal of Indic scripts from the infobox, something we can't do right now. Anyone re-adding the script to an article will be edit warring against consensus and that's why we need it. --regentspark (comment) 19:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The way I see it, the guideline enables removal of scripts from infoboxes and will work in the same way as it does for the lede. Remove on sight with a reference to the guideline. We can't remove the native name placeholder from the infobox template so this is the best we can do. --regentspark (comment) 18:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Exactly. I've been adding Ms Sarah Welch's hidden note (<!--Please do not add any Indic script in this infobox, per WP:INDICSCRIPT policy.-->) to the the native_name field of each of the Indian cities I removed IS from (I've gone through the top 50 cities by population). El_C 23:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Is what we have here local consensus, or more global consensus? The official scope of this RfC (at least up until today, possibly), was Wikiproject India. However, from WP:CONSENSUS, "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Under these assumptions, WP:PLACE takes precedence, but some of you don't want this. So what we're debating here actually falls under the purview of Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Good practice for proposals, which wasn't followed. So we need to make sure we have global consensus, and that the voices here aren't just all WP:INDIA locals, before the effects of this RfC can be felt on WP:PLACE (and currently, yes,WP:PLACE does takes precedence, given the quote above). And we ought to have WP:INDICSCRIPT on a page that's categorized as a guideline outside of this Wikiproject, if it becomes global consensus that WP:INDICSCRIPT should override existing established guidelines like WP:PLACE. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 00:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Basawala, where in WP:PLACE does it say that you have to use non-Roman scripts in infoboxes? --regentspark (comment) 00:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:PLACE permits relevant names in the local script, and WP:INDICSCRIPT would forbid it. That would be a conflict in guidelines. A consistent set of laws/rules/policies/guidelines can't allow and forbid something at the same time. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 04:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Anyways, I've publicized this on all/(many?/enough?) of the right channels as per Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Good practice for proposals, so give this a bit more time, and whatever is concluded by the closer will have global scope, outside of just WP:INDIA. So if they think a consensus exists, it will be global. Whatever the outcome of this is, some version of WP:INDICSCRIPT ought to be written as a guideline that sits outside of WP:INDIA and applies to all Wikipedia articles, and of course with clause that says this applies to India-related articles (to exclude its application on for example, Dhaka). I don't think anyone would object to this. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 04:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The solution is simple: Block all internet accounts originating in India, since Indians are the problem.

Seriously, a complete ban on Indic scripts is ridiculous. I've dealt with this problem and the idiots who want to add twelve scripts to an article. But there are cases where I find Indic script to be quite useful in a reference work, especially when I can clip it from WP and paste in a search engine:

  • The name of a language in that language and its predominant or official script
  • The name of a script in itself
  • The name of a people in their language
  • The name of a person in their native language
  • The name of an author in the script they use for writing (that is, their name as it appears in the books they write)
  • The name of a book in the script it uses (that is, the title that will actually get hits in a search engine)
  • The name of a song in the language of the song (looking it up in English or transliteration won't get you many hits)

Etc. Banning Indic scripts because nationalists abuse them is like protecting all articles because vandals might abuse editing them. We should not start deleting useful information from an encyclopedia because we're tired of it being open-access. — kwami (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

The native script in the lead or infobox will not be entered by the Professor of Local Script at Local Script University, but by Wikipedian Joe Local Scriptmo who does this in his spare time. How do we know that the script rendering of Joe will be correct? How will you ensure that Joe is not cursing you out instead? Where are the WikiProjects Indian Script A, Indian Script B, .... Indian scrits U, Indian Script V (there are 22 official Indian languages) with their bright eyed local-script spelling bee champions, waiting to pounce on the next offender? This is not ethnlogue, dictionary.com, or Google maps, this is poor old Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
This is just about infoboxes. RfC about prohibiting IS from the lead is here. Looks like you object to the concept—this change is more specific to infoboxes. El_C 00:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I think Kwamikagami means that they object to banning scripts in infoboxes, too. This should logically follow from objecting to the general concept of banning Indic scripts. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 04:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just stressing that we already have consensus to restrict IS from the lead section—indeed, to me, this was the logical conclusion to that. El_C 06:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
In the infoboxes of several languages, we give the name of the language in its official or customary script. I don't see why Indian languages should be an exception. As for not being able to tell what people are saying, those editing the articles should be able to. — kwami (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I see that El_C has already started implementing the proposal. Given that the discussion is far from settled, this shouldn't have been done, but let's leave that aside. I see that the bigger cities of India were the first ones to see the scripts removed from their infoboxes. I've had a look at the 25 most populated cities, and the removal of the scripts in five of them (Lucknow, Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Pune) has resulted in brief edit warring over their re-insertion. As far as I'm aware, the selection or order of scripts in these articles wasn't contentious to begin with, so their removal seems to be stirring controversy where none previously existed. If the aim of this proposal was to reduce edit warring, its effect seems to have been the opposite. – Uanfala (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification, in that case if not in five then in four out of the 25 articles in the sample, the removal of scripts has resulted in editwarring. Incidentally, I notice that the contentiousness in the case of Delhi is just you removing the Gurmukhi name every time it was reinserted by a different editor. Frankly, I'm finding it difficult to imagine what could be wrong with including the same scripts and in the same order as they appear on every single road sign in the city. – Uanfala (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Uanfala, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that edit warring will never go away. What consensus on Indic scripts does is it forestalls the endless discussion on which particular script to include and it empowers the removal of any Indic scripts because there is consensus against inclusion. Anyone editwarring against consensus could find themselves blocked. That's the purpose behind this whole consensus thing. Settle on something and then enforce it. Nothing is going to end edit warring. --regentspark (comment) 13:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I strongly object against closing a RfC with such a far-reaching objective, possibly affecting thousands of articles, per SNOW barely after 14 !votes cast and in less than 24 hours from start. Honestly, many valued editors have not had an opportunity or time to weigh in the discussion. El_C's declaration of "closure per SNOW" and his decision on adding the "consensus" (?) to WP:INDICSCRIPT as well as his subsequent removal of Indic scripts from city articles are overzealous at least. For these reasons, I suggest to keep this RfC open for at least another week, so as some of the hundreds of members of this project are given a chance to participate. Until then, I suggest no scripts are removed from any infobox. — kashmiri TALK 21:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Can I suggest that it be more prominently emphasized that, when Indic scripts are removed, the relevant named infobox parameters (native_name(_lang), etc.) be left, with a comment, as I've done here, after the previous well-meaning editor, enforcing this RfA RfC, removed them? Otherwise, editors knowing those parameters are part of the infobox, but unaware of this RfA RfC, as I wasn't until just recently, might be tempted to add them. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

See the discussion about Inter-wiki initiative below. I would suggest moving/migrating the languages and their discussions and edit-warring to wikidata and using only English titles and names in Info-boxes in this English Wikipedia. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

So the proposal is to store the native names on wikidata and have the local infoboxes display them? This would mean they're visible here but editable only on wikidata. – Uanfala (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Ofcourse, the proposal is not to display them in infoboxes, especially on mobiles and smartphones. They can be displayed somewhere else if it very much important. Maybe RexxS might know of something interesting for this. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
If the native names aren't displayed in the infoboxes at all, then (as far as the English wikipedia is concerned) this is essentially the same proposal as the original one at the start of this RfC. – Uanfala (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo: Unfortunately, we don't have community consent to import data from Wikidata except in infoboxes, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2. The only exceptions I'm aware of are the inter-language links in the left menus and the {{Authority control}} template. HTH --RexxS (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

New AfD discussion

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Websites blocked in India. Capitals00 (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject and related task forces have signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post on Wikipedia:WikiProject Haryana/Popular pages.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding reach of WikiProject Philosophy, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at meta:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, The Community Tech Team, through Johan (WMF) (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Where is Barel?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Requesting an India expert to visit Barel article. The coordinates given in the article place Barel outside the stated state of Jammu & Kashmir. Notice how the pin is well below the infobox. Trilotat (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @Trilotat: I looked for it on internet. Couldnt find anything. Used google, bing, and <redacted> search engines (just humour, I used three engines though), couldnt find anything. Even though this article has been on wiki for almost 12 years, the lack of content, and only one contributor for adding content raises suspicion. I have a freind in Maharashtra, who is from Kashmir, I could have asked him; but he is in Kasmir for summer vacations, and he doesnt communicate with anybody from outside Kashmir while he is in Kashmir.
    This issue requires attention of someone who is practically familiar with J&K territory rather than "internet" or "book" familiarity. Thanks a lot for pointing it out, I will try to find further information. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  Comment: @Trilotat: I initiated a discussion here: Talk:Kathua district#Is Barel town in Kathua district?. Hopefully someone familiar with the issue will see it. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Legendary kings of Magadha is a mess, possibly needs to go to AfD

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

It starts with "The Magadha Empire was established very likely by King Jarasandha, who was a son of Brihadratha,". But Magadha doesn't mention Jarasanda. The second paragraph of the lead says " Bimbisara, also known as King Shrenik, ruled this kingdom from 617-565 BC" but Bimbisara says "544 – c. 492 BCE" - very different years. The second sentence says " Aryabhata (565–535 CE)" while Aryabhata has different dates. Then there are several tables of legendary kings with impossible dates and a citation needed tag from January 2012. Doug Weller talk 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

THis is a standard problem with all these legendary lists, and as is well known, most of our articles feature an eclectic mix of history and mythology. Compare the current version to this older one. Also not sure how or why Aryabhatta came to be used as a source here. Article should probably just be redirected to Magadha Kingdom as opposed to Magadha. —SpacemanSpiff 12:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
File:Less that one percent of book collection usernamekiran.jpg
Books on Krishna

I cant improve it. Spent two hours online, and on my books on Krishna, Bhagavat Gita, and Mahabharata. Couldn't corroborate with the article. I think a very little content from this article should be merged in Magadha empire under a section "Ancient history" or "Mythological history". —usernamekiran(talk) 18:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Ranni Forest Division

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I came across an article on the Ranni Forest Division that seemed to have some problems, so I left notes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Ranni Forest Division and User talk:Apokryltaros#Ranni Forest Division, and, independently, two science editors noticed the same problem. I wonder if there is an editor at Wikipedia:WikiProject India who is familiar with the fauna of India who could help find some sources and straighten out these lists.  – Corinne (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Perilla

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! I'm trying to improve the "Nepal & India" section of Perilla frutescens article. I'm wondering if silam (Nepali: सिलाम), thoiding (Meitei: ?), chhawhchhi (Mizo: ?) and bhangira (Uttarakhand: ?) mean Perilla frutescens or Perilla frutescens var. crispa. I'd also like to know the written form of the above words and singju (Meitei: ?). If anyone can help, please do. Thank you! 🌿 --Brett (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Statue of Equality (Ramanuja)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If anyone else could have a glance at the article - it would be greatly appreciated. I'm not sure about WP:NOTE for this, but most importantly it needs someone who knows more about India than me to look it over and re-format. Thanks for your time! Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Scores of students in a school article

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Should board results of individual students be mentioned in articles about the schools? Our article on City Montessori School includes names of multiple students. Since the results of ISC and ICSE usually are good, adding info on one or two student's performances might act as an encouragement for our readers to add info on other students. Is there any criteria for such inclusions? --Skr15081997 (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, these are not likely to be anywhere near notable. 1000s of schools and every article having their topper scores? They can find such information from school website - we are not a news site. This is an encyclopedia. Hence, they should be dropped, in my opinion. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I would say this is trivia, and should not be added. Vanamonde (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
They should be deleted on sight as WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI :-
"lists or detailed information about current or former pupils, .... is usually inappropriate. Special care should be taken in regards to the mention of individual pupils or providing information that would allow individual pupils to be identified (particularly where they are underage); such disclosures should only occur in exceptional circumstances"
In addition - as stated at WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI "Although written for colleges and universities, the advice in Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism also applies here."
Protection of minors is the most important aspect- Arjayay (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Have deleted the mention of specific pupils from City Montessori School - Arjayay (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Didn't realize these were minors: I thought students who have completed these exams are necessarily graduates, and so probably adults, but that's only because I didn't pay enough attention. Yes, identifying information about minors should absolutely be removed unless we have overwhelming reason to present it. Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

List of Non-resident Indians

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I came across this entirely accidentally, and am still amazed that it even exists. How is this remotely a practical list? There are millions; possibly tens of millions; of non resident Indians. Probably hundreds of thousands meet our notability guideline. This is not just an incomplete list: it is inconceivable that it ever could be complete. This would be far better served by a category, it seems to me. Vanamonde (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. I agree. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree, recommend initiating one of the relevant forms of deletions for it. A little more in detail, this list is of the first type mentioned in WP:CSC and they say prevent such lists "from being too large to be useful to readers" though they, prior to that, specify the no redlinks scenario. Sort of nails the main rationale for deletion and would be curious if there's a relevant reason to keep it. I think that though this case is not specifically mentioned, it is another extreme. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Sent to AfD. Vanamonde (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

SMC Global Securities Limited

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at SMC Global Securities Limited and assessing it? I tried cleaning out some of the promotion stuff, but the sourcing is not very good and the company does not seem to meet WP:NORG. There may also be some COI editing involved by different IPs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Google maps as ref

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can we use Google maps as ref such as, ref no.41 in Hyderabad#Geography.--Vin09 (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

About Draft:Shahpur, Fatehpur district

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all,
This is verifiably a village in Uttar Pradesh. I considered moving it into mainspace. My concern is with the additional text begining:

  • "between the two famous rivers Ganges and Yamuna..."
  • "The village of Shahpur came into existence around 1000 Hijri calendar..."

That text appears to have been copied and pasted from "OverView-Of-Shahpur" from the "http://www.onefivenine.com/" website, that would appear to me at best an unreliable source.
What do you think about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Shirt58:   Done Worked on it.--Vin09 (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you address above section?--Vin09 (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Delete proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programs renamed by Modi Government

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a proposal to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programs renamed by Modi Government. Please feel free to share your views. Best, Tyler Durden (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It seems a stub article was created in full name of the case. After Feb 2017 it did not get much edits beyond categorisation. Full name article is The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Others (DU Photocopy Case)

1) For one full name of the case too long and defficult to search since it begins with 'The' 2) There can be many other cases where in Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford and Delhi university will be involved but name of Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case likely to remain more unique. 3) The full name article can always be redirected to Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case article.

Hence I do suggest we do merge The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Others v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Others (DU Photocopy Case) be merged in and redirected to Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case article.

Please let me know your views at Talk:Rameshwari Photocopy Service shop copyright case#Merger proposal

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Cheetah (Meena Clan)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could someone cross check the Hindi sources to see (a) that there is subcaste Cheetah, and (b) that the statements on the page are supported by the cited articles? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 19:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is currently a request for comments on the inclusion of a link to Tony Joseph (2017) How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate at the "External Links"-section of Indo-European migrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Aadhi Raat Ke Baad

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The 1965 film Aadhi Raat Ke Baad is under discussion for deletion. Does anyone have access to the Encyclopaedia of Hindi Cinema which may help provide notability for this film? --Bejnar (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aadhi Raat Ke Baad is where it is being discussed. Capitals00 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Kovur,_Nellore_district

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion regarding keeping referenced content at Talk:Kovur,_Nellore_district. Users can comment there.--Vin09 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Wording of the exceptions to WP:INDICSCRIPT

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Hi Bluerasberry, I just noticed you updated the wording of WP:INDICSCRIPT. May I ask for a clarification of the sentence "This guideline does not apply to articles that are within the scope of projects other than WikiProject India, for example WikiProject Hinduism or WikiProject Buddhism."?

I would think that such a wording would imply that any article which belongs to any other WikiProject other than WP India would automatically get an exception. This would not make sense for most articles, and would tend to defeat the spirit of what was agreed upon in the numerous discussions. For instance, the rule would not apply to an article like Hema Malini simply because the article also belongs to WP:WOMEN.

Thanks, MikeLynch (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@MikeLynch: It was not my intent to change the meaning of the text which was already here.
The sentence that you quote, "This guideline does not apply to articles that are within the scope of projects other than WikiProject India, for example WikiProject Hinduism or WikiProject Buddhism.", was added in August 2016 by Uanfala. I can agree that the wording is awkward but I do not know how to better phrase it. I can understand the intent, which is to make an exception for terms in classical languages and to avoid contemporary political disagreements. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, I should have checked that. I will try and think of a better wording in any case. MikeLynch (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I cannot seem to think of a wording that accurately captures the consensus that was reached. The basic issue here is that since Wikiprojects are rather informal constructs, there cannot be a binding policy instituted at Wikiproject level, and most certainly not one that affects other Wikiprojects without agreement or acceptance there. MikeLynch (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
This added sentence is in a way redundant: after all, a guideline that appears on the page of a particular project applies only to that project. But I had to add this sentence as this otherwise obvious point apparently got missed by editors who were removing Indic scripts from all manner of articles that had little or nothing to do with WP INDIA. I don't know how the wording could be made better, but it could be made more precise with something like this: This guideline does not apply to articles that are not predominantly within the scope of Wikiproject India, for example articles ones that fall within WikiProject Hinduism or WikiProject Nepal. – Uanfala 21:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala and MikeLynch: I think the following words may be better to reflect the consensus that was arrived at "This guideline does not apply to articles that are not predominantly within the scope of Wikiproject India, for example articles ones that fall within WikiProject Hinduism or WikiProject Buddhism, however, if an article is related to a geographical and cultural region (like Mithila, Bengal etc.) that overlaps in WP:India, this guideline does apply." Ind akash (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't recall regions overlapping with India to have been discussed in the recent RfCs. And incidentally, Mithila and Bengal are examples of cases where the rationale for INDICSCRIPT doesn't apply. – Uanfala 22:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala, El C, and Ms Sarah Welch: Please refer to the April, 2017 RfC and I am sure you would find @El_C: Please explain will WP:INDICSCRIPTS apply to articles which are related to India as well as some other South Asian countries? (For example : will it apply to Mithila (region), a region now divided between India and Nepal?, for your information Mithila (region) comes under the scope of WP:WikiProject Mithila, which is a descendant of WP:India) Ind akash (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC) I suggest that if the region overlaps in WP:INDIA, INDICSCRIPTS policy should apply. Mithila is one example, Bengali, Kashmiri, Sindhi, etc-related articles are other examples. For why, please see the explanation by RP and others above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Yes, related to India, broadly construed, is what I also had in mind. El_C 13:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC). Ind akash (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure why we're listing specific exceptions. My suggestion is to leave it at not predominantly within the scope of Wikiproject India and let practice and consensus carve out the exceptions on individual articles. If you list two projects, then those will be the only projects excepted. --regentspark (comment) 22:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think I'd agree with that, RP. I'm sure there will be someone along the line who nitpicks and finds loopholes, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. MikeLynch (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Mohit Malik

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please can a subject expert take a look at Mohit Malik? Someone with a COI may have overwritten the BLP of an actor with a new BPL of a driver with the same name. Thanks, Certes (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Article for deletion requiring attention

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A articles nominated due to WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:OR that require attention:

Capitals00 (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

July focus on Women in India

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.

 
File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg
 

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP of a poet

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,
Is the article Vaibhav Chhaya salvageable? I rarely work on BLPs; and when I do, its work like fixing typos or grammatical mistakes (dead persons are my specialty). So, would somebody please take a look at the article? Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 09:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

CIS-A2K Technical Wishes 2017 Announcement

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Greetings from CIS-A2K!

CIS-A2K is happy to announce the Technical Wishes Project beginning July 2017. We now welcome requests from Indic language communities on our Technical Request page. This project, inspired by WMDE, is an effort to document and hopefully resolve the technical issues that have long plagued Indian Wikimedians. For more details, please check our Technical Requests page. Please feel free to ask questions or contact us at [email protected] and [email protected]. Regards. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about naming convention of Indian universities

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear editors, Yesterday I requested a rename of the page Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology Delhi to Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Delhi (with a comma) as per the name on the official website. However, I saw that some other similar universities seem to have no comma before the place name, such as Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. On the other hand, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad, Indian Institute of Information Technology, Allahabad and Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani seems to have commas. I am a bit confused about what is right. Is there any convention followed on Wikipedia regarding Indian university names? AnkitSarkar (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

You've pretty much answered your own question. The name typically reflects how the institution is referred to in the sources, which may include the official website. There isn't so much a naming convention for Indian universities as there is a common name policy for pages across Wikipedia. MikeLynch (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

West Bengal in featured article review Comment

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

West Bengal has been a featured article for more than ten years. We did an informal review and improvement in 2011-2012; however, the article is in FARC now for appropriate reasons (mentioned in the FARC). Unfortunately I am extremely short of time to address the issues. Please help in saving the featured article status of the article. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The page referenced doesn't offer much help in regards to what's actually wrong with the WB page other than some alleged weasel wording and a short bullet point list of suggestions that the contributor admitted was just a quick review of small issues. Could you please offer just a bit more guided information where help is needed so that I can try to help out a bit?Willard84 (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Willard84: Hi, Thanks for volunteering. To-do list will include: 1. Updating the data (economy, politics etc) with updated reference, 2. Getting rid of some images (the article is image-heavy) 3. Going through the prose to, at least, get rid of wrong grammar or errors, and removing weasel words. After such basic things are complete, we can request WP:GUILD for an improved copyedit. Please let me know your concerns, I will try to help whenever I have time. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'll try to clean up the prose and pictures when I get a chance. I'm not sure I'll have the time to do data updates though.Willard84 (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A troubling collage of images claiming to be about open air halal slaughter in Delhi

Latest comment: 7 years ago31 comments6 people in discussion

An editor @Ms Sarah Welch: had created a collage of four images taken from Flickr: File:A collage of Buffalo sacrifice images Islamic Halal Dhabihah procedure, Delhi India.jpg. They are from a Flickr photostream from 2006 and claim to be pictures of an open air halal slaughter of a young buffalo in Delhi during Bakrid 2006. The picture was added, puzzlingly, to Jhatka, Kutha meat, and Cattle slaughter in India, but not to Halal or Dhabihah. I am concerned because open air slaughter has been illegal within municipal limits since 2001, and in the current climate of anti-Muslim hysteria in India, a picture which has added information e.g. that it was performed in Delhi (based on the Flickr labeling, not on GPS data), that it was halal based on the surmise that the people wearing a skull cap must be Muslims, and Muslims would never kill an animal without halal, is nothing if not inflammatory. I have removed the image from these three pages. But I would like to hear from @RegentsPark:, @SpacemanSpiff:, @Kautilya3:, @Stefan2:, @Doug Weller:, @Bishonen:, @Sitush: and @Vanamonde93: about what Wikipedia policy says about such an image, and how it might be deleted if it found running counter to WP policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I don't think the image violates wiki policy if used appropriately (like used for not spreading false info). I think the image falls under "wikipedia is not censored" term. As you can see, the first photo in Cattle slaughter in India is of a Hindu priest killing a male water-buffalo calf. My point here is, such images (one with calf) are allowed. But I do feel the collage looks too violent, and detailed.
Also, I see your point about current Hindu-Muslim situation: the city I am from is in top 20 "sensitive" cities of India. Again, I think it would be safe to use this image (if the article calls for it); with clearly mentioning the date in caption, as well as in description section of file summary page. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of course of Wikipedia is not censorship, but I'm asking how such an open air act of slaughter took place in 2006 given especially given the existing Indian law: "3. Animals not to be slaughtered except in recognised or licensed houses - (1) No person shall slaughter any animal within a municipal area except in a slaughter house recognised or licensed by the concerned authority empowered under the law for the time being in force to do so." (see Prevention of cruelty to animals (slaughterhouse) rules 2001. How do we know that it is Delhi, that the participants are Muslims, and that the act was halal. I have now arrived in Delhi in my travels and have already asked some people both Muslim and non-Muslim. They say they don't recognize the background, which is shown in greater view and detail in the Flickr photostream,, and are incredulous that an open air slaughter of a buffalo could have taken place in Delhi in 2006. I will get to the bottom of this in a few hours, perhaps go to the local police station to ask about the background landmarks to determine if the pictures were indeed taken in Delhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I am the wrong person to answer queries about image use. All I will say that unless there is serious doubt over exactly what an image is showing (which is possibly the case here) the use of the image is likely protected by NOTCENSORED. Vanamonde (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Per my request, and submission of argument, the title of the collage, as well as the four constituent images which mentioned "Islamic," "halal," "Delhi," "India," "sacrifice," have been changed at Wikimedia Commons to the more NPOV: File:A collage of Buffalo slaughter images.jpg, File:A buffalo tied to tree before slaughter.jpg, File:Buffalo throat cut during slaughter.jpg, File:Buffalo shown a short time after slaughter by cutting throat.jpg, and File:Removing the skin after the buffalo slaughter.jpg. They therefore cannot be used to illustrate Islamic sacrifice in Delhi or any other place in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde: We have had a Durga Puja sacrifice image in the same article, added by someone before I ever edited the Cattle slaughter in India article. Some of claims by F&f are misrepresentation of the Flickr images uploader. The uploader clearly includes Delhi in the tags for example. We rely on such uploader representations, on Flickr or directly to wikimedia (strangely F&f has been busy deleting those "delhi, india, buffalo, sacrifice, butcher, outdoor" tags from wikimedia commons, which unduly suppresses that verifiable and relevant information). That the participants in 2006 were Muslims is obvious by the caps some of them are wearing in the various images, and the slaughter method. I had already removed "halal" phrase from caption, as a compromise. I suggest we follow NOTCENSORED and show both buffalo sacrifice images. I am transcluding the discussion below, to avoid duplication of effort. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The participants were Muslim as evidenced by the "caps they were wearing?" Really? I am in India today. I went to an Urdu poetry recitation this afternoon, where a Hindu man was wearing the same cap, when he recited Iqbal's Bachche Ki Dua, and where young Muslim women had bindis (usually a mark of a married Hindu woman) on their foreheads as a part of their cosmetic makeup. So, if I take a picture can I say, "A Muslim Urdu Shayar with Hindu women in the front row?" Seriously, what sort of nonsense is this? I've written the 3000-year history section of the FA India, not to mention the History of Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Again, if cap/Muslim term is what bothers you, that is not an issue here. How about "A buffalo slaughter in Delhi in 2006" caption? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Please don't waste my time making silly accusations: "what bothers you." Again, there is no evidence that this is Delhi, India, Muslim, halal, or a sacrifice, except in the tags added by a youngish looking British tourist 11 years ago. Perfunctorily quoting Wikipedia platitudes, while edit warring and relentlessly adding dozens, hundreds (?) "Muslim" slaughter images as you are doing on Commons, see here, (see for example this video, is much more of a violation of everything Wikipedia is about than my saying you are talking nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:COMPREHENSIVE and WP:NOTCENSORED. I am surprised that the Eid buffalo sacrifice images bother you, but wikimedia commons has already hosted older Durga Puja buffalo sacrifice and other animal sacrifice images for a long while. The article has been using another religious sacrifice image for a while. Allow me to ignore your other aspersions, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Like Vanamonde3, I'm not good at image issues. However, I do think that reliable sourcing should apply to everything and flickr images and tags don't, imo, meet that bar. If there are objections to the inclusion of an image taken from uncurated sites, best to exclude them. --regentspark (comment) 16:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • RegentsPark: Should we apply that to tags/description broadly, when the tags/description with the image is not verifiable in RS, no matter where the image was uploaded? including images added by uploaders directly to wikimedia that lack verifiability in a reliable source? Will it be okay if one can cite RS that show and verify similar images of cattle slaughter in India, but that wouldn't be exactly these images? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Images taken off the Internet are always suspect. That said, they are not usually removed unless someone questions their authenticity. If that happens and no reliable sources are available, they should be removed. That standard should apply to all images, whether from Flickr or uploaded directly to Wikimedia. And this is especially true for sensitive topics such as this one. --regentspark (comment) 22:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment:--Echo RegentsPark:--While WP:CENSOR is a binding policy, If there are objections to the inclusion of an image taken from uncurated sites, best to exclude them.
As a sidenote, I feel both of you have been wrong in some of your reasonings:---
@Fowler&fowler::---Your's writing but I'm asking how such an open air act of slaughter took place in 2006 given especially given the existing Indian law is akin to asking at a 26/11 photograph--Since GOI explicitly forbids any terror/mass-murder activities on it's soil, how does this occur?.I live in WB, India in a municipal area and while public slaughters are pretty uncommon, they do happen and I have been a witness to it.I don't expect you to have traversed the length and breadth of the country and some of your comments in this regard are probably unnecessary.
@Ms Sarah Welch:--WP:SYNTHESIS is avoided in writing articles and the same must be aimed to be strictly met while describing/deciphering the contents, origin etc. of a photo! There are no requirements of acquiring/sourcing images from WP:RS (Prim. because of copyright problems et al. and that the curr. system works good:)) but when an image has been challenged and no counter-arguments suitable enough could be invoked, it's best to remove the image all together.All the more so when circulation of photoshopped images, fake videos etc. through social-networking sites are at their peak in India and is itself heavily covered in media.And I think it's pretty difficult for us-editors to discuss and find the real location of a random image.Winged Blades Godric 17:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: To say, "how such an act took place," is really to say that either it did not take place in India, or if it did take place in India, it was carried out in violation of Indian law. If the latter is the case, no Muslim religious authority will dare to declare it Halal, and we will be hard-pressed to call it halal on Wikipedia. Halal, unlike other forms of slaughter, has all sorts of rules and regulations. There is no evidence that they were observed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler::Ok!Somehow your ping failed to work!
  • Thanks. Images do need some description. I will go with the consensus guideline. Yet, we must apply this guideline, or whatever guideline we agree on, for all photos (I lean more towards NOTCENSORED). It makes no sense to "only keep and not challenge Hindu festival sacrifice image", while "not keep and only challenge Muslim festival sacrifice image". Both suffer from the same RS issues. FWIW, I have witnessed Eid slaughter in many countries. Nothing unusual about the images (Halal has some Sharia rules, and Muslims who perform outdoor slaughter on Eid believe that they are following the procedures; But this is beside the point here, because we can be silent about halal/Muslim/etc; the real issue is how to avoid selective interpretation of rules, and how to apply WP:RS on images). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ms Sarah Welch:--If you feel there are problems with Hindu festival sacrifice images, feel free to point out and my standing on the issue will be the same unless and until the photograph for some or the other reason is clearly verifiable.As to your last point contact a few editors who actively work onimages and if they ae as vague as me, prob. a site-wide RFC will be due to determine the best practise in these cases.Winged Blades Godric 05:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • WB: Indeed, this is a problem with not only Hindu festival sacrifice images, but others such as Christian festival sacrifice images (see the blood-soaked wikimedia collection on Goat sacrifice for example). There is no peer reviewed RS to confirm that the alleged "Durga Puja" sacrifice occurred on Durga Puja or in India (could be Bangladesh? elsewhere?), or by Hindus (could be tribals/etc), etc. If the uploader's caption or tags can be reliable for one image, why not another? If unreliable in one image, why not another? FWIW, I agree with rest of your comments and those of Vanamonde and RegentsPark assuming we apply the same standards for all other images in a given sensitive article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sarah Welch: This ball game is over. It is best, as V.S. Naipaul said to Paul Theroux, to take it on the chin and move one. Please don't attempt to waste more time by trying to make some kind of pious philosophical point. No one is interested. As for that "old lead image," File:Immolation Sacrifice, Mouh Boli, Durga Puja.jpg, of a putative Hindu animal sacrifice in Assam, it shows no water buffalo that I know of, especially not any domesticated or wild relative of the magnificent water buffalos of Assam to whose UNESCO world heritage sites of Manas and Kaziranga National Parks tourists from around the world make the journey to India. The only possibility I can think of is that the "buffalo" calf soon after being delivered by its mother accidentally strayed across the border to Burma and ended up being raised by the Kayan people. The doomed animal about to be sacrificed in the service of Hindu superstition, looks more like a horse. Please check if some hitherto unknown Aryan king in the Assam jungle might not have performed the Ashwamedha horse sacrifice. Finally, please don't quote more Wikipedia banalities about why I might be violating WP:This, WP:That, or WP:Other. Meditate instead about why you might have uploaded nearly a hundred (seriously, we need one hundred?) gruesome pictures of halal slaughter on Commons a couple of days ago, all in the space of a few hours, and who in the world will call it WP:encyclopedic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
F&f: what sanctimonious nonsense! Please skip your banalities and forum-y lectures. Demanding sensitivity in one case, mocking others is neither appropriate nor helpful. You come across as someone who (mis)uses wikipedia "unreliable/reliable/etc" guidelines to push your POV when convenient, attack others when convenient. You quote guidelines such as "WP:encyclopedic" or tags and image uploaders are not "reliable/RS" when Eid slaughter image(s) bother you, but lecture "please don't quote more Wikipedia "banalities" about why I might be violating WP:This" when challenged about an equally troubling image for another religious community with the same issues. Let us apply the guidelines consistently. Your silly story about buffalo-Kayan-Aryan king-Ashwamedha is your OR and shows your state of mind, and one can easily write equally OR-filled silly stories about the Delhi-outdoor-sacrifice image with a Caliph-Jihad thrown in about the image that bothers you! FWIW, Eid sacrifice is one of the largest animal sacrifice events in the world (~50+ million animals sacrificed on the festival every lunar year, an event that constitutes the vast majority of known ritual animal sacrifices in the world). If dozens of Christian/Hindu/etc sacrifice images uploaded by other editors are okay, then so are those I uploaded with wiki tools. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: NOTCENSORED does not overrule the need for RS when an image is questioned, as admins note above, with which I agree. If you or others see any image in any article that you find insensitive to Buddhist/Hindu/Jain/Christian/Muslim/etc sentiments, and if the image is not verifiable in a WP:RS, feel free to remove it according to the comments above. It does not matter if the image is illustrative, and the tags or captions explicitly verify it is Delhi/wherever or other information on Flickr / wikimedia commons / wiki site / another questionable website. This applies till an RfC is found or is completed that clarifies a different community consensus. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: I dont have any problems/doubts regarding the visuals of the image. My only concern is about general verifiability of the facts (not just this particular image). What I mean is, how can we be so sure about the facts (location, and date) provided by a flickr user. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. We can't be sure about information/tags no matter whether the image is uploaded to Flickr, wikimedia commons or it came from another WP:Questionable source. If the image has GPS information, or has some information like billboard/city or state name in the image, or such obvious information, then that may work. The best practice would be to cite a similar image and verifiable information in RS. Your idea of NOTCENSORED is a fine one, but verifiability is a core policy. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional information about the collage

This section is transcluded from Talk:Cattle slaughter in India. (edit | history)
 
A buffalo slaughter in India

There has been on-going discussion elsewhere. Copied below:

Fowler&fowler: I have restored the deleted image. Images need to be illustrative per MOS:IMAGES. Outdoor slaughter on Eid is frequent. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, you think I was born yesterday? I'm in Delhi now, and you are attempted to tell me about India by producing garbage images of everywhere but India!!! Where is the proof that this is Delhi, that the participants are Muslims, and that the slaughter is halal? I will be removing the image again. I am happy to take this to dispute resolution for images. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
See the tags below the image here and study the image collection for evidence that this came from Delhi. Feel free to take it to DR. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I have included the image here to ease the discussion. Please note that the uploader of the image in 2006 tagged it on Flickr that the buffalo sacrifice took place in Delhi. The slaughter is similar to images from the Islamic Eid sacrifice festival linked above, and the participants are wearing similar caps. This slaughter is as illustrative as the Assam image which someone else added to this article in the past. In both cases, we are relying on tags / uploader providing information. I welcome a discussion on which images should be included. I am also open to a revised caption. Any concerns and suggestions? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: is there a way to display this same section on the other talk page (Talk:Kutha meat)? There is no sense is having the same discussion on multiple talk pages. I tried the Transclusion template, but I must be doing the coding wrong because it is not working in preview mode. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)  Done

You are all wasting you time, engaging in side discussions here. The discussion is at WT:INDIA not here. The titles of the images have already changed per my request and submission of reasons at Commons. The five images now no longer refer to Delhi, India, sacrifice, halal, or dhabihah. As you must know, open air slaughter has been illegal in municipal areas in India since 2001, a violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 2001. I have provided the link at WT:INDIA, and have already checked with lawyers in Delhi, where I happen to be now. What sort of nonsense are you all attempting to pull. What do I care that other images have been wrongfully uploaded. Two wrongs do not make a right. Enough of this nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 
The old lead image in the article
F&f: You misrepresented to wikimedia commons that the source does not state Delhi. It does. See links above. Just because the wikimedia commons changed the title, along with hundreds of titles they rename everyday, does not mean you are right. The image is as illustrative as the Durga Puja sacrifice image that someone else added, which apparently you don't care to remove. Whether outdoor buffalo sacrifice by a religious community is crime in India, or not, according to you.... that is irrelevant, the image just shows what happened. Sacrifice is a form of slaughter. I suggest we keep both Durga Puja and the above buffalo sacrifice image. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion is at WT:INDIA. Please voice your arguments there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Input requested on an Indian e-paper

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please visit RSN/assamtimes.org and offer your input. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 09:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Peer reveiw nomination of Government of India

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is to inform all interested editors that a peer review is being conducted to obtain recommendations for the article Government of India Intrested user please commentRADICAL SODA(FORCE) 06:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion re: categorising people at Dalit and/or Bahujan

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_13#Category:Bahujan. - Sitush (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Bump The discussion there is stagnating. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: Not sure if there is already a template or not. But if you need an example for template, then you can take a look at {{NPR invite}}. I can help with it if you want. But personally, I have observed that if an inexperienced editor is invited to work on a WikiProject, then he becomes too confident/bold. So instead, I would suggest to invite experienced editors. Also, after creating the template, getting a consensus to invite editors is suggested before actually inviting a lot of them. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting. Thanks for letting me know! I am a PhD student at the University of Minnesota. We are planning on a study to help WikiProjects recruit new editors - those new editors include both newcomers in Wikipedia and relatively experienced editors who have been in the community for a while. More detail can be found here. I am not sure this is something WPI would be interested. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There's {{WikiProject India invitation}}. I think Titodutta also tried some other things to bring in new members, he can perhaps answer some of your questions. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Usernamekiran, Titodutta, SpacemanSpiff, following the previous discussion, I made a set of recommendations (it might contain some blocked editors who I will remove later). You'll notice that they are split between new editors and experienced editors. What do you think?

Username Recent Edits within India Recent Edits in Wikipedia First Edit Date Most Recent Edit Date
Blue Heart (talk · contribs) 5 7 2017-7-19 2017-7-20
DGB1965 (talk · contribs) 1 4 2017-7-13 2017-7-13
Chinsuvi (talk · contribs) 1 1 2017-7-19 2017-7-19
RamRS (talk · contribs) 1 1 2017-7-13 2017-7-13
Saffrin (talk · contribs) 319 1548 2012-5-13 2017-7-23
George Sharma (talk · contribs) 298 750 2008-5-2 2017-7-14
Zwerubae (talk · contribs) 309 797 2014-10-18 2017-7-20
Rimibchatterjee (talk · contribs) 304 780 2006-8-8 2017-7-16
Samyamoy (talk · contribs) 328 1169 2013-7-27 2017-7-21

Bobo.03 (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: I think all of them are good. Contradicting my previous comment: I think we should invite whoever seem to be fit. Searching specifically would take a lot time/energy. I think, we should "just do it" :-D  
—usernamekiran(talk) 21:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Good to know the list looks good to you, usernamekiran! It's great to have your support! So I wonder how much system support would you like in inviting new editors to your project? Would you be interested in an automated approach, for example, the system inviting the most suitable candidates each week? A semi-automated approach, for example, a single "button" to generate a invitation to a candidate? Or would you prefer to manage the invitation process totally manually? Other ideas? Bobo.03 (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Women in Red is pleased to introduce...
A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
  • Create articles on any day of any month
  • Cover women and their works in any field of interest
  • Feel free to add articles in other languages, too
  • Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Social reform in Maharashtra

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Anyone got any ideas regarding what to do with List of Marathi social reformers and Social Reform Movement in Maharashtra? They're a real mess. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Blow it up and start over --Muhandes (talk) 10:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
e/c :That second one reads like an essay or a copyright violation. The article is mostly duplicated in this book, including some exact copying: [10] . It's hard to tell if that book is copied from Wikipedia or vice versa. First Light (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
That book is published by Gyan, who routinely plagiarise Wikipedia and also respected publishers (see what I did there! <g>). See User:Sitush/Common#Gyan. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I have PRODed the second article. The first also needs to go, because it seems to be synthesis; each entry has some references, but the topic as a whole doesn't seem to have coherent coverage. I'd suggest AfD. You are probably going to hear some "How dare you" opposition, though. Vanamonde (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
On lighter note, I wish you dare them more so people will work more on their respective mother tongue wikis. :) But can you do realy without those articles entirely cause social reform movement in Maharashtra is one of the core part of Social reform movement as well as Indiapendance movement in India along with social reform movement in Bengal and Tamil Nadu.
How about draft namespace for both the articles as first step? because second article does not have sources but flow of the article is developable and material from first list article and social reformer articles can be selectively used in broader article, still will need little more search and reffer activity for proper encyclopedic get up.
Whether there is a need of separate article for "Social work in Maharashtra" ? Besides there is a need for template that would include social workers and social reformers, so it will be better presentable and will reduce burden on lists.
Mahitgar (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Article deletion proposal relisted twice with no discussion

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y. K. Raghunatha Rao - Sitush (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted page per WP:SOFTDELETE, no point in prolonging the discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. You're brave! - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Gulla Surya Prakash

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

He is an eminent Cardiologist based in Hyderabad serving as Medical Director of Care Hospitals, Secunderabad and Musheerabad. He has saved many human lives taking personal care. I know him closely and he has done very good social service for the last two decades. But unfortunately, when I am trying to add content to his page, it is getting deleted. Can someone help in rewriting his article page. I have added even the publications from Pubmed. He is really a notable person. I need someone to help. Thank you.--Rajasekhar1961 06:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Rajasekhar1961 the problem is that some of the content you've added (e.g. the awards and social service) section are unsourced. All statements made about someone in a biography need to be properly sourced. See WP:BLPSOURCES. Anything that has been added to a biography but doesn't have a source is liable to be deleted. Also, if you know the person that you are writing about then you have a conflict of interest. You musn't add information to Wikipedia articles based on your own knowledge of a person as you did in this edit, unless you can back it up with sources that prove what you've written. See WP:OR. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Curb Safe Charmer for clarifying some points about writing about the known people. I have added two of his publications from Indian Heart Journal available in Pubmed. They are related to their medical teamwork. They are also removed. Can you clarify about this.--Rajasekhar1961 15:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding WP:INDICSCRIPT

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does WP:INDICSCRIPT apply to motto field of {{infobox university}} or only to the native name field? --Muhandes (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, a non-English motto on the English-language Wikipedia is not terribly useful to most readers. Is there no English translation? I certainly think the guideline should apply, and for the same reasons as it applies elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

CIS-A2K Newsletter June 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello,
CIS-A2K has published their newsletter for the months of June 2017. The edition includes details about these topics:

  • Wikidata Workshop: South India
  • Tallapaka Pada Sahityam is now on Wikisource
  • Thematic Edit-a-thon at Yashawantrao Chavan Institute of Science, Satara
  • Asian Athletics Championships 2017 Edit-a-thon
Please read the complete newsletter here.
If you want to subscribe/unsubscribe this newsletter, click here. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Article for deletion requiring attention

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article Pandit Jasraj has been proposed for deletion, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. -Ninney (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been working on adding sources and improving it. Please do take a look, feedback and help welcomed. Rasdhar (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

K. Dutta

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, I recently declined a speedy deletion nomination for Ketaki Dutta. I am fairly sure the subject warrants inclusion, but the article needs referencing. Any help appreciated. Regards, decltype (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I've added some structure to the article and a reference. I also removed some copyvio and I suspect there is more. Didn't copyright crop up at AfD given the zero references? Cesdeva (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The article was only reviewed for speedy deletion, not a full AfD. Good job locating and removing the infringing text though. Regards, decltype (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Decltype for the heads-up about the article. Please keep sending them our way. Kind regards Cesdeva (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Social reformers of India

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Is Social reformers of India retrievable? A quick glance suggests it is a massive series of unattributed copy/pastes from linked articles. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a copyvio/OR mess to me. It's not complete copypasta though so tracing content and stapling 'copied templates' to the talk page is out of the question. Perhaps thinning it down to just article links then redirecting it to 'List of Social Reformers of India' would work. I'm thinking something like this. Or to be less deletionist the only other solution i can think of is rewording all of the prose and referencing it. I suppose the defining question is do we really need a repetition of article ledes or would a basic list of links suffice? Cesdeva (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I, too, was thinking that the best we could do is convert it to a simply list. I'm not even sure how to define "social reformer", though. - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I have left a note here and contacted a revdel specialist. It will probably be reverted to the 2010 list before today is done. - Sitush (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
nice one, thanks for the update. I imagine defining subcategories within social reform allows easier definition. For instance 'the dissolution of the caste system', 'forging an independent India', 'reform of prison conditions', 'women's rights', 'campaigners for the right to healthcare and other municipal facilities'. Once there are decent examples for subcategories then new proposals can be judged against those. Otherwise half of notable Indians would probably get added as social reformers. Cesdeva (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Exactly - the term is too loose by far and practically every politician, for example, has been called a social reformer by someone or another. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Luckily we only have to worry about the weight of the reliable sources. The scope of the term 'social reform' can be left to newspaper editors etc...Cesdeva (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Duplicated article

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We have a duplicated article for a politician - see the merge proposal at Talk:Thummala_Nageshwar_Rao#Proposed_merge_with_Thummala_Nageswara_Rao. I'm unsure which title should be used. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends on which language you are trying to use. if it is Telegu/Kannada then "Nageshwara" and if it is from "Tamil" perspective then it should be "Nageswara" ,But I think he himself is using "Nageswara" so would suggest this Shrikanthv (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Shrikanthv. I can see it would be a transliteration issue. Any chance you could comment in the merge discussion? My note here was mainly to get people to go there in order to resolve the issue. Thanks again. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

TeamIndus

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article needs attention. It will be big news in December 2017 as they are going to launch lunar rover on moon. So better rewritten and improved now. --Nizil (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The first need I see there is for the article to be trimmed down to no more than a couple of paragraphs. There are very few reliable sources that mention the organization. Whether or not it will become famous in December 2017 is for the RS to report. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it needs to be deleted as a mash-up copyright violation. Failing that, someone needs to write a few sourced sentences as a stub and then everything before that should be revdel'd. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Talk:Standstill agreement (India)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a RfC on the issue of 'violations of the Standstill agreement by India and Hyderabad' on Talk:Standstill agreement (India). 2405:204:33A9:962F:2133:E96C:B796:88E9 (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

स्वांग / सांग

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Talk:Swang_(song)#Requested_move_8_August_2017, affects a WP India article. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Article for deletion requiring attention

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article Nivruttinath has been proposed for deletion, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. -Ninney (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Naresh Sharma

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I am reviewing Draft:Naresh Sharma at AfC. This person appears to meet WP:POLITICIAN but is lacking good references, and I am struggling to find more. I would welcome comments from people with knowledge of the subject, and help finding references. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I've found a passing mention here (2nd paragraph) about a 'Naresh Sharma', brother of Mahesh Sharma of the BJP. Is this the right guy? Cesdeva (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I doubt he passes NPOL. General secretary at city level etc is nothing special. - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

CIS-A2K Newsletter July 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello,
CIS-A2K has published their newsletter for the months of July 2017. The edition includes details about these topics:

  • Telugu Wikisource Workshop
  • Marathi Wikipedia Workshop in Sangli, Maharashtra
  • Tallapaka Pada Sahityam is now on Wikisource
  • Wikipedia Workshop on Template Creation and Modification Conducted in Bengaluru

Please read the complete newsletter here.
If you want to subscribe/unsubscribe this newsletter, click here. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ráŕh – The Cradle of Civilization as a source

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Need a third opinion on whether the book Ráŕh – The Cradle of Civilization can be considered a reliable source.

Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ráŕh – The Cradle of Civilization. utcursch | talk 19:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Help with cleanup on Indian Ordnance Factories Service

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I'm looking for assistance on some cleanup on Indian Ordnance Factories Service. It's got some really obtuse language and a crazy long list of external links. An IP is reverting without discussion, and extra eyes would be appreciated. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Rarh region

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everybody,
I want to create a very good article about the Rarh region, I've collected some good sources and I've started creating the article in a userpage of mine: User:Universal Life/Rarh (I'm still at the very beginning actually, just at the infobox yet). However I already figured out what to neutrally and accurately write for the lead and I've found, chosen and loaded plenty of beautiful pictures. I've only a hard time finding or creating a good map of the area.
People who are knowledgeable about the area or who even perhaps are from there...I would very much some input from you, some ideas for betterment etc. I have never written about a place before and I'm always open to suggestions.
Thank you,
Cheerfully,
--Universal Life (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

INDICSCRIPT exceptions

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Are there any allowed exceptions, such as religious articles as claimed here, to WP:INDICSCRIPT? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid not Shrikanthv (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Wrong, it is not just allowed but it is standard practice to use any other scripts where relevant as it is elsewhere on Wikipedia outside this project. The article in question is first a Sikhism related article; so until this same decision has been made in WP:Sikhism, it is allowed. In the same way it is standard practice in WP:Hinduism. This project does not trump others. Imc (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Imc is correct. On the other hand, why some other project would choose to ignore the very clear consensus that these scripts are not A Good Thing is beyond me. The India Project, after all, should surely be more experienced than any other in this particular aspect and it would make sense to follow its lead. - Sitush (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
And especially when the article in question Vahiguru is infused with etymological cluelessness of a high order. Far be it for an article on Sikhism to acknowledge Islamic/Arabic influences. So, examine the big fib on the name itself: "Modern scholars, affirm that the name Vahiguru is owed originally to the Gurus, most likely to the founder of the faith, Guru Nanak, himself. According to this view, Vahiguru is a compound of two words, one from Punjabi and the other from Sanskrit, joined in a symbiotic relationship to define the indefinable indescribable Ultimate Reality."
Every schoolboy or schoolgirl who has begun to write the rudiments of Alif, Be, Pe, ... on a takhti with a qalam, knows that Vah, and i/e (in the Vah-i-guru, or Vah-e-guru) are both good old Arabic. (See McGregor's Oxford Hindi English dictionary: vah: Arabic, interjection. Spendid! Wonderful! (it is the same as Vah, Vah, heard in a mushaira) In other words, "Guru" is as much Punjabi (and not Sanskrit) as "Vah" is Punjabi (and not Arabic); if you're going to claim descent from Sanskrit in one, you should claim it from Arabic in the other. PS In the old days, I would have corrected it myself, but today when many India-related pages have begun to be prowled more aggressively by Hindu- and Sikh nationalists, I have no interest in edit warring. However, if someone wants to correct it using my reference, they are welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Central Asians in Ancient Indian literature

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can anyone make some sense of Central Asians in Ancient Indian literature? I'm not even sure why it was created. - Sitush (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks to have been created to fill a void but the scope has been poorly defined. I would say that the 'Central Asian people in Indian classical literature' section should be merged into Indian literature and the 'Migrations from Central Asian into India' section should be WP:SPLIT into a new article if the theory isn't too fringe. The existence of Indo-Aryan migration theory and other articles on migrations would support such a split. Cesdeva (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2017 in India

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings from Wikimedia India! Wiki Loves Monuments in India is an upcoming photo competition, part of the bigger Wiki Loves Monuments 2017. We welcome you all to be part of it, as participants and as volunteers. The aim of the contest is to ask the general public—readers and users of Wikipedia, photographers, hobbyists, etc.—to take pictures of cultural heritage monuments and upload them to Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia and its sister projects. This in turn would lead to creation of new articles along with development of new articles in Indian languages.

We seek your support to make this event a grand success ! Please sign up here -- Suyash Dwivedi, sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata Workshops in India in September 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello,
We are glad to inform you that Asaf Bartov will visit India in the month of September, and will be conducting local workshops on Wikidata and other recent technologies and tools. You might be aware that Asaf is a promoter and trainer of Wikidata, and before and during this year's Wikimania, Indic Wikimedians from two communities requested Asaf to visit India to conduct more Wikidata workshops.
The workshop would include extensive Wikidata training, from absolute beginner level through querying and embedding Wikidata in Wikipedia (incl. infoboxes), as well as a general tools demonstration, including Quarry. Additionally, time would be made for general Q&A ("ask me anything") to let people use the opportunity to directly ask a WMF representative anything that they have on their mind.
Asaf would come to India on 29 August. Please see the detailed plan here. Please contact here or write to Asaf if you have any question. Regards. -- Titodutta, sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Govardhana sila should be merged in Govardhan Hill and Govardhan Puja in my opinion. Please express you opinion on talkpage. WP Hinduism is inactive so I am posting here.--Nizil (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

New editor is requesting help

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see User talk:Hb bindu. This is a brand new editor asking for help. I have removed the Speedy Delete tag from the article in question. Apparently, his father is a screen writer in India, and he hasn't quite caught on about how to source on Wikipedia. I think it would be helpful to him if he got assistance from editors who are familiar with articles on India's film industry. This topic is way out of my area, so I'm posting here in hopes someone from this project can assist him. — Maile (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Wild images

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Pratyk321 has been adding lots of images to various articles lately. Can anyone please help in assessing whether it is in violation of WP:IG or not. I tried informing the editor, but got no response. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Capankajsmilyo, I have stopped adding excess images in the articles after you informed me regarding the same(sorry for not responding soon), In recent edits: Padmaprabha, Pushpadanta, Anantanatha no quality images so added 1 image in each article and in Sanghiji article only 2 images are present one of the those 2 was added by me. Often, I replace images with better version. You may check my past revision history to see that I have stopped adding excess images. Regards Pratyk321 (talk)

Sayyad Mohd Arshi (Uttarakhand Politician)

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Would someone from WP:INDIA mind assessing Sayyad Mohd Arshi (Uttarakhand Politician)? It's only stub, but it appears to be an WP:AUTOBIO with the subject of the article being the only contributor. I'm not sure how WP:NPOL applies to Indian politicians, but the subject does not appear in general to meet WP:BIO. The sources cited are not in English, so perhaps someone can verify their reliability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking SpacemanSpiff. FWIW, I just thought it was a COI matter, and had no idea the account was a sock. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Creepy mess, Can any senior editor get involved in cleaning this article, seems to be a mixture of flowery words and news now Shrikanthv (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Article doesn't seem to be all that bad. What are your specific concerns? Lorstaking (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Bhut jolokia

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have noticed a few changes regarding part of the article relative to (Assamese: ভূত-জলকীয়া). If there is someone that can verify what is there regarding the language at Bhut jolokia that would be helpful. I don't know whether google translate is sufficient, but as far as I can gather from it neither what was there nor what is there appear to be correspond per google translate. Falconjh (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi all! We have our system ready, and we can start recommending editors to your project now. Please check here for the previous discussion archived on the talk page. We'd like to invite some of project organizers to our study. Participants will receive two batches of recommendations. If you think the recommended editors are good candidates for your project, we'd like you to invite them to the project.

Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating, add your WikiProject and username to the table on my user talk page. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi All, it's unfortunately that I haven't heard from you, but I wish maybe one or two members in WikiProject India could participate our study if you think your project need some editors to contribute. We have conducted our study (send recommendations) in a couple of projects, and receive very positive feedbacks. I wish we could engage more WikiProjects in our study. So please let me know. Thank you. Bobo.03 (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism: Please help

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

User:2405:205:6293:FE0:0:0:2188:50A0, User: 47.11.7.129, User: 47.11.11.32 and User:Ayushman ABIR (all seem to be the same person) have been vandalising the following pages: Pandabeswar (community development block) and Ukhra . They are trying to say that Ukhra, a census town, is in Padabeswar (community development block). Ukhra is a census town in Andal (community development block), as per Serial No. 237 of Towns/ Villages in the Bardhaman district section of 2011 census data and also the Map of CD Block Ondal on Page 229 of District Census Handbook for Bardhaman District. They are also trying to change the Pandabeswar (community development block) page to a census town page. There is a separate Pandabeswar village page. I request editors/ administrators to handle the situation. - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Action has been taken by SpacemanSpiff. Thanks. - Chandan Guha (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Indians in Korea

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is some disagreement between me and User:Atulsnischal at Talk:Indians in Korea:

  • Atulsnischal insists that Heo Hwang-ok should be mentioned as an Indian princess from Ayodhya in the "Ancient history" section, based on news articles.
    • I trimmed this down to 2-3 sentences, which state that this is a legend, and that the anthropologist Kim Byung-Mo identified "Ayuta" mentioned in the legend with "Ayodhya" of India based on phonetic similarity. (Source: Choong Soon Kim (2011). Voices of Foreign Brides: The Roots and Development of Multiculturalism in Korea. AltaMira. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-7591-2037-2.)
  • Atulsnischal insists on adding an entire paragraph about Memorial of Heo Hwang-ok (an article created by him) to the article "Indians in Korea".
    • I trimmed this down to one sentence, as a monument in India is not of relevance to Indians in Korea.

I've advised Atulsnischal (here) to use WP:HISTRS-compliant sources instead of news articles for history-related articles. But he argues that insisting on scholarly/academic sources amounts to censorship "To insist upon scholarly history alone is foolish as most people, the Masses, only follow common cultural knowledge and Popular Myths as that is the created ruling culture of the day. Sometimes public ridiculing of deeply held cultural myths can bring upon public slaughter of proponents of strict Censoring and scholarly viewpoints."

Any third-party opinions are appreciated at Talk:Indians in Korea#Memorial of Heo Hwang-ok, Ayodhya. utcursch | talk 15:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

While we are at it, may I also bring others' attention to Present day descendants of the defeated Maratha Warriors of the Battle of Panipat (1761)? An article by the same user, it uses a Sulekha blog post and a reddit thread among its references. utcursch | talk 15:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
THis isn't the first time that such sort of synthesis is happening, just take a look at Positive legacy of British Colonial Rule and Imperialism in India. I'll leave an ARBIPA warning. —SpacemanSpiff 15:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft:K.S. Radhakrishna

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm unable to assess this subject's notability, please help before the draft gets stuck for a long time at AFC. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Akka Mahadevi

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been working on the page concerning Akka Mahadevi and would appreciate some feedback on deleting the two sub-sections titled 'Bold Feminism' and 'Mythology'. They seem to be largely without sources and references, and could be sandboxed until they are further developed. I have tried developing sections on her life and works with sources and references instead. Would appreciate comments, especially from anyone more familiar with Kannada-language sources. Thanks. R1988 (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

What is Nana Patekar's real full name ?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

There seem to be some doubt about corectness of First & Second name i.e. his own and father's name mentioned in article Nana Patekar. May be online references also need to be verified correctly since online resources might have taken info from wikipedia itself.

Mahitgar (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost/ state of task forces in 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are your project's task forces struggling to survive? Or is it just the opposite? What are strategies do your task forces use? Does your project even think task forces need to be replaced? Whatever the case The Signpost wants to know! Have one of your task forces go to this page to contribute a section about their story. NOTE: This peice is an opinion peice with severel different editers contributing and the veiws of your task force or project may not be expressed in the articles entirety. Any questions can be left on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22mikpau (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Dhule Municipal Corporation photo caption

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Would someone from WP:INDIA mind translating the caption of File:Dhule Municipal Corporation.jpg used in Dhule Municipal Corporation into English? I looked at the Commons file, but it's description is also not in English. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The script in the caption is धुळे महानगरपालिका (phonetically, Dhuḷē mahānagarapālikā), which Google Translate IDs as Marathi and translates as "Dhule Municipal Corporation". Dhtwiki (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Dhtwiki. I've revised the caption accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Pratapgarh district (Uttar Pradesh), Pratapgarh (Uttar Pradesh) and Bela Pratapgarh

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I planned to add a bit (history, official census data, teshils, development blocks, etc.) to Pratapgarh district, Uttar Pradesh. But before I uploaded my additions/changes I realized - when I was about to add Wiki links to the towns Bela Pratapgarh and Pratapgarh City - that there are great confusions here. Both the wikipedia pages for Pratapgarh district, Uttar Pradesh and Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh deal with the same district and none of them with the Nagar panchayat town which is called Pratapgarh City in the 2011 census records.

The wiki page for Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh is the much more detailed one for information about the district. It starts with: "Pratapgarh (Hindi: प्रतापगढ़), also called Belha, Bela, Bela Pratapgarh', is a city and municipality of Uttar Pradesh, India. It is the administrative headquarters of Pratapgarh district, ...". But in fact this wiki page does not focus on the city/municipality, but on the district. There is yet another, linked page for Bela Pratapgarh. Bela Pratapgarh (76,133 inhabitants in 2011), which is in fact the administrative headquarter of the district and the Pratapgarh City (15,071 inhabitants) are two different entities.

Does anybody have an idea how to overcome these confusions? Should I

a) copy all parts of Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh which are relevant for the district into Pratapgarh district, Uttar Pradesh and then use Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh for the NP Pratapgarh City?

b) delete one of the two pages Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh or Pratapgarh district, Uttar Pradesh after they obviously deal with the same object?

c) hand over this clean-up and re-organization to a more experienced user? Ukundji (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ukundji, thank you for noticing that! The district and the city are two distinct topics and they're both notable on their own, so deletion is out of the question. The best option therefore is a). Merging text isn't a big deal, you can follow steps #1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 from WP:SMERGE. – Uanfala 10:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

INDICSCRIPT

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this true ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.215.192.57 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Assuming the question is about the edit summary, yes, it is true for the first part: WP:INDICSCRIPT only applies to articles that are predominantly within the scope of the WikiProject India, and that's not the case for Indus River. But it isn't true in the less significant second part: the particular script used is irrelevant (INDICSCRIPT isn't limited to the scripts of the Brahmi family). – Uanfala 10:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Notability in list of Indian train accidents

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Wikipedians, there's been multiple issues with the page List of Indian rail accidents.

  • There has been no concensus on the magnitude of accident that would make an incident 'notable'.
  • Many entries are either unsourced or need better citations.

A debate had been initiated on the talk page, but there hasn't been much activity for long. Your opinions and contributions would be valuable in improving the article. Vignyanatalk 10:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Khilji dynasty listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Khilji dynasty to be moved to Khalji dynasty. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Copyvio and misrepresentation?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've opened a discussion thread at Talk:Khonds#Copyvio_and_misrepresentation.3F regarding possible copyright violation and misrepresentation. It is a very messy situation, especially when we factor in my comments in the section that immediately precedes it. I'd be grateful for some comments there regarding what our approach should be. - Sitush (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Anon vandal

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Heads up about an IP-hopping vandal, who has been inserting variants of a fake name (Amukurejuddin, Amukurajuddin, Amukurajah, Amukurajesh) into various articles. Some of these insertions had gone undetected since 2013 -- I removed quite a few today. If you come across this name or its variants, please remove them at sight.

Known IPs:

utcursch | talk 16:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yoddha

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a requested move at Talk:Yoddha (disambiguation) that would benefit from participation of Indian users for determination of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title. Thanks. No such user (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Query re Telugu sources

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Apparently this edit adds "hard-hitting" sources. I've not come across them before - has anyone else? Are they reliable? - Sitush (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Khilji dynasty listed at Requested moves

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Khilji dynasty to be moved to Khalji dynasty. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Template talk:History of Pakistan

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Major issues with the new version of the template are that it removed a number of major empires from the template, and gives undue weight to princely states (there were over 500 until 1947). Template talk:History of Pakistan#Re-written template was where this has been discussed and now some progress at Template talk:History of Pakistan#Proposal. @Utcursch and Sitush: you might be interested. Capitals00 (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Community toolkit for greater diversity

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everyone,

Rohini and I have submitted a proposal titled "Community toolkit for greater diversity" for the latest round of Project Grants. [[11]]

We would appreciate your comments and feedback on the proposal. Please post them on the Discussion page: [[12]]

If you would like to volunteer with the project (thank you!), please feel free to send me a email or leave a message on my talk page -- Chinmayisk 09:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please help hand Reply

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello , Wiki Friends,

Here are Wikipedian from Jodhpur or Udaipur, if yes so please reply.--Raju Suthar (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Bhubaneswar Heritage Edit-a-thon 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,
The Odia Wikimedia Community and CIS-A2K are happy to announce the "Bhubaneswar Heritage Edit-a-thon" between 12 October and 10 November 2017

This Bhubaneswar Heritage Edit-a-thon aims to create, expand, and improve articles related to monuments in the Indian city of Bhubaneswar.

Please see the event page here.

We invite you to participate in this edit-a-thon, please add your name to this list here.

You can find more details about the edit-a-thon and the list of articles to be improved here: here.

Please feel free to ask questions. -- User:Titodutta (sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC))

Template:Hindustani-speaking areas of India

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm wondering what people think about that. Let's leave aside for the moment the issue with the title (the template lists Hindi-(in the broadest sense), rather than Hindustani-speaking areas). Does it really make sense to have templates that navigate between towns and districts based on their language? – Uanfala 22:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

No. - Sitush (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eng Kan Ti Nge Keini Chhung Hi and the Mizo language

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi folks, I know this is a shot in the dark but I thought I would take 2 minutes to check with you on something. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eng Kan Ti Nge Keini Chhung Hi is a discussion about a Mizo language film. Given the minority status of the language and general systemic bias, I was wondering if there was anyone interested in having a look through online sources in the language to see if anything about the film popped up. Thanks kindly, A Traintalk 08:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Dharamshila Cancer Hospital and Research Centre Article

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would like to suggest that the content removed in the previous edit be re added into the page (if possible) with more neutrality. The content that was in the article before seemed a little to promotional, but I don't agree on purging everything from the article. I feel it can be improved by removing the bias from it. --FigfiresSend me a message! 03:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Marathi people / social groups of Maharashtra

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone has begun to add Category:Marathi people to caste articles that already show Category:Social groups of Maharashtra. It looks like the two are exclusive categories - ie: one is not a member of the other - but it does seem to me to be another instance of the poor and confusing categorisation system we have here.

The Marathi people category was, until today, basically a category that contained individuals. I'm not even sure that it was well-defined as that since Marathi has numerous possible meanings: speakers of the language, people born in Maharashtra, people of that "ethnicity" etc. The social groups category did what it said on the tin.

I would appreciate thoughts regarding this situation, which may also affect other Indian categories of a similar type. Should one be nested inside another? Is it reasonable to show both? Do we need to tighten the definition of the "people" category? That sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Mangalore

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone who edits geography articles take a look at Mangalore. It's an FA and there's something weird going on over the past couple of months with a lot of content being stripped out by many accounts. Pinging Arjayay also as they may have an idea. I'm uninvolved with the article. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff - The removals appear directly related to the reasons cited when Mangalore was added to the "Featured article removal candidates" list at WP:Featured article candidates#Mangalore.
Several editors, notably a couple of WP:SPAs are working to address the problems, so that Mangalore remains an FA. The article had bloated from 81kb when it became an FA, to 183kb so some judicious pruning was required. - Arjayay (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
THanks for that clarification Arjayay, my only activity on the article has been to block a couple of socks that were adding crap to it in the past, so I'm not really familiar with the history and for some strange reason, I did not find the FARC discussion, perhaps some caching issue. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Name of a village

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A village in Bihar is referred to by the census as "Basantpur" but appears as "Sani Basantpur" in Onefivenine.com and Mapsofindia.com. The article has been moved a couple of times but is now at Sani Basantpur, Siwan. Has anyone here any views on the correct title? The reference to the census was removed with the edit summary "because wrong census", although the figure quoted in the article (now unreferenced) is the figure the census gives for "Basantpur". Thanks. PamD 14:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Any help on the article Bengali dialects

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello everyone, as a non-speaker of the Bengali language, I hope to get some information from the editors here. The article Bengali dialects outlines all its types under regional dialect differences. An editor has made changes by adding a separate section classification (edit history here) and thereby mentioning a few sub-types in subsequent edits. I'd like to know from you people if these dialects mentioned under Classifications qualify to be categorized under Regional dialect differences and whether they merit stand-alone articles. Thanks. Mark the trainDiscuss 13:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mark the train: Greetings Mark, thanks for approaching us. I'll ping some Bengali editors—Titodutta, Bodhisattwa, Jayantanth, Atudu—who could give better inputs regarding this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mark the train:A knowledgable person in this fied is SameerKhan. Please try to contact him. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Krishna Chaitanya Velaga and Dwaipayanc. I hope someone familiar with the language takes note. Mark the trainDiscuss 06:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Yashwant_Sinha#Content_about_September_2017_article

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am inviting editors to a discussion at the Yashwant Sinha article. Another editor has been repeatedly trying to include certain information about a recent article written by Sinha. So I am inviting others to have a look.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Promo article

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please have a look at Dhinchak Pooja and it's edit history. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Khurshid Eqbal

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The page Khurshid Eqbal was deleted un-necessarily. I highly object. Khurshid Eqbal is a well known writer, translator, poet and editor. He has written several books in Urdu language. Bihar and Uttar Pradesh state Governments have awarded him for his literary works. Then why that page was deleted?ShaguftaYasmin (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted here, at AfD, seemingly for lack of anyone showing up to argue in its defense ("The result was delete. soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM."). Possibly it can be restored, if the noted lack of reliable sources can be addressed. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Just checked, the refs in the article were all primary sources. Google News and Google Books return zero search results for this person. utcursch | talk 20:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Aapno Gramin Rajasthan notability

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Is Aapno Gramin Rajasthan likely to be notable, perhaps under WP:NORG? It's Hindi, so there isn't much I can do. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sitush I am unable to find any third party sources verifying it. If it started in 2016 it is unlikely to have a wide circulation. Social media doesn't show much readership either. If this was brought to AfD, I would go with a delete.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. There is an unsourced claim of circulation amounting to 5000 copies across seven states (including Rajasthan). I've seen bigger distributions of fast-food outlet leaflets than that. Do we have any project members who live/visit the circulation area and could comment, I wonder? (I don't want to cause someone to out themselves, I'm just wondering what sort of profile within the state could be verified). - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hm, the creator of that article also had a big hand in Rapperiya Baalam, which looks awful. - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on Indian women during this month please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles for your project please add them to the appropriate sub list Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for reaching out to us. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Indian State Emblems

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Would someone from WP:INDIA mind taking a look at List of Indian State Emblems and assessing it? It was created a few days ago and it may have some potential as an encyclopedic article, but currenlty it is just looks like a poorly formatted image gallery. In addition, there were quite a number of non-free files which needed to be removed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which tends to be a problem that these type of gallery articles often have. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I'm glad that you came with a much required list. But however, there are few issues that you need address. I'll post a detailed review on talk page within 2–3 days, but before that I suggest you to reconsider the structure, it's looks quite complicated, and also not consistent. This may be as issue if you go FLC. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Thank you for your comments, but I didn't create the list. I came across it while checking on some non-free image use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: The Chandigarh image is not a free image, that's copyrighted, it was created in the sixties but incorrectly marked here as free. If you have the time then you can look up some of the emblem deletion requests on Commons. THe Sikkim one is PD although it was created in the sixties because the underlying image has been in use for centuries. A lot of contextual digging is required. —SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Oh! Sorry, I mistook it. Anyways, after skimming through the list, I see that there is a lot of work to do. It hardly has any prose, and there are no citations in the article. The list doesn't follow the Manual of style and isn't consistent in its structure. I'm pinging the creator, Nouduri Lakshmi Srinivas, to follow this discussion and work accordingly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Bhat

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Should the article Bhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be split into two articles? Bhat and Bhat (caste)? The article discusses the caste and is a list of people with the name Bhat and Butt. There is bound to be those who are not of the caste, so it would seem confusing. There was just an attempt to remove most people from the article which I restored. Jim1138 (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Spliting is my preferred presentation because of the risk of unintentional BLP violations etc. There are quite a few articles where this issue arises. - Sitush (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd support separate pages titled Bhat (surname), Bhatt (surname), and Butt (South Asian surname), inter-linked in the "See also" section. utcursch | talk 14:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Kiran Rathod

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Kiran Rathod seems to have played significant roles in multiple notable south India films. So I deproded the article & redirected it to a seemingly suitable target. Can any Tamil/Telugu speaker check media coverage about her in those languages. In English/Hindi sources I could only find odd sources like this one & this one. If she is really non-notable then her link has to be removed from a lot of articles – [13]. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I cant read telugu or tamil, i can understand them on level 1 though. I never saw her article, but i always thought Rathod was notable enough to have an article. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Vallabhbhai Patel

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is drawing huge traffic today. Would anyone like to collaborate to improve it to GA? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Lone (surname)

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Need a second opinion at Lone (surname). An IP-hopping anon insists on adding a person to the list of notable people with this surname, but the person does not have a Wikipedia article. I've unsuccessfully tried to engage the anon on the article's talk page. utcursch | talk 01:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: According to the IP, this person is not same as Goga Pahalwan. utcursch | talk 02:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Uanfala for taking care of this. utcursch | talk 19:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Mayors

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have a quick question about the office of mayor in India. A user has created several lists of mayors of cities in Uttar Pradesh; this is not a problem in and of itself, but where the issue comes up is in the way they're titling the articles: not as "Mayors of City" or "List of mayors of city", but as "City (Mayoral constituency)". I cannot find any indication on a Google search that "mayoral constituency" would be in any way a normal way for mayoral offices to be referred to in India as a whole or Uttar Pradesh in particular — the term turns up exactly nowhere but these articles themselves and other websites which are simply straight mirrors of our content. But when I tried to move one of them to "List of mayors of city" in accordance with standard Wikipedia naming conventions for lists of mayors, the user moved it back to the "Mayoral constituency" version again. Since I don't want to get drawn into an editwar over it, however, I wanted to ask if somebody here could review them and determine whether the articles need to be moved or whether "mayoral constituency" is an actual thing in Indian English.

The articles in question are Kanpur (Mayoral Constituency), Lucknow (Mayoral Constituency) and Varanasi (Mayoral Constituency). Thanks to anyone willing to look into this. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_64&oldid=1252830605"