Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Do you need the Indic name(s) of something or somebody? Post a request for it.

Click here to add a new section

Wikipedia Meetups edit Upcoming none Recent Outside India Past meetups

Audio for Mamata Banerjee

Someone has asked me for an audio file for the Hindi pronunciation of Mamata Banerjee's name. I'm not able to make such a file - would anyone here be willing to make one? (A file for the Bengali pronunciation would be useful too, but it's specifically the Hindi pronunciation that I've been asked for.) --Zundark (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Titodutta (talk · contribs) might be able to help, if I remember correctly he's uploaded a couple of ogg files for Bengali names. I'm not sure what you mean by Hindi pronunciation, it's a Bengali name -- both first and last names are uniquely Bengali, while the first has a Hindi variant, the latter doesn't. —SpacemanSpiff 12:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Actually Banerjee isn't very Bangla, it is an English corruption, bangla prefers Bandopadhya and is written বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়. Mamta can be pronounced मोमता / ममता, audio file will depend on whether the speaker is speaking Bangla or Hindi or English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I mean either, but I've pointed the user to this page, and he can ask Titodutta if he wants to. Thanks for your help. --Zundark (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you can upload the Hindi pronunciation of Mamata Banerjee, however the pronunciation of Hindi in that article is incorrect, i guess someone has to correct it. "(Hindi) [mɔːmoːt̪ʰaː bɛːnaːrjiː]", "(Bengali) [mɔːmoːt̪ʰaː bɛːnaːrjiː]" or "(English) /mɑːmtæ ˈbɒnɛə/.--Kkm010* ^{۩ ۞} 04:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please respond.--Kkm010* ^{۩ ۞} 05:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I cannot provide the pronounciations in IPA, but I believe the phonetic pronounciations are:

English: Mum-taa Banner-jee

Hindi:Mum-a-taa Bun-err-jee

Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, I think we can upload the Hindi pron, what you think which one should be uploaded the Hindi or Bengali pron. I know that you can't upload, but other editors can therefore we can request them to upload the original and correct pron.--Kkm010* ^{۩ ۞} 13:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please someone respond and try to upload the pronunciation.--Kkm010* ^{۩ ۞} 13:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Need some opinions on Talk:Kurmi#Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna

This talk page is a noticeboard and is not meant to be a discussion forum. Content issues are better handled on article talk pages. For dispute resolution, see WP:DR. For Issues about behavior, take it to either of WP:WQA or WP:ANI. --rgpk (comment) 12:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Need some opinions on Talk:Kurmi#Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna. After presenting sources, I have been getting warnings on my page when I pointed out how a discussion is stretched after Synthesis. What I have presented is reliable sources, and what it is turned into is "swaying" of authorities by Kurmis, etc. and then I am given second warning after my comment here. Need opinion on way ahead. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Hm. The warnings overlapped your "synthesis" contribution. That was a sort of edit conflict on different pages, if you understand what I mean. However, your tendentiousness in the debate which you refer to appears to be matched by one you are involved in at Romila Thapar. The common denominator is you, so perhaps there is a lesson to be learned? - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC) In that case, I request comments on Romila Thapar page also. Also, Sitush, please explain how my 'tendentiousness' on Romila Thapar page effect the topic of concern here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC) I have already explained. It is because you are the only common factor in the two articles. I didn't add - but do now - that you have received numerous warnings for tendentious and otherwise disruptive editing since May. You really do need to curb this, erm, tendency.- Sitush (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Could you present standards for your views on "swaying" authorities logicline please before giving numerous warnings? I requested on the talk page and I am requesting it now and all I am getting it is warnings. Where are the standards that say warnings can be given when someone points out synthesis? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC) What you're calling "synthesis" is attempts to explain to you on Talk how you're mis-reading the sources. Nobody is attempting to put this "synthesis" into the article, I'm just pointing out that your "hey guys here's my source so let's go ahead and change the article" posts are quite inaccurate and should not be used to change the article. You are showing a clear pattern of making wild assumptions based on sources which say no such thing and trying to insert them into the article, and when called out on that you jumped on me for adding the slightest amount of interpretation on the Talk page. What's the WP term for that again, where you over-react to criticism by trying to find any trace of the same in others? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC) MatthewVanitas, the substance mentioned is clearly from reliable sources. Let others also decide what is 'my interpretation' etc. when the substance is mentioned a clearly reliable source. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Nobody is doubting (most of) your sources, we're doubting your taking "in 1924 they formed the Kurmi Kshatriya Organisation" and using that to conclude "we should remove the cited term Shudra and say the Kurmi are Kshatriya". But by all means, let's have some outside opinions. I do note too that if you'd phrased this request in a neutral way ("can we get some neutral eyes on a discussion at Kurmi?") as opposed to coming in asking for help against alleged unfair allegations, Sitush and I wouldn't have been inclined to have to reply to your counter-accusations here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Yes I am requesting comments, not sending comments on tagteaming if you have noticed. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Tagteaming? That is quite an allegation. And you cannot prove it because it is not true. Read WP:Tag team. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC) The only allegation I see here is "Tagteaming? That is quite an allegation"! It is not true. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC) So why the hell did you raise the phrase, then? It was a sly allegation and it is factually incorrect. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC) That is another allegation. Though there is no comment where the logicline of 'swaying' authorities came from. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 21:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC) We should consider the point raised by Humour Thisthat2011. They are worthy of merit. Please keep all discussions related to a page on that page. This side discussions is not helping the cause of the Kurmi page. I will create a ling about this discussion there. This would help others to participate in this very important discussion. 80.84.55.196 (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC) A notice is served to MatthewVanitas(here) and Sitush(here) on introducing the word 'Shudra' at prominant positions and repeatedly insisting on keeping so on pages related to Hindu Jatis such as Kurmi and Yadav. Some legalities as per this link. Advising editors to desist from such a behavior. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC) That is a legal threat. Bye bye. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC) How is this a legal threat? Can someone point out any legal document that can throw some light on the subject under consideration please? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Humour please understand wp:SYNTHESIS, a source says kurmis formed an organisation in 1924, that had the word kshatriya in it, to use that for a source is wp:SYNTHESIS, you need explicit statements, "Kurmis are Kshatriya". Please do not mis-understand me. Just trying to explain how wp:SYNTHESIS works as far as I understand it. I dont care who is what every one is human.Yogesh Khandke (talk) Yes I have added some reference in discussions here & here. Though I am yet to understand how laws in India carry no weight on Wikipedia. By Indian standards, calling Indian Jatis as Shudras would not be appreciated I think. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Humour please see talk:Kurmi, also please look at wp:FORUMSHOPPING.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't operate from India, doesn't have an India office, so Indian laws don't apply perhaps, are you referring to the Atrocities act?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC) WP does have plans for expansion in India and there is good reason for WP to stay clear of troubles with laws of any country, including India. It is irresponsible to lead the project into unnecessary problems.-MangoWong (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is not subject to the laws of India, period. Therefore, there are no "unnecessary problems" involving content and those laws. This is a facade for "let's do it my way" and I am becoming frustrated by the number of people who, having failed to get their way using Wikipedia's guidelines etc, now resort to India's laws in an attempt to almost bludgeon their POV into various articles. Yes, there is systemic bias here but there always will be such bias in en-WP until the entire world has access to a computer, access to all sources, the time to use both of those and the ability to write/read in the English language. Even if a critical mass of India-based contributors develops that mass would have to overturn not merely consensus on an article but two of the very foundations of Wikpedia, ie: verifiablity using reliable sources. You need to bear in mind that consensus is not a vote and that any !voters who base their opinion on unreliable sources etc are discarded. To be honest, if the Five Pillars irk you then why not try WikiAlpha instead? They allow original research, they do not insist on notability etc - it is quite anarchic, actually. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Do you have a brain? I mean, a brain--which can logically process information? I have already explained that WP has plans to expand its operations in India. If WP is to have an office in India, how will its office not be subject to Indian laws? You are trying to lead this project into unnecessary trouble. As a Wikipedian, I am trying to stop you. Please stop living in an imaginary world and come to terms with the reality. It is interesting that you yourself say that a large number of users object to your edits. Why do you think you only are right? Are you omniscient?-MangoWong (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Some users, many of whom have been proven to be sockpuppets and meatpuppets, have indeed objected to certain things. The problem is, as I have said previously, their objections ignore the policies and guidelines. Having an office in India (if indeed that is the plan) will make no difference to the legal situation, since the servers etc are not and will never be in India so long as India has draconian legislation. The country is well known for (eg) clamping down on press freedom & for endemic corruption in politics etc - it would make little sense to move the servers to a location where they might be shackled. - Sitush (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC) May I suggest that we stick to content issues and leave legal issues to lawyers. ThisThat, do note that your statement above is easily construed as a legal threat and you could have been immediately blocked for making that threat. Please lead WP:Legal and WP:WikiBullying carefully. --rgpk (comment) 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Given that bulk of those people who have brought up the "Wikipedia could be sued for using the word Shudra... I'm not threatening, I'm just reminding" angle on numerous caste articles in the last month are the same people who also fought the term Shudra along every other possible line of argument. It does rather appear that the "I'm just trying to help Wikipedia keep out of legal trouble" argument is quite disingenous, and just used in an attempt to remove a cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT aspect of caste history after other methods fail. Not that it matters in the slightest, but I would certainly hope that the Indian government would draw a distinction between calling a group "Shudra" in an attempt to defame them, and academic discourse which notes the historical use of the term. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I haven't been following this discussion but, and this is addressed to the editors that MatthewVanitas describes above, let's be clear about this. Any further legal threats or even mention of legal issues will be subject to an immediate block. That is the policy on wikipedia. --rgpk (comment) 15:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC) MatthewVanitas, don't misrepresent facts. The article is asserting that Kurmis are Shudras. Not in a historical way. Secondly, I have never edited any caste articles, and do not even have a single comment on any of their talk pages. So, there is no question of my having said anything or failed/succeeded in anything.-MangoWong ([[User talk:MangoWong|talk]]) 15:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Misrepresent? The article Kurmi currently says: They are regarded as being historically a Shudra (agricultural) class by academics, and as a backward caste by the government, which deprecates use of the Hindu varna ritual ranks,[4][3]. Explain how that is "not in a historical way". So far as your other contributions, nothing personal, but we've all been pretty on-edge about relatively new India accounts getting embroiled in caste issues since we've had extensive sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, and off-site (particularly Orkut) canvassing resulting in very distracting mobbing of articles like Nair, Kurmi, Yadav, Ahirs, etc. Even having some brief history outside of India topics, or having a longer-running but little-used account become active, are still concerning since we've seen both "sleeper accounts" (sockpuppets started months ago and kept in reserve to allay suspicion directed at brand-new accounts) as well as a very popular technique of starting a new account, doing a few non-controversial edits on unrelated topics (Grand canyon, milkshake, Toyota Corolla) and then a day later suddenly barelling into caste arguments in a very familiar way, but with several inoccuous edits to allay suspicion of being a WP:Single purpose account for caste-warrioring. In summary, the article says "historical", legal threats however indirect are unacceptable, and great caution is needed when debating caste issues (not insults like "Do you have a brain?") since frankly patience has worn thin for many parties after all these puppets and POV-pushers have dragged down the efficiency of a huge and sorely-needed caste cleanup. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Claim Kshatriya status, but generally recognised as Shudra. Just look at the summary of the article. It says all. Where do you find the summary of an article--in the infobox. Did I put the summary there? What is this line doing if not asserting that Kurmis are Shudras? Haaaaa. O MatthewVanitas, please let me know, is it a crime for a new account to edit or talk about caste articles? Do I become a sock/meat puppet or SPA simply for having a new account? Do you not need some reasonable proof before implying such demeaning characterizations? There have been crazy/fundamentalist/commercially interested/trolling/dicky etc. users all over WP. Does that mean I can automatically begin to talk about them in relation to you? And how can you see legal threats where absolutely no such thing exists? I have only the vaguest idea about what is Orkut. And I am an SPA if I only take interest in one article. But you also make me one when I take interest in more than one. How can this be logical? Why bring this up even?-MangoWong (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) No-one has said that you are a sock, meat or SPA. There have been numerous proven examples regarding other users, however. You are incorrect about how the article represents sudras. FYI, infoboxes only appear in about 3% of WP articles, are not necessary and in the case of caste articles it is my contention that they should not be used. They are bling, usually inserted by relatively new editors. If you want to remove that infobox then you are welcome to do so as far as I am concerned. Population, classification etc are all pretty meaningless in these boxes & I have argued this for some time. - Sitush (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC) MatthewVanitas did try to sully my name by bringing up these characterizations in relation to me. AFAIK, there has been one sock on that page. Even then, why bring that up in relation to me? And how could I be incorrect about what the article is saying? Claim Kshatriya status, but generally recognised as Shudra. What is this line doing if not asserting that Kurmis are Shudras? What else does it mean? (I would like to have a direct answer, no skirting!) And why do you try to obfuscate the issue by making it appear that I object to the infobox. No. I have no objection if the infobox stays. I only object to that one line in it. It should be changed. It can say anything as long as it does not mention "Shudra". Besides that, I think the article is focusing too much on "Shudra". There is no need to mention it in the lead. The rest of the article should also not focus too much on this. Plus there is no need to mention anything about diet etc.-MangoWong (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) You have misread MV. Regarding the article, why not take the matter there. That is where the discussion should take place and would have taken place if it were not for TT2011's rather non-neutral opening of this thread. However, I will tell you now that shudra is staying and the reasons why it is staying are explained on Talk:Kurmi. It is pretty much non-negotiable because it satisfies WP:V and WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC) So, you have no answer to my question? Who is being sly now? I don't think there is anything non neutral about bringing an India related issue to this page. It is meant for such issues. You might have described ThisThat2011's actions if he had taken it to individual users who were already in dispute with you. He did no such thing. Only you indulged in such actions. Bringing an issue here is perfectly neutral. I think it is better to continue with the issue here. It seems to make you misbehave less often. And simply because something passes WP:V and WP:RS does not mean that it is fit for inclusion in the article. There are lots of other things which have a bearing on inclusion.-MangoWong (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC) The non-neutrality refers to the wording of the original message in this thread by TT, which was an issue raised within hours of this thread opening. Furthermore, the detailed debate should indeed occur on the article talk page, not here. Basically, it should have been worded something like "There is currently a dispute regarding XYZ at article ABC. Input from other people would be welcomed." The reason for not answering your other points was precisely because this is the wrong venue. As for what should or should not be in an article, well, if the content relates to the subject, complies with the policies/guidelines for verifiablity etc then it deserves a place in what ever the article may be. It is that simple. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I might have seen more value in your non neutrality complaints if I could have seen you yourself behaving in a neutral way. You are no saint in this regard. You had taken to canvassing for support only from folks who can be expected to say things against TT2011. It is obvious that you had tried to organize a "wikikill" on a fellow ed with whom you had a dispute. You were obviously trying to do this as a way of avoiding discussion of the real issues. Doing something like this is not neutral and is one of the most despisable things that I can imagine a Wikipedian doing. You are incorrect about how the article represents sudras. You have claimed on this page that my understanding of the issue is incorrect. I have already showed where the article asserts that Kurmis are Shudras. Despite this, how can my understanding of the issue be incorrect? Since you have made the contrary claim on this page, you should explain yourself on this page too. Besides this reason, another reason is that discussions on the Kurmi talk page seem to be unproductive because of your stubborn attitude. You seem to be less stubborn here. So, there is better chance of a productive discussion here, in a more public forum. There is no point going there and coming back here with a status quo in hand.-MangoWong (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC) "Avoiding discussion of the real issues"? That is simply absurd; have you seen Talk:Kurmi where Sitush and I have tried, and tried, and tried, and tried to reason with an endless array of POV pushers who wander in, all to complain about literally one word in the article? Not a single one of them has managed to convince an admin (several have come by) or anyone at ANI or POV of the soundness of removing the term "Shudra". Does that not tell you something? You are simply one of a long line of complainants, not a single one of whom has gained traction at any outside arbitration venue, because simply put you are unable to come up with a legitimate argument that does not strongly smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are multiple sides to the story, we are including multiple sides, you and others want to remove one side of the story to spare hurt feelings about past (and continuing) discrimination within Indian society. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC) MangoWong, I have no idea what a "wikikill" is but can assure you that I mean no harm to anyone here. I have myself had a death threat recently, however, plus some other ridiculous stuff. If you could point me to one instance of this discussion here being "productive" then I would be grateful. The fact that you say "there is no point going there [Talk:Kurmi] and coming back here with a status quo in hand" speaks volumes: you are clearly set on achieving a change. That change is not going to happen from this venue, so you need to take it somewhere else. I have previously suggested the options to Yogesh K at Talk:Kurmi but they have been ignored on more than one occasion. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, there is an undue effort to avoid discussion of issues. Both the above posts are also efforts in the same direction. I have been claiming repeatedly that the article asserts that Kurmis are Shudras. Claim Kshatriya status, but generally recognised as Shudra. I have also asked what this line is doing if not asserting that Kurmis are Shudras. I have only silence from MatthewVanitas. Sitush claims my impression of the issue is wrong. I have been asking how my understanding is wrong, and I have no response from Sitush. The long line of folks who object to one single word are users, not POV pushers. If there are tons of people who object to something, and only you two are rejecting the objections, maybe you are the POV pushers. Consider this possibility too. The folks who object to one word do not become POV pushers by virtue of objecting to one word. If someone writes the article on "African American" to basically say that African Americans are Negro, folks will have good reason to object endlessly. The same applies here. You two are the POV pushers. Moreover, none of you seem to have any real life familiarity with this subject. Because of your unfamiliarity, you don’t know how to apply common sense and discretion to this subject. You have no idea why this word is objectionable, and instead of asking, you make wild assumptions about discrimination, POV pushing, etc. And you seem to have picked lots of trash ideas from hostile Western sources which are out to vilify India. They have a single track line—India--weird, Hindu=demon. That most of them never ever visited India is of no consequence. Don't talk about draconian laws and frequent clampdowns on press freedom unless you have some good sources. MatthewVanitas I don't see why you keep saying out of context things? Why do you mention ANIs and inability to convince admins etc.? Presently, I am discussing these issues and I have never had the opportunity to get involved in any ANIs related to this issue. How could I be expected to achieve a success at nonexistent ANIs with nonexistent admins? If I have failed in any ANIs, show them. And admin opinion does not carry any extra weight in ed discussions on article issues. On article issues, while editing or commenting on article content, their opinions are valuable, but only as eds. And which admin did get involved with me in discussing article content related issues? You stop saying absurd things. And there are good reasons to not to focus too much on "Shudra". Ask what those reasons are before making assumptions. Its not about sparing hurt feelings. Its about not playing up "Negro"/slave trade/slavery in an "African American" article. That you two are trying to avoid discussion is evident because TT2011 is the first ed who tried to discuss the issues in a comprehensive manner. And Sitush tried to organize a "wikikill" on him by indulging in blatant WP:Canvassing. [1] [2] Wikikill=trying to get someone banned/permanently blocked/somehow making someone unable to edit WP. That you are trying to avoid meaningful discussion is also evident by your taking an obfuscatory, circumlocutory approach on my question regarding the line in the infobox. Why don't you admit that the infobox line does make the assertion that Kurmis are Shudra. Why avoid admitting explicitly that the article is making a wrong assertion? Why talk about removing infobox when there is no objection to the infobox itself. And just a couple of days ago, you two were discussing the prospects of removing Indian eds from India related articles. Why do you want to do that if you do not want to have a free run at distorting India related articles without any discussion? [3]. At Dougweller’s talk page too, MatthewVanitas is arguing that indic centric eds be kept away from India articles. One thing that is productive here is that your motives for your uncompromising behavior are becoming clear. MatthewVanitas has taken it upon himself to play up historical wrongs and wants to play up “Shudra” because of that reason, regardless of how Kurmis themselves feel about it. Sitush thinks that just because something passes WP:V and WP:RS, it is non negotiable. He has no idea that these policies have no bearing on material inclusion. They are about source selection only. Which material gets included, how much and where, is a whole different issue. And Sitush & co. also do not put any value to consensus. Change is going to take place in the article. If you don't like it, you take it to some other venue.-MangoWong (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC) They are bling, usually inserted by relatively new editors. Sitush, you say that infoboxes are usually inserted by new users. The implication being, some new user had put up the offending line. Just to make things clear, could you pleeeeaaaaaase specify which "neeeeeeeeeeew user" that waaaaaaaaaaaaas?-MangoWong (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC) My personal suggestion would be to archive this thread; it has served its purpose of drawing attention to the ongoing discussion over at Talk:Kurmi. I see little to no point in having this discussion scattered over many noticeboards... Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Islam article

A certain referenced statement that i think is important has been removed from the article "Islam in India". As it can not be edited by IP users, i am not able to edit it. see its talk page. 117.204.84.41 (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you specify which statement please? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation of place names

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Places in India.

I think India is big enough to use the same convention of disambiguation with levels below country and not with country as do Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. The all use "X, statename", "X, territoryname" or similar if disambiguation is needed. If no disambiguation is needed, the articles on localities in India can use the plain place name of course. So no mandatory disambiguation as is done with the US. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment left; very interesting and important proposal. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India):

I suggest that places in India use the state or district for disambiguation and not "India". India is such a large country, 2nd most populous, that it will be much more clear to use a lower level. Otherwise, it would be like using "Europe" for places in Europe.

A list of places that would need renaming is at Talk:List_of_cities_and_towns_in_India#Analysis_of_disambiguation_tags.

If these are renamed, all articles left as "X, India" should be set index articles, as in Category:Set indices on populated places in India. This is good for automatic checking with bots. Bots could even create these set index pages.

Maybe you can reply at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kerala State Football League

This new article is by Indianfootballwiki (talk · contribs) who I have just blocked for repeatedly creating hoax articles and adding false information. My first thought was to delete it, because I am suspicious of anything this author writes, but the list here does not contain any of the fantasy football clubs he invented, and more or less agrees with the list headed "Kerala Clubs" at the foot of this page. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

looks ok. AFAIK, there are no hoax clubs in the list.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Varna list at Jāti - any basis in RSs?

A recent edit at Kurmi substituted the link Jāti where previously we referred to them as a "caste", so I went to check out the article. It raises some interesting points, particularly regarding the British uses/misunderstandings/interpreatations of community jatis, though I'd feel a lot better about is if it had footnotes.

That said, there is a nice, clear-cut list of where the communities fall, in the section Jāti#Classification_of_castes. This looks extremely problematic, as a) it has no footnotes whatsoever, b) this is precisely the kind of list that draws in IPs to say "what? the Foo caste aren't Vaishya, they're noble and awesme Kshatriya warriors! EDIT!" Already I note the Kurmi (where we are currently endlessly debating the K vs. S issue) is filed smack dab in Kshatriya, apparently by an IP since it's mis-capitalised "kurmi". If this list is not sourced, it is completely useless. Further, even if it were explicitly sourced, it presents a massive vandalism risk, and I submit that if there is some cite-able list (not necessarily authoritative, even just a "as per the Raj in 1901, here's their list"), it must be put into some non-tamperable format, such as a separate template with a high protection level and watchlisters, or as a image scanned from an original text, as I used to deal with the constant tampering at 36 royal races.

For the moment, I will WP:BEBOLD and remove this uncited list. Here is a link to the pre-deletion version for anyone curious, or those who have a strategy to add some form of list for historical perspective: [4]. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup needed at Varna (Hinduism)

This thread has now served its purpose; if you wish to discuss this issue further, please do so here, which is the appropriate venue. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm starting to wade into Varna (Hinduism), as the article is very convoluted, hard to read, repetitive, poor wikification, and far too much reliance on WP:Primary sources as opposed to secondary academic analysis. The article looks pretty quiet, no Talk movement since 2011. This article is "class=start" which is a bit ridiculous given how fundamental this is to Indian sociology. Yes, it's an obsolete and deprecated system, but it still goes a long way towards explaining how the current situation came to be. I'd appreciate anyone else interested in pitching in on this keystone of caste-system articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Adding a quote from here: while varna was generally accepted as the basis for identity, on the whole little agreement prevailed with respect to the place of the individual and the jati within a varna hierarchy. Srinivas, describing social relations in the mid-twentieth century, regarded such a “lack of clarity in the hierarchy” as “one of the most striking features of the caste system,” adding that “it is this ambiguity which makes it possible for a caste to rise in the hierarchy.”[30] Such ambiguity only becomes a striking feature, however, when observers expect to see the opposite, that is, a complete congruity between theory (varna) and practice (jati). Such expectations were increasingly palpable in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when India became for nascent (imperial) anthropology a “laboratory of mankind,” wherein scientific methods of observation (anthropometry among them) were expected to produce clear and straightforward sociological (and racial) patterns that conformed to varna-derived theories.[31] Hope this helps. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Just adding here, "India became for nascent (imperial) anthropology a “laboratory of mankind,” wherein scientific methods of observation (anthropometry among them) were expected to produce clear and straightforward sociological (and racial) patterns that conformed to varna-derived theories.[31]", a behavior very clearly exhibited still. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I'll have to dig more into those sources (and what it is they're citing in the "[30]" etc. footnotes), but at first glance this is indeed the kind of material that needs to be in the article. Again, not to make it British-centric, and of course the history of varna prior to the British needs to be dug into extensively. The articles are also weak on the modern Indian government's efforts to eliminate varna distinctions, attempts to use SC/ST and OBC to redress some long-standing repressions, etc. The first issue should be to try and smooth up the copyediting, and also remove any controversial uncited material or POV. Secondly, to improve organisation/flow and avoid repetition, third to expand the article using the sort of in-depth academic examination as you link above. Sound like a plan thus far? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Most of the English Literature is colonial and post-Independence of India. What I am trying to say is, it was because of Colonial history that many people lost social status (because of poverty, loss of authority, etc.), so also that colonial policies - that could order some Jatis out of some service like Police - that led to so called 'Swaying' authorities movements - is completely overlooked. When Colonial Authorities started making those rules, requiring iron-clad lines of varna (like skin color difference, misplaced in Varna system) for jobs, one can not blame any Jatis, like Kurmis, that didn't need such 'declarations of Varna' earlier. Hindu religious leaders are very clear on Kshatriya status, as pointed out earlier. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC) I am curious here, and well aware of past accusations about "Hindu Nationalists". If all of these issues were down to the colonial period (caste is, I believe, a Portuguese word), why is it that the various varna are mentioned in Sangam/Purana etc literature and why is it that those sources are used by many here to buttress their various contentions to ritual rank? The system existed before colonial times and all indications are that it was "enforced" in those early times, hence machinations such as hypergamy were employed to ameliorate some of the effects or, indeed, to bolster those effects (only the oldest son of a Kerala-region Brahmin could usually marry a Brahmin, for example). - Sitush (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Look, let's leave the Kurmi issues on Talk:Kurmi and try and approach the varna and jati castes as broad conceptual articles. I would, however, dispute that "Hindu religious leaders are very clear", as there were plenty of divergences over time and place. Look at the contorversy over the coronation of Shivaji: he was suddenly "found" to be descended from Kshatriya clans when his military power simply could not be ignored, though it is quite possible he was of Kunbi Shudra origin. It was not done by some all-India consensus, it was done because some key local Brahmins saw the writing on the wall. I dispute your implication that the Brits somehow arbitrarily mis-filed some agricultural castes as Shudra as the Brahmins vainly struggled to haul out long-standing Kshatriya references for them; it appears (per sources, and we can get into that in article talk) that when the British started formally codifying things in a unified way, many jatis saw a chance to make a pitch for a higher varna, knowing that if they could convince the British, it would be hard for any other Indian groups (including the Brahmins) to contradict the Raj. That's how you get all those temple entry and other social upheavals at the start of the 20th century; jatis were redefining themselves in ways the orthodox Hindus disputed, but the jatis now could sue in British courts, etc. to press their case rather than simply accept what other communities decreed. Mandelbaum's "Society of India" has a great passage on this here: [5]. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC) About 'The system existed before colonial times and all indications are that it was "enforced" in those early times', is again partly true. There are many examples, as noted by different sects, of Kings ploughing fields, etc. Some Hindu movements also point out that, by Karma Yoga i.e. work, one could move across Varna. "when the British started formally codifying things in a unified way" is somehow anathema to Varna understanding, which is not too iron-clad at all. The same book also says, that during and after 1941 Census, listing of Jati and Varna was eliminated, terminating the use of census as a tool for Jati mobility. So how are we on Wikipedia doing iron clad research on Jatis and Varnas? About Shivaji, assertions that the contorversy over the coronation of Shivaji: he was suddenly "found" to be descended from Kshatriya clans when his military power simply could not be ignored, though it is quite possible he was of Kunbi Shudra origin, is again Synthesis. When there is a debate, one can not take sides and in your own words "it is quite possible he was of Kunbi Shudra origin" etc. Again Shivaji was considered as a Kshatriya by a Hindu priest is what you also mentioned, regardless of 'the writing on the wall' theory put forward from a Wikipedian admin. What I can say is that whenever there are some debates/disagreements, it is not a job of Wikipedia to take sides and write authoritative History. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Building on Sitush's point: it doesn't help the "varna doesn't matter" or "varna is a wicked Britisher imposition" case to note that a huge number of articles (and basically all of the ones with a current Kshatriya vs. Shudra fight) were quite happy to prominently list Kshatriya credentials in the start of the article, and spend substantial time justifying them. But once Sitush and I started trying to detail the undiscussed controversies (which are very clear in academic works), all of a sudden people wanted to start saying "oh, varna doesn't matter" once they realised they couldn't force out "Shudra" and keep all the Kshatriya puffery. The motives behind some of these argument are rather suspect, in that context. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC) If there are controversies, why is Wikipedia taking sides in a controversy? As also, why are recognitions by Hindu priests ignored as social recognition, for example in case of Kurmis or King Shivaji? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC) WP is not taking part in controversy. The aim is to keep it that way. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC) TT2011, yet again you are spraying stuff around that is barely related to the subject heading & the thread is deteriorating in consequence. You first point was a good one but even then I knew exactly where you were going to go with it - it has become a very predictable routine. Can we try to stay focussed, please? Carping on about Kurmi/Kuni etc, reiterating points you seem unable to drop despite umpteen explanations, is distracting to say the least. As for this thread itself, it would probably be best taken on the to article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Renaming

A number of categories starting with word "Indian" are proposed to be renamed see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14 and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 13 .Shyamsunder (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hari S. Kartha

Hari S. Kartha could use some help. The article needs sources, but I don't know where to look. I found a reference for his being the editor of Janmabhumi newspaper, but couldn't find more. I'm guessing the needed sources would be offline or not in the English language. Cloveapple (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've merged Hari S. Kartha into Janmabhumi. I'm not sure it satisfies WP:CREATIVE as the only reliable sources I could find about him were trivial and just mentioned his position as chief editor.  Office of Disinformation  11:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How to spell bulbul tarang in Hindi and Urdu?

Bulbul tarang

The article bulbul tarang has no local-language spellings in its lede; does anyone know how to spell this in Hindi and Urdu? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Phonetically: "बुलबुल तरंग"  Office of Disinformation  17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated, but I have the same problem with your version as I had with my phonetic guess at Urdu (I'm a Persian speaker): neither one brings up a resassuringly large number of ghits for the instrument in question on GoogleImages. Yours does get the instrument as its first hit, but no other pics of that same item. I would expect that if we had the spelling right we'd get pages and pages of people selling, discussing, etc. the instrument, and GI would be full of various pictures of them. I don't know if my methodology just isn't a workable way to verify the spellings, or if we're both off somehow. Ideally, I'd like to find someone who is familiar with reading about the instrument and knows exactly how it's spelled. If nobody here is 100% sure, I can go to a specifically South Asian music forum and ask the musicians there. Thanks for the stab though, I tried the same for Urdu. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48

Deletion of a SIA page

The set index page Begar, India has been deleted. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What can be done to prevent such deletions? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, please ease up on the moves and creation of new dabs with redlinks. Most of the pages (e.g. Rameswaram) are WP:PRIMARYTOPICs and should reside in their current titles. Likewise, there's no point in creating dabs with redlinks. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

These are WP:NOTDAB but WP:SIA pages. And there is a lot of use in these SIA pages, e.g. see Hosur, India - several India templates linked to Hosur, but meant Hosur's in more than a dozen different districts. I collected this information, so people can take more care with their links in the future. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But please do not move pages until you send them through WP:RM; you are moving primary topics to disambiguated titles. —SpacemanSpiff 16:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Note also that WP:SIA is not a standalone guideline. You need to figure out whether or not a title is a primary topic or not. Thus, Rameshwaram doesn't need disambiguation because the city in Tamil Nadu is clearly the primary topic. Set Index articles are not disambiguation pages and you shouldn't disambiguate just to create an SIA. You might also want to consider whether a SIA is necessary for places with the same name because all you'll end up creating is a disambiguation page anyway and an SIA is not meant to be a disambiguation page in the first place. --rgpk (comment) 16:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you disagree with Rameshwaram, but why got Begar, India deleted? I repeat SIA are not DAB pages. And one does not need to disambiguate to create SIA pages, these are separate matters. SIA pages, if they are at "X, India" are completely separate from the article names. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You are better off asking that question to the deleting admin than on this page. —SpacemanSpiff 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you only attack me, and not him? You could also go to his page and say he made an error. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no attack anywhere in my posts, I have been patient despite the fact that you have created unwanted effort for everyone else by breaking links etc and you accuse others of being "anti-Indian". Quite some nerve really. —SpacemanSpiff 16:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I create content, I fix links going to "X, Y" but meaning "X, Z". You attack me again, by calling this work "unwanted". I fixed a lot of links in templates. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

States of the Indian Union inferior to U.S. states?

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan, can you refrain from phrasing this as accusations of racism/nationalism, and instead focus on the technical reasons why specific state names are used in various country articles, and how those also apply to India? Yes, there is a chance that endemic bias plays a role here, but unless you have some hard evidence of that and can address it dispassionately, it's unlikely to be a productive argument. Further, as you yourself note at the page, many other non-Anglo countries use the same naming conventions as the US; it's unlikely that Brazil somehow has more English-speaking supportive contributors than India. Lastly, you have already posted a request for input (and in more neutral terms) earlier in the page. This kind of POV phrasing gets close to WP:Canvassing, so suggest you remove this (feel free to remove my comment here too) and stick to your original posting, and keep it to technical arguments as to how state-based naming would make India articles more clearly titled. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No MV this is all pervasive, on Ganga too, it was told that it cannot be called national river, when it was pointed out that the Bald Eagle is called National Bird of the US, the argument put forward was that it was a bird. So we have these stupid circular arguments. Which makes one wonder whether the only reason is that this wikipedia has one set of rules for India and another for US/UK?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to go any deeper into the Ganga/Ganges thing, but the article does indeed say the following: In November 2008, the Ganges, alone among India's rivers, was declared a "National River", facilitating the formation of a Ganga River Basin Authority that would have greater powers to plan, implement and monitor measures aimed at protecting the river.[89]. Secondly, yes, endemic bias is an issue of concern, but vague accusations are just going to raise ire, when instead what would be more productive is an actual analysis of how alleged endemic bias is negatively affecting Wikipedia. The naming convention issue seems like it should be easily resolved on technical merits, and if somehow that can't be sorted out without some sort of bias blocking it, then that leads to a larger discussion. Thirdly, the section title is still inappropriate; even if it were a discussion on endemic bias, it would need a neutral title like "Discussion of alleged endemic bias in India articles", not a clear leading question "is India inferior?!?!?!?" MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

They finally got it, it seems, I am not editing the article, was having trouble with a know all. Of-course my point can be checked from the archives of talk and article pages. If anyone wishes I will dig and provide them.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not doubting there was a dispute, though I would suspect that part of the issue was the difference between "The Ganga is India's national river" and "The Ganga was declared India's national river on X date by Y legislation (footnote)". Nationalism is a very concerning issue, and it's too easy to accuse others of racism/orientalism/bias rather than take a hard look at whether one's personal national feelings are getting in the way of objectivity. Endemic bias is certainly a concern, but such accusations would be far more credible if, say, someone not emotionally involved in India issues were bringing them up. If someone strongly interested in Indian politics alleges bias, motivation is complicated, whereas if a Korean or South African or Chilean editor popped in to say "I think there is too much British/American bias on this topic" that would be far more interesting. Kind of tangential, but I'd like to see more non-Indian editors covering India topics, and more Indian editors taking a neutral and unemotional academic look at, say Bolivia-Chile disputes, the decolonisation of Nigeria, and other such topics where their perspective and detachment would be a valuable addition. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be apt to explain the assumption of non-bias of non-Indian editors more clearly, and standards by which assumptions are made; as also for assuming the bias behavior of Indian editors. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Article on Phensedyl (cough syrup) abuse?

There appears to be a goodly amount of media coverage of abuse of Phensedyl (cough syrup) in South Asia. Rather than just a passing mention in India/Nepal/Bangladesh legal/drug/health articles, might it be best to centralise it to Phensedyl (currenly a redirect to the chemical article Promethazine), or DAB it as Phensedyl abuse or similar? This appears to be one of those topics where it might be easily overlooked academically, but yet still has enough media/NGO coverage to cover its social impact. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this "addiction" unique to South Asia or a just a delayed entrant to South Asia? I would think it's the latter, in which case a general article would be better and perhaps a section on South Asia should suffice. —SpacemanSpiff 17:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I should specify: I think that Phensedyl overall (as a commercial product) may rate an article separate from its purely chemical article, and that this new article could have a section on abuse, which would include its South Asia abuse. We could just put all the South Asia content into Promethazine and then add S. Asia categories to that chemistry article, but that might be distracting. Form a new article for the commercial product based on the chemical Promethazine? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking more into it, a huge portion of gBooks hits for "Phensedyl" cover its abuse, so I think it should be a valid topic itself. Vaguely curious as to whether we're going to get any guff from corporate interests of the maker, but from what I'm seeing on Google it would not be UNDUE in the slightest to go quite into detail on abuse of this cough syrup, particularly noted in the UK and in South Asia. Should probably be able to get a cool pic of the bottle too. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanjay Gandhi Jaivik Udyan

Not speaking Hindi, and having been confused by many of the zoo names that I have been dealing with, I went to the dictionary. Shouldn't this be rendered (in the English WikiPedia) as Sanjay Ghandi Biological Park to be more understandable to English speakers? Donlammers (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Akrura Copyedit

I noticed the above page in the GOCE backlogs and went to work on copy editing. However, the prose is so confusing that I don't know where to begin with it. If a member of this group could give me a hand in understanding what was written, then I would be most grateful. If not, then I will have to try my hardest to go through the article and clean it up. Please drop me a line on my talk page if there is anyone willing to help. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I too tried it. But i dont have enough knowledge of this character. Hence instead of meddling with it i left it alone. Maybe you should try some notable contributors of that article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Algar, Uttara Kannada

I have been informed that I should seek permission before bannering an article to your WikiProject. So, should Algar, Uttara Kannada have a WPINDIA banner? 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Lata & Asha's songs

Please refer to the discussions at Talk:Lata Mangeshkar. Please give your views there or here. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Lavanya - help please

Aurel Stein's work on Kalhana refers to a "tribe" that he called the Lavanyas. Although that is a common enough name for a person, I can't find an article about the tribe. Has the name evolved into something else during the last century? They would have been in the Kashmir/Lohar area. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, that was just a translation of Rajatarangini. You could try a search for sources discussing the original book. —SpacemanSpiff 18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was a translation but with copious discussion/critique etc. I've been using it at Lohara dynasty, Didda, Kalhana and others. All of which will need further sourcing when I get round to it. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Two more dodgy publishers of India-related content

I think it is fairly well known that the output of Gyan Publishers/ISHA Books is very dodgy from a Wikipedia POV (and perhaps, for them, from a legal POV also). Their reprints are often mangled but it is the modern works that present the real issues.

I have long had doubts about Anmol Publishers and MD Publications. Both of these I have now found to have blatantly used content without attribution on at least one instance, albeit from a 1900 source. These have been published as if they were written by the author named on the cover but in fact include huge "copyvios" of Aurel Stein, with the very occasional word changed. So, beware of:

• Culture and political history of Kashmir, Volume 1 "by" P. N. K. Bamzai, M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd., 1994 ISBN 818588031X, 9788185880310
• Kashmir: a wailing valley "by" M. L. Gupta, Anmol Publications PVT. LTD., 2001 ISBN 8126109513, 9788126109517

It is quite amusing to see how GBooks thinks that Gupta has been cited all over the place: that is because the sentences it has indexed are ripped off from other, older works!

Maybe these are already known to be "dodgy" for our purposes, but if not then they are now. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thats a pity. I have read some pretty good works by Anmol.--Sodabottle (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen a few that I thought were ok but wasn't actually comparing them with anything else. It might be a blip in their case (although the typos in that particular book are appalling). I think that MD Publications is likely a more serious situation. Both books cover much more than just the Stein content, so they could pop up just about anywhere and who knows what other info in them many have been inappropriately derived. These assemblies of other works worry me and, of course, in extreme cases such as Gyan we know that sometimes they have actually filched info that came from WP in the first instance. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Shri Krishniji

Is Shri Krishniji another name for Krishna ? I have the feeling that the -ji is a belief-oriented suffix. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries - found the answer to my own question. - Sitush (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush and Kurmi

Wrong venue; please follow WP:DR. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I had content disputes with user talk:Sitush. He put a sock investigation against me for my trouble. I expressed my displeasure about it on his talk page. He simply removed my edit calling it a troll. He has forced my hand when I wished to keep it bi-lateral. It is easy to take action against Indian editors. That he could not hang me for socking, is because I guess socking is a technical thing needs machines whom you can trust to be unbiased. I cannot be sure when an issue would be dealt by humans. We have one editor already cooling his heels in the slammer. I have also read that certain admins slaughter hundreds of new Indian editors for nationatialist pov. What is this page going to do about this malise? I'm using Noticeboard for India-related topics as it is very much an India related issue.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC) What exactly are you looking for here?. If you have issues with Sitush or any other editor, take it to ANI or open an RFC. And dont throw wild allegations of "slaughter hundreds of new Indian editors" around. What is this a sensationalist gossip rag?. If you have concrete proof take it to the relevant forums instead of canvassing here claiming this as an "India" issue. The one who is "cooling his heels in the slammer" is there partly for labeling his fellow Indian editors with racial epithets. --Sodabottle (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Can someone point out who exactly opened up sockpuppet case against who all please. The user Sitush has acknowledged that he is not familiar with the topics at all, and is a self-declared-neutral-editor, though I do not agree with this self-glorification, for I do not think that American schooling is too neutral. There are elements of anti-Hinduism in it at fewe places. The user Sitush appears to be loathing Hindu cleric class at times too, perhaps( perhaps not) a reflection of the same education which he calls neutral. Considering that pages like Kurmi are about Hindu Jatis, it is indeed strange that guys who don't know anything about Hinduism are editing the pages. I could give an example of Catholicism where the weight of religion Christianity galore. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India)

A discussion here on the naming of Indian populated places (Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)).

OK, has been mentioned, so far up the page I missed it!! (Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)).

Thanks for repost here and for the comment at the NC talk. Below is a result of my recent work on the names. Cheers Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed template, place only a link: Template:Ambiguous names of populated places in India.

There are now 100 WP:SIA pages that list populated places of India having ambiguous names. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Clean up goes on: 150 SIA pages. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Clean up goes on: 200 SIA pages. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Review

I see that review is pending for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Piyush_Pandey. While it seems to be a reasonably well-written article for someone who is contributing on Wikipedia for the first time, I find it tragic that most reviewers there seem to be working as gatekeepers rather than enablers. It reads far better than most stubs. I believe that we should keenly follow AFCs for articles with India focus and help review/ enrich the same. People who are usually active in AFC or those otherwise interested in Indian articles on Wikipedia may please weigh in. --Gurubrahma (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

United Provinces

There are several India-related articles (e.g. 1891 Census of the United Provinces, Bihar famine of 1873–74) that link to United Provinces, which is a disambig page. I'm trying to disambiguate that link, but the best candidate, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, didn't come into existence until 1902. So can anyone clarify what these inks are referring to? Colonies Chris (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Until 1902, the region was known as North-Western Provinces and Oudh. The former was a province of British India with a Lt. Governor at the helm; the latter was a Chief Commissionership. In the Bihar famine article, North-Western Provinces is meant; in the other article, I'm not sure. Depends on whether Oudh was included in the census. It likely was, given that it was the third census of British India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

PS. I left the "United Provinces" in—in the famine artcles—because I feared that the average Joe Shmoe could mistake North-Western Provinces for North West Frontier Province which the British annexed much later, and which is now in Pakistan. However, Wikipedia has now matured, so go ahead and change those links. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

PPS Yes, the page should be moved to "1891 Census of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh" (see here for evidence, and here as well.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. A further question related to this: according to United Provinces of Agra and Oudh,

From 1856 to 1902, the region existed as two separate provinces, North-Western Provinces and Oudh.

But according to North-Western Provinces,

In 1856, after the annexation of Oudh, the North Western Provinces became part of the larger province of North Western Provinces and Oudh.

These two statements seem mutually incompatible. One combined province or two separate ones? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Another related question: the article United Province should properly be titled United Provinces, I think, as the plural form appears to be the official name. But this would bring it into conflict with the disambig page that already exists at that location. Would it be acceptable to rename it to something more specific, such as "United Provinces (1937-1947)"? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

In the infobox it exists until 1950, that would mean United Provinces (1937-1950), that is also what is given at United Provinces. Also the box says this was a presidency, but then it is wrong in Category:Provinces of British India. The latter and Category:Presidencies of British India could need a check. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation by district

There are ca 638,000 villages and more than 5100 towns, for details see states and territories of India. With 640 districts that leads to more than 1000 villages/towns per district on average. Only 10 districts have ambiguous names within India. So it could help a lot to use the district as the default disambiguator for all the villages if disambiguation is needed.

Would like to hear your feedback at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India)#Disambiguation by district. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

With 43 mio people on average per state, the area defined by the primary dab term is far way off from what is done in other countries. Analysis at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India)#Disambiguation by state or district compared with dab in other countries. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Senior Advocate and notability

Do Senior Advocates in India meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians? I rather think that the position is a "state-wide office" and so would scrape through on these inherent grounds. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No. a "senior advocate" is just a lawyer. Many of those who practice in the supreme court of india may meet our notability requirements through WP:GNG (because of involvement in high profile cases etc) but the rest are just lawyers.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That is what I was concerned about. A (probable) COI editor has added his own name to a list of notables & created /P K Ravindranatha Menon. The latter article either needs good sources fast or should be deleted on notability grounds. His writings certainly do not qualify him for notability, and the inherent notability of being a Senior Advocate does not exist per your comment. I'll try to source some stuff & PROD if nothing found. Thanks for your help. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Templates for populated places in Karnataka

Tinucherian created templates for populated places (labeled villages/towns) in Karnataka, they can be found at Category:Karnataka district templates. They are quite large and I think should be replaced in the future, maybe on taluk level. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just adding: They are a big help in finding ambiguous place names in Karnataka. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they should not, these are navigation templates and should not have any redlinks whatsoever. If there are no articles for a village they should not be on this template. The problem is that editors who try to add some content do not have the time to keep up with these sort of edits. If you want help strip out all redlinks. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)).

Bias by authors from outside India?

With 43 mio people on average per state, the area defined by the primary dab term is far way off from what is done in other countries. Analysis at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India)#Disambiguation by state or district compared with dab in other countries.

I also have seen that some articles have even been directly created with the taluka as disambiguator, i.e. even below the district. In light of that, I wonder why we cannot drop the states and use at least the districts. UP has 199,581,477 inhabitants, all other countries in the analysis are more precise with their dab terms. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan, again: can you stop using inflammatory language to try to get people to come to your discussions? It's not very civil and rather desperate to post leading questions like "Is India inferior?" and the like; that's not asking for discussion, that's rabble-rousing. You've also posted several new sections about the exact same overall issue on this page. Why not have one section (with a neutral phrase inviting discussion vice "OMG everyone pile into my side of a fight!!!") and then update it with new info or stats as needed, or if the discussion changes pages, etc? Right now it's near to just spamming the page with repeated calls to the exact same issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

3 editors (including me), who have participated in those discussions and havent agreed with you are indians. If you keep on insulting people who dont agree with you on the basis of nationality and accuse them of bias, dont expect a productive discussion there. From what i see, the examples you have provided dont warrant a default disambiguation by district level and have said so. You have provided a list of counter examples, which IMO weaken your argument further (disambig by district isnt a panacea as, among cases where disambig is needed even district level disambig isnt enough). Precision doesnt depend on the population or number of villages, it should depend on the repetition of place names and the necessity for disambig. From what you shown, i dont see how default disambig by district is any better than disambig by state. I have even provided you with names of other editors who are experienced in geographical articles and can provide more input. So do not make this issue into some sort of "respect for indians", "we have so many people, they deserve the respect by disambiguating by district". This sort of behaviour is beyond disgusting and puts off editors from contributing to even serious issues like the ones you have bought up. Stop automatically assuming anyone who doesnt agree with you are a)non-indian and/or b) suffering from anti-india bias.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that there is a small group with this tendency and that appears currently to be very active. They are open about it and their input probably accounts for 50% or more of the comments on this page, including in the collapsed areas. I am on the verge of walking away from the project due to all of the harrassment and accusations of bad faith. They will doubtless cheer if I do but without wanting to blow my own trumpet, it will be the project's loss. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A blanket statement like "bias by authors from outside India" is not very fair. We should discuss specific cases, and not a supposed general editing trend of non Indian editors. Lynch7 07:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sitush Could you be more clear on "there is a small group with this tendency and that appears currently to be very active. They are open about it and their input probably accounts for 50% or more of the comments on this page, including in the collapsed areas" please.

As far as assumptions about "the harrassment and accusations of bad faith", "doubtless cheer", "project's loss", etc. it seems mutual to me, whatever it is.

@MikeLynch the "more-neutral-than-Indian" types of contradictions have not yet attracted any comments, why I wonder. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat2011. Yogesh K and MangoWong, for starters. But you already knew this. You have contributed to an atmosphere which numerous people have described as being now poisonous. I can do without it, plus the death threats, the harassment, the bad faith and the tendentiousness. There is more to Wikipedia than fighting, although you seem not to realise it and your contribution histories seem to reflect a tendency to talk rather than act (eg: YK has 40% article edits, you have 48% and MangoW has 35% which all seem to me to be on the low side for a non-admin, but what do I know). Just my perception of where things are at. My respect for contributors from India has taken a nose-dive although I try to convince myself that you are a minority. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This disgusting trend of "if you dont agree with me, you are anti-Indian" accusations has to stop. This is wikipedia not a rediff/Times of India comment board where people throw infantile accusations at each other. Editors who have spent thousands of hours creating and maintaining India related content are being attacked by talk page warriors of being "anti-India". This sort of behaviour has to end now.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, these handful of self-appointed defenders of India's honor, are wasting a lot of valuable time of other editors. They wear you down with fluff. I'm glad this issue is being discussed on the talk page so they can be truly seen for what they are. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone link me to discussions where this poisonous atmosphere has been created?  Office of Disinformation  08:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not want to sound presumptuous but you appear probably to be a new user (registered 17 July, although you're very good with formatting, getting involved in CfD, merging etc & so perhaps edited as an IP beforehand). If you are a new user then it might be best to keep out of this because it may rapidly involve wikilawyering etc. However, for an example just cast your eye up this page to what is currently section 6 - "Need some opinions on Talk:Kurmi ..." If you understand the policies, guidelines and conventions of this place, you will understand why that thread is problematic. Apologies again if I sound presumptuous. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just read various sections in this page, the topic of this section or this talk page. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about hazy accusations of India-POV/anti-India-POV/nationalist-POV/Anti-nationalist-POV though it is mutual however infantile; which does seem to be present at many places. About talk-page warriors, lets see the kind of POV that goes about on pages in India, for examples, "the title "Mahatma" is also an essential part of the official iconography of Gandhi constructed by India's government", or 'A page name change to "Mahatma Gandhi," could make Wikipedia less credible, as it could be seen as submitting to popular (especially nationalist) sentiment.' at Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Requested_move. I don't think related editors got any warning for such POV, though it will immediately pointed out that anyone saying anything against it is 'Indian/nationalist POV pusher'. Such blatant systemic bias is visible but I wonder why it is unnoticed yet; though learned quickly act when anyone says anything against it terming it 'nationalist POV' as above. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush: I'm new, yes, but familiar with policies. I'll read the discussions.  Office of Disinformation  09:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No probs, and again my apologies for presumption. In the ideal world, we all work together. A combination of local knowledge and non-local "disconnection" could achieve wonderful things here, and often has. Right now, all that is being achieved is a meltdown in certain areas due to vexatiousness. I have spent most of the last few weeks engaged in explaining policies etc to people whom I know are intelligent and aware of those policies but are choosing instead to push their agenda in a counter-productive way. It is counter-productive if only in the sense that they are not getting what they want but they are tying up vast amounts of other people's time, which most of those people would rather spend creating and improving the under-represented India-related subject area + encouraging new contributors who have a genuine desire to do the same. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sodabottle: you shut me up when I brought the subject up the last time, forget terminology, forget what someone said to another, some time. How do you see persistant remarks to the effect (not verbatim), plague from India is ruining Wikipedia, caste warriors, pov indian nationalists, facists. Soda a bloke thinks I am omni-present, I called him incompetent, another fellow on the Ezava talk page too called him that, he doesn't seem to understant that we are not socks, his edits are in-comptent. Why is this fellow given such a long rope? This guy even reverted article talk page edits. (2)Soda would you have got away with the things that are said on the Gandhi move, say on the British Empire page? Let us not indulge in wp:OSE. Treat each case on merit is all I say. You joined cause with him on the India talk page, I say you are free to take any side as I am, take it on merit. If you have some issue with me please discuss, the attack on me was unwarrented, on India page and here. There is a lot of talk on meat-sock would you give me a few solid reasons why Mohanstutter Karamwhatnot Gandhi can't be moved to Mahatma Gandhi?? Please Soda you are free to ignore everything and I would not hold it against you, but for every word you put in prepare to back it with a diff. You too have the same previlege of course. New eyes looking at this: For starters see the arguments against the move to Mahatma Gandhi, one fellow there feels that it would be the fall of another colonial bastion, he argues that nationalist freaks are pushing the move. That the move would besmear Wikipedia.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

{ec}} I haven't bothered looking at the Gandhi stuff but if YK has correctly stated that someone has expressed concern about "nationalist freaks" then I can kind of sympathise with that (although freaks is a bit strong). Rightly or wrongly, there is some extreme stuff going on right now that, quite simply, runs counter to how things are done here. If people do not like the policies or guidelines then they need to get those changed, not fiddle around the edges on a few articles. You never know, the wider community may be in agreement but they are never going to see the point if it is confined to 1o or 15 articles. So, prepare a proposal for fundamental change to those policies etc which you have issues with, and post it at the appropriate venue. Which is not here, nor any individual article's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It is strange indeed, though users like Fowlerx2 should understand that labeling such as like National-POV may reflect labeling as anti-national-POV. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

YK, a) I havent named you here. I made the above comment in direct reply to Bogdan's comment and behaviour. Do not put words in my mouth. Where did i attack you? b) I didnt shut you up earlier. I told you to open an RFC and not to indulge in sensationalism like claiming admins "slaughter hundreds of new Indian editors" without any basis. If you think this is "shutting you up", then i have nothing else to say to you. c) I too have commented on the Gandhi talk page move with a a weak oppose. I dont find anything wrong with the rationales put forward by both sides.

If you find problems with any particular editor's behaviour bring it up in the relevant forum. Instead you are here bringing up an issue that i commented upon two weeks ago. Funny you cant find any instance where i have opposed Fowler's proposals. (here is a hint - look at the indian inventions and discoveries talk page). would you have got away with the things that are said on the Gandhi move, say on the British Empire page. I have commented on various topics during my time here and no one has insulted me using nationalist epithets until Zuggernaut and Bogdan choose to do so. Oh yes, my "fellow indians" got there first.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)No Soda I first want to know here whether the fault is mine or not, informal first. (2)It does seem to be an India wide issue, it is not just someone from Maharashtra who seems to find problems, but it seems it is all-India, Northern - Southern - Eastern - Western all directions. There obviously is a huge issue. (3)I brought the old thing up because, you stood up for someone against me, it is like getting at me, quite unprovoked and hurting. (4) Ya Soda, I too called Redtigerxyz lots of names, I am sorry about that, perhaps he understood what I felt like and excused me and didn't make an issue of it. You see sometimes the argument becomes so exasperating that people call names. Which is bad. No excuse. But are you holding life long grudges? Also I am happy that you never had to face trouble like nationalist etc., you could be a sobering voice in this clamour, but please take sides only on merit. There was no need to tag and bite like the other day. It was a shock. (5)What are you going to do about: The Mahatma Gandhi move is a nationalist issue, Mahatma is Indian government hardsell, MKG is a colonial bastion that has to be protected to the last comma? And other non-sense??? Does this nonsense not hurt you as an Indian editor?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)::(1)Ya and I used words like shut up etc for brevity, also that admins are rougher on Indian editors can be proven, I was blocked at a drop of a hat, reason - troll - pov, nationalist etc. On the other hand when another editor (who has used words like indian nationalist) does 3R you see an admin scramble for reasons why not to block him, just one example, another editor used foul language about Hindu deities, the admin just raised his eye-brows at him, for a similar offence a fellow is in the slammer, while the other guy is a bull in a china shop. (2)The words to the effect slaughtering Indian editors by another editor. To my knowledge you are not an administrator, why should this then hurt you? My exact words are I have also read that certain admins slaughter hundreds of new Indian editors for "nationatialist pov", I can provide diffs to back that. You didn't comment about the sock thing though and the rest.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

But there is part of your problem, Yogesh. You are trying to see things "as an Indian editor". You should be trying to see things as an "editor". Disconnect from your environment. If you find this difficult then go edit something that is in fact not connected to your environment. That way, there is no COI. I am not telling you to do this but your situation is a classic outcome of COI. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

See Sodabottle: A block before the ink dried on this page [6], the blocking administrator Boing said Zeebedee's name is mentioned there he shouldn't have blocked imo, he is involved in the dispute. A sock is a machine thing, why circumvent the system before the sock is proved??? Answer this Sodabottle, and what could you do about it please??? If Boing feels it is nonsense he could initiate action, why does he want to sweep things under the carpet??Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you did your research, Yogesh, instead of jumping up and down with indignation, you would note that (a) the poster linked to a defamatory external site that has been discussed at ANI; and (b) BsZ has referred to matter to SPI for independent checks. What is your problem? - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I brought the old thing up because, you stood up for someone against me, it is like getting at me, quite unprovoked and hurting This is your problem. I have had plenty of discussions with you and Fowler, when i was active in the India talk page. In which i have opposed and supported in you equal measures. The comment i made about the "pigs" was in direct response to your sharp retort. When you start referring to an argument as "wrestling with a pig", people will point that out. I have said similar things to Fowler when he has become irritated and insulting. (dont take my word, go through my contributions. i have been interacting with him for a long time. I even supported some parts of Zuggernaut's original proposal to add famine in the history section in India). You cannot honestly expect to label talk page arguments as "wrestling with pigs" and people not react sharply to it. Did i follow you after and keep at it?. It was a one time reply and i left it as such - this is me dealing with things in a case by case basis. But all you remember is a "you stood against me".

. To my knowledge you are not an administrator, why should this then hurt you?. This is not about me being hurt. This is about you bringing up unrelated stuff in this forum and throwing baseless accusations and indulging in sweeping generalisation. Did i say "i am hurt, so dont bring it up?". If you have diffs go ahead and bring them at ANI or AN. It is the relevant place where admin behaviour is discussed. Not here and not without diffs (i still dont know what prevents you from bringing the issue there, if you have proof).

Now coming to MKG. The first two points a) The Mahatma Gandhi move is a nationalist issue b) Mahatma is Indian government hardsell are IMO legitimate but very marginal arguments. But i dont see anywhere in the page where "MKG is a colonial bastion that has to be protected to the last comma". or anything of that sort. And regarding hurt. Some random guy in the internet says Gandhi is not "Mahatma" and i should be hurt about it? Why? because i am an "Indian". or because Yogesh Khandke expect all Indians to be hurt?. Do we now have uniform rules for how all indians should feel and be hurt about?. Are you now devising rules for other indians?. Are you presuming to think for all of us now. Dont try to straightjacket all of your fellow countrymen into a behavioural code of your own devising. (BTW, the Mahatma has seen worse criticism from Indians - both from the left and right).The problem is you are viewing every issue through a Indian vs non-Indian prism (or emic/etic as you prefer) and expect others to do so and rally to your support because of our nationality. When we are in the same side all is well, but when we end up taking the other side, you take it as "you stood up for someone against me, it is like getting at me" --Sodabottle (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)You have made a lot of hypothetical arguments, which I will ignore. I am happy that you are happy. Let me also stay that way, I never got into your soup? I am happy with what you have said regarding sensibilities as an Indian. Like you said, we have different sensibilities and motivations. I am happy with all that. Even twins argue a lot. So what? Also your Gandhi move part will be remembered by you, whichever way it goes. And no I don't lift people's skirts to check their gender, see Gardner's page where I corrected her two Indian editors comment. Even on the Ganga move I had opposed looking at the nationality of the voters. I have always said there are only competent editors and incompetent editors, the fellows are incompetent. (2)One friend is in the gutter for wrestling with our friend, the wrestle comment was for him, why could someone make common cause with that, check the diffs there wasn't a word between the two of us, I don't even remember any hot arguments we had, why would I call discussing with you wrestling with a pig. (3)I don't want to force you to answer the other questions, but sometimes silence speaks louder than words.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

the wrestle comment was for him, why could someone make common cause with that, check the diffs there wasn't a word between the two of us, I don't even remember any hot arguments we had, why would I call discussing with you wrestling with a pig. When you start labelling anyone opposing you as a "pig", anyone else can and will reply. Did i imply you called me a pig?. You were calling Fowler names and i interrupted sharply there. I remember doing the same thing when Fowler was arguing with CarTick. (Have i followed you into all your arguments - No, Have i followed Fowler into arguments - No. I comment where i see fit, be it fowler or you or any other editor i am replying to). But all you remember is me taking "common cause" with fowler on this one pig issue. This us vs them mentality is what preventing you from seeing things objectively here and defending obvious trolls like drbose7--Sodabottle (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"A block before the ink dried on this page" are you really sticking up for an obvious troll like drbose7?. You are damaging your credibility by standing up for a troll/SPA who peddles an offwiki attack site that says sitush got paid 400$ an hour for editing wikipedia?. Do we stick up for sock masters, trolls and vandals because they are "one of our own"?. Did you even look into this or the relevant archive. IMO BsZ made the correct decision - i would have done the same in his place. Dont believe me?. Go ahead, bring this up in ANI, you will see what other admins adn editors think of this.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I too was once blocked with those same words troll. Another time a sock investigation was brought against me. Zeebedee should have explained in detail on the fellows talk page and then blocked him. Then a person like me would have known. Incompetence. But you won't say anything about that. Isn't it as bad as a troll? Like I said there are only two types, competent and incompetent. I am not standing up for anybody but myself, I WONDER whom you are standing up for, ya that is all brother Sodabottle. Because I never said a word about you. The block was a demo of the statement I shared, slaughter of Injuns, mind you it isn't my baby, all you can hang me for is gossip. Did you see the tag under the blog, it says Why wikipedia is unreliable, which hurts. Did I peddle??? I brought it to the notice of founder of Wikipedia and to the CEO of Wikipedia, is that peddling? I immediately informed Zeebedee that I had pasted the link there. No dear it isn't peddling. In the meanwhile Zeebedee says he has redacted don't know what that means will check it out.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not "demo of slaughter". This is not incompetence. This is exactly how an admin would deal with a troll peddling an attack site. Attack sites aren't new, SPA trolls arent new. And this particular one had seen a ANI discussion very recently. If you are so concerned about "slaughter of the injuns", go ahead, bring this or any other block to the ANI. Instead of wondering about whom i am standing up for, why dont you present your evidence at ANI?. Did i say you were peddling. I said drbose7 was peddling and you sticking up for him. I will say this finally - if you are think you are correct, go ahead an report BsZ at ANI (instead of going on and on about "slaughter of injuns" and giving off wiki attack sites more visibility.)--Sodabottle (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sodabottle :(1)My bad on peddler, you are right, you didn't say I was peddling. (2) Brother I will go for AN/I, I will jump into a well, since you were so free with kind advice to me, what about a little wisdom to the fellows? Of course it is your life. (3)How do you assume that DKBose wasn't a newbie who serendipitously found his way here? Because he sang a different tune? I told you fellows have been called trolls and blocked for a fortnight, on a whim. Did you see the images that come up when you search troll, I used a standard English phrase wrestle with a pig, you went oink oink on that, you are not playing fair, but it is your life and you are its master. God bless you.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Folks, this really does seem to be getting rather over-heated and emotional. Should anyone ever see someone blocked and not understand why, then the first thing to do is go ask the admin who did the block - I will always respond to a polite request to explain any of my admin actions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Brother I will go for AN/I, I will jump into a well Of course you woudlnt, because you dont have a shred of proof to back up your wild and baseless accusations and if you repeat this there, it will boomerang on you. You will only post here hoping to get a few fellow indian editors to support your cause, by appealing to the "home team". But when challenged to repeat the charges at AN or AN/I you will backtrack. Your reluctance confirms that you are just blustering here.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If I ever see any of the money that I am allegedly been paid then I'll pass it on to Yogesh & he can donate it to a charity of his choice. But since I will not see it, that won't be happening. Why, Yogesh, did you feel it necessary to post on the pages of Jimbo and Sue Gardner when it has already been dealt with at ANI? - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As for Gandhi, Yogesh Khandke is shedding crocodile tears, for he himself is on record on Wikipedia very publicly opposing the title, "Mahatma." I can easily find the explicit diffs for these posts. In fact his scruples about "Mahatma," didn't allow him to enter the fray until very late (19 July 2011) and hypocritically vote for "Mahatma Gandhi." I believe his only reason for reason for doing so was spite against me. Consider also his reply to my post on this user talk page (by "pariah," he means Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose page he assiduously maintains and whom I had called a "pariah"). However, his posts with the blog link—to a likely miffed Wikipedians blog—on Sue Gardner's talk page is a new low. If he continues in this fashion, the community should explore a topic ban for Yogesh Khandke for disruptiveness in the manner they did for Zuggernaut, and perhaps for Thisthat2011 as well while they're at it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Going by the discussions, it seems like, whatever one does, he is victimised. And a discussion grows from three lines to multiple pages at the drop of a hat. I am tired of discussions ballooning with comments being stated, restated, and re-restated. And at the end of it, all we get is heated heads, a long long discussion page, and sarcastic comments on other threads. This thread is a good example of why an Indian editor would not choose to edit. Lynch7 13:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How about actually banning Fowler&fowler for giving unsubstantiated nonsense against Mahatma Gandhi for some time. Looks a very valid reason for throwing muck during a move at someone who is indeed a Mahatma, and whose picture is present in US Senate office of the president of the United States of America. Banning is not an alternate to present some sources before putting muck out like that. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is probably the exact sort of emotion which should be avoided to make edits neutral; is Gandhi actually a Mahatma, probably yes, but it is immaterial in the context of the Requested Move. Lynch7 13:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the move. I was talking about how muck was thrown on the Mahatma and people looked the other way and are now ignoring it again. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias - place names - section break

@MV - you suggested include the word "bias" [7]. @Soda - thanks for saying that three people are from India. I don't know who they are, you are one - ok. For the record, "anti-Indian" within this thread is your words. I posed a question and it got answered a little bit. The bias maybe does not come from outside. We have now clear out, that you, from Tamil Nadu have no problem with " , Tamil Nadu" as the default. But you write "it should depend on the repetition of place names and the necessity for disambig" - well, if disambiguation is needed for places in India it is mostly because they are ambiguous within India. This is different to the Anglo-sphere countries Canada, US, UK, NZ, Australia. Due to my initiative it was already agreed that ", India" does not help a lot and that we would use at least the state level. The next thing I observed is that place names if they conflict most often conflict within states. So the thing is that ", statename" is of no big help either. You simply say it is not - well, this is not very constructive. You also say "I have even provided you with names of other editors who are experienced in geographical articles and can provide more input." - But they did not. And I think they did not spend so much time on cities, towns and villages as I did the last days. And it was not them that created the 204 SIA pages collected at Category:Set indices on populated places in India. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The first use of "anti-India" came from you in this discussion- here. You started going down the anti-india/pro-india road. You posed a question and it got answered a bit. You didnt like it and you posted again here with a title, "Bias by authors from outside India?". How do you think this looks like after you have been asked not to use terms like "anti-india"/"pro-india" while initiating discussions? MV specifically told you in the diff above "vague accusations are just going to raise ire", which exactly happened here. If you disagree with my opinion, say it in the talk page, dont come here and post again with a title "Bias by authors from outside India?". As you state, you have no idea, where editors are from and when an editor disagrees with you it is not bias - it is just a difference of opinion. Automatically assuming people who disagree with you a) are from outside india or b) biased is not the way to behave in wikipedia.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Bogdan Nagachop you mean that India articles aren't handled properly, which this noticeboard is about. Eg. Land acquisition 2011 (the like), eg. Kurmi, Ganga, India, Vithoba, Khandoba. If that is what you mean I agree with you.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your menu of articles is getting ever longer, Yogesh, and you appear not to be getting what you desire at many of them. Are you suffering from indigestion? Perhaps there is a legitimate reason why your POV is not being accepted, and that reason is consensus. Before you start, I am well aware of systemic bias, but I have already given you a pointer regarding what you need to do, and that is not to drone on here yet again. Draw up some proposals and put them to the entire community, since consensus etc are community-wide policies. If you object to Fowler or Soda or Boing or me (add to this list, as appropriate) then take each or all of those people to ANI. I wish you well. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

@YK I don't know about Kurmi and Ganges. @All Currently I am talking about disambiguation. I had no other explanation than that people may come from outside India. The thing is that people who actually created articles sometimes used the taluka. The "anti" thing was solved and was between me and rgpk - this is done and was gone. @Soda, you bring it back. Using "Bias" is simply one assumption, I didn't say there is one, I marked it as a question. If asking questions regarding "bias" is not allowed in your world, then yours is different to mine. It's not about only that I didn't like something, but I also provided more data. You ignored the data so far. Maybe this is a bias because you are from Tamil Nadu or have not much knowledge about place names in India - I don't know. Maybe in Tamil Nadu there are less naming conflicts. What is bad with the word "bias"? But back to the issue at hand, I want to improve the naming of the articles on geography of India. Here are facts:

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India)#Census 2001 ambiguous names starting with Am - if names are ambiguous there are clusters by state, thus at least district naming is needed.
• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India)#Disambiguation by state or district compared with dab in other countries - why not use a system that is similar in precision to the UK, France and the Philippines? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok Bogdan, lets drop this here. The word "bias" has a pretty bad rep in wikipedia - so my request to you is please dont use it in generic terms in the future. I admit, my experience with TN place names is what is guiding my responses to the discussion and it is certainly not sufficient to extropolate to whole of india. (its the reason why i just commented in the discussion instead of voting). I will try to get people more knowledgeable than me in geographical issues, involved in this discussion. I do hope we evolve a uniform disambig standard. All the best with your work.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I am currently writing at User talk:Dr. Blofeld. Hope we find a good solution. We also need to define what to do if a name is ambiguous within a district. With clear rules and enforcing them one can easier find duplicate articles. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ya I now get it, so you changed Pen, India to Pen, Maharshtra. Why ambiguate unless there are multiple places. (1)If a name is unique, there should be nothing tagging it. (2)If there are two places of the same name internationally then the country's name should be used to disambiguate, and so on??? I am asking.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the geography party :-). 1) If the name is unique then there will be no tagging - that is the current system and it is the proposed district system. So we agree. 2) One could also ask why using the country name, why not "X, Asia" if it is unique within Asia? Or maybe Southern hemisphere if it is unique there "Córdoba, Southern hemisphere". And then someone comes around and says: There is another one in the south! And people have to go to hundreds of articles and to change the references because it is not clear anymore why is meant by "Córdoba, Southern hemisphere". At the same time those in the Northern hemisphere have already been called "Córdoba, Spain" or "Córdoba, Veracruz". If one chooses to walk on different levels a lot of errors can happen: People create "X, Gujarat" because they think it is the only in Gujarat. Another one that knows there is ambiguity creates "X, Rajkot". A third one creates "X (Morbi)" which refers to the same as the one before. Since Indian authors that don't know all names and locations of all Indian villages, don't know whether "X, Gujarat" could potentially be a mistake or be ambiguous they would not correct it if they see it in other articles. On the contrary if it would be the agreement to never use the state, everyone seeing X, Gujarat in some article could have a look and make the link more precise and maybe unambiguous. We would vastly improve the reliability of the references. This Template:Settlements in Bagalkot district is currently linking to Korti (Sudan!). Shall I change the link to "X, India", "X, Karnataka" or "X, Bagalkot"? Maybe the first one changes to India, then later someone changes to Karnataka and then someone finds ambiguity and changes to Bagalkot. And every time links of related articles need to be disambiguated. And now look at the French or the UK/Irish system: They use the department or the county right from the start in case the term is not unique. UK never uses "X, United Kingdom", in general they also do not use "X, England". This is defined at WP NC UK. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan Nagachop, I am all questions. A real green thumb on this subject. Well you moved Pen, India to Pen, Maharashtra, see Khopoli, doesn't have a suffix, as it seems to be unique. If we turn the whole thing 180 degrees. We can do town, taluka, but the problem is that many a times the taluka name and the town name is the same, some times the district name and the town name is also the same. How about postal code, looks ackward, but that is precise Pen (402107)???Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Great you like it. Currently I would not try to use taluka, since I have not seen any complete listing yet. For districts there is one and the names for 630 of the 640 are unique, so with converting to districts we do not cause many extra problems, it is mostly a straight forward process. Maybe the district headquarters if they have the same name as the district can go on using the state, that would mean at maximum 640 would use the state name for dab. But the rest can use mostly the district name. I created two new pages: Sub-districts of India and Permanent Location Code Number (PLCN). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Move Req Tirthankar

Talk:Tirthankar#Requested move -> has not seen any traffic. So please weigh in. Arjun^codename024 08:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

IRC channel for WP:INDIA?

Does WP:INDIA have an IRC channel? WP:MILHIST does, and I think WP:INDIA would benefit from one too. It would provide more fluidity to discussions.  Office of Disinformation  12:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, WP India doesn't have a channel, but WMI (Wikimedia India chapter) does have one. See m:IRC/Channels. I think we should have a separate channel for WP India, in case such a channel does not exist already. Lynch7 13:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have set up #wikipedia-en-india per the format set down by WP:MILHIST. Feel free to use it as needed. I will join in a few hours.  Office of Disinformation  13:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias with respect to India-related topics

Someone above suggested I should contact an editor who, as that someone claimed, knows more about geographic topics. (Not exactly the wording but something like that.) I did contact that person. There is bias. To say that a county like West Sussex having 781,600 inhabitants and 1,991 km2 is equivalent to the average Indian state having 43,221,071 inhabitants (factor 55) and 117,402 km2 (factor 60) and explicitly not to the average Indian district having 1,890,922 inhabitants (factor 2.4) 5,136 km2 (factor 2.6) /is/ bias as far as I understand. Give me a better term if you have one. 2.5 West Sussex would make up a district. So this county is not even half of what a district is and of cause it is by no means equivalent in power to the average Indian state.

So what are we going to do, I simply do not understand why articles on Indian geography shall use a more complicated system than the UK, Ireland and France. The article quality is going to suffer from this. The district system is a well established one, districts exists in all Indian states. Even with districts the precision is less than with the UK counties. So one could also look whether to use tehsils/taluks/talukas/mandals or equivalent. But this is less unique and I am not aware how many of these units are named ambiguously itself. Please anyone opposing the district system for disambiguation explain why India shall have a more complicated setup. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan (and again my comments about keeping this in one section and not using inflammatory language remain), I agree that it can be read several ways, but Assuming Good Faith here it is my impression that Blofeld is not saying "West Sussex is a more important place than an Indian district", he is pointing out that administratively "county" in England is the immediate echelon below "country", and not a sub-sub echelon, so in terms of administrative tiers, "county" in England is equivalent to "state" in India. I don't at all believe he's saying "a small number of British people in a county are more important that a larger number of Indian people in a district." By all means, you can let him know that you're concerned about his phrasing and want to make sure that he isn't giving a value judgement here, but I would feel comfortable betting he's speaking of what levels of organisation each falls into. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MV is correct in his interpretation. County is the next regional/admin level down from country in the UK (& Ireland, though I'm not 100% sure of the situation in France). I am not sure why there is yet more ranting about bias but it is starting to look like someone might have some civility issues. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Civility issues because I point out the bias? Ever thought about the fact that England is a constituent country of the United Kingdom? And you tell me the county(level 3 in UK) is the same tier as a state (level 2 in India)? And ever heard about the European Union? In some regards the UK itself is like a state of the Republic of India. And are we talking about disambiguation are government levels? This IS bias. I myself would never say the states of India are equivalent to the counties. And for the record, disambiguation in the UK is done by ceremonial county. @MV, this has nothing at all to do with good or bad faith. I don't say Blofeld has bad faith. But he is just wrong with his statement. In terms of population, of territory and even the tiers you read into his statement - it's wrong. @Sitush, you may like to read Regions of France. Please stay with the facts. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because you keep using that word without an awful lot of support from what I can see. Saying that you are AGF but using the word "bias" does have the appearance of being a contradiction. I said next "regional/admin level": some counties are admin districts, but others are more awkward (eg: Greater Manchester County or Bath & Avon) and for this reason it probably makes sense to use the ceremonial counties, which applied throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and are even now referred to by many in preference to "GMC" or "B&A" etc. You are clutching even more at straws when you refer to the EU. I am well aware of the ceremonial county situation: one has to draw a line somewhere in time & the same would apply to India: it has areas whose name or boundaries have changed over time, so you will have to pick a point. Frankly, I don't care less how it is done as long as it is consistent: I hope that you have a bot ready to run if you change things because you are likely to need it. As all 800,000+ villages of India come on line over the next few years time, WMF is going to need even more donations to expand/support its hardware, and you'll need a bot even then to keep on top of it all! - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah! It might make it easier if I point out that a letter sent from abroad to, say, an address in Reading, Berkshire will get there without any issue if after the word "Berkshire" (the county) it says "England"/"UK"/"GB": there is no other Berkshire and Berkshire is the level immediately below the top tier for the British Isles. However, if you omitted the "Berkshire" then you might have a problem, depending on whether or not you used a postcode/zipcode. On the other hand, there are places that share the same name within counties, Lincolnshire being absolutely chock-full of them, & so you then need to start saying "X, near to Y, Lincolnshire" etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. I really do not think bias (cognitive bias) and AGF are related. WP:BIAS does not make a relation. I think it is just lag of awareness, it is nothing that is done consciously on purpose. Yes, if all villages go online they would make up a considerable portions of articles in en-WP ;-). And it will be hard to control them for accuracy. I have seen village codes in Census India, I assume it would be good to have that in every village's infobox. Regarding the Reading, Berkshire example, something similar would apply to a lot of places in India, if one uses the district for Indian locations like one uses the ceremonial county for England locations. I give an example where it fails at the end. Regarding drawing a line in time, this is difficult for India, district boundaries keep changing, but the same is true on a lower rate for the states. Regarding what local people may use, here is one observation: I have seen that articles on Indian villages have been created with the taluka as dab, without any ambiguous article in WP yet. And here the announced example: 200 places share the name Dharampur, India. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would venture to guess that everyone is totally fine with "here are many ambiguous place names which need addressing." We're just concerned about any implications that India is being treated as "inferior", that there's some concious or unconcious diminishing of India by how its articles are being filed. By "lag of awareness", what do you mean exactly? Lack of awareness for how many similar/same Indian place-names need to be DAB'ed? Or some general lack of awareness of India? I maybe need to go look at the actual discussions more, but in all honesty I'm baffled as to how issues of systemic bias and discrimination could be plausibly interfering with a geo-DAB discussion. It's not like anyone wants people to have a harder time filing India articles. My suggestion: I would really avoid the "Germany uses X system, is India less important than Germany?!?!?!" and instead use angles like "Germany has some really clear DABs using X system, I think that would work great for India too, how about we use that?" MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of awareness how big India is, lack of awareness how many places have the same name and lack of awareness how much trouble this causes in editing. I agree, it is a nice approach to say "Country A has a clear system, I think that would work for India too". I think we are now four or five editors talking about it. Just think about the potential: 600 000 villages. Whole WP has 3 700 000 articles. Census India 2011 will soon give new data for all these entities. We really need a good roadmap. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I would argue that stats are your friend. Your lists of towns sharing the same name are quite illuminating, so if you can stick to things like that and avoid raising hackles by impling people are calling India inferior, your path should be easier. If you seriously believe there is some orientalist bias keeping us from filing India articles properly, that would be quite a huge allegation requiring extensive examples, and before you would get anywhere near that point I'd imagine you would need quite a few WPINDIA and NPOVN posts on "Hey guys, I'm concerned that people might be discounting Indian issues due to.... and here are some examples... what do people think?" rather than leap to "I have uncovered a nest of dark and evil bias conspiring against a subcontinent." Any systemic biases aren't going to be fixed overnight, and certainly aren't going to be fixed by drawing daggers, so I would focus on the very dry nitty-gritty of "we have a country that needs a lot of disambigs, how to go about it?" MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You would make a good PR officer ;-). It might be helpful for the plan to convince you. The idea is that it would be good for the articles on Indian geography and all articles having references to such articles, to use an article titling system for place names that results in fewer ambiguous names. "Ambiguous names" includes all villages of India, because we do not know what village article might be created next by some editor. It is desired that the creation of new village articles does not involve moving of existing articles due to the fact that they resided under ambiguous names. Additionally "fewer ambiguous names" refers to the fact that completely new villages can be created as is mentioned in circulars related to Census India 2011, so this is a real world case. In these cases ambiguity in article titles cannot be avoided completely, but the probability can be reduced with little cost, by using the district or sub-district level as disambiguator in those cases where disambiguation is needed anyway. Little cost means, that an often unwanted disambiguation tag is needed anyway, and just the choice of it is made in such a way as to reduce the likelihood of future ambiguity. That means there is no mandatory disambiguation tag in cases where there is no known same named locality. As of now, I would only recommend to use at least the district for disambiguation, since the names for 630 of the 640 districts are unique within in India. This would be similar to the system for England that uses ceremonial counties. Exceptions would be made to locations that are named like the district, which is similar to Argentine province capitals and Mexican state capitals. Since there still is a lot of ambiguity on the district level, it may be even better to use the sub-district level, but I couldn't find any complete list for the sub-districts of India and therefore don't know how many names are ambiguous there. Using the sub-district level would be similar to the system that is used for the articles in the Philippines, which use the municipalities. Also, for some existing articles it might be unknown in what sub-district they are located. What else can I do to advance with this idea? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Around" categories

I wish to bring your notice to the various "around" categories created for Hindu temples. Some of them are:

• Category:Temples around Trichy
• Category:Temples around Madurai
• Category:Temples around Kanchipuram
• Category:Temples around Tanjore
• Category:Temples around Thanjavur, Kumbakonam

Now, should we let these ambiguous templates remain here or should we tag them for deletion. Now, X from Chennai might feel that Kumbakonam is somewhere "around" Thanjavur, while Y from Bangalore might feel that Tiruchirappalli is somewhere "around" Thanjavur and Z from Delhi might have the notion that Thanjavur is situated somewhere "around" Chennai. I feel that these categories could very well be removed, instead, temples could be classified on basis of the districts in which they are situated.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 07:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've created one for Hindu temples in Thanjavur district. Your opinions solicited.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service}

Agree with you, it is currently too vague. Lynch7 07:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ravi, you can do a speedy rename (C2) from Category:Temples around XYZ to Category:Temples in XYZ district (if the same, or abc district if different). That will be simpler as you don't have to repopulate new categories and delete old ones. Might have to remove a couple here and there, but it's an easier process to track. —SpacemanSpiff 07:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Will we have a long listing of temples in a certain district? I mean won't temples in a certain state be sufficient? A category for 10-20 items is bit unnecesaary. For South Indian districts you might get enough numbers. But then when you look in an article of a temple in Maharashtra or MP & dont find any districtwise categories at all, it looks odd. Hence... wont statewise listing be sufficient? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends. See Category:Hindu temples in India, from that I can see that the Kerala category ought to be split soon. Also, within Maharashtra, without looking at the individual pages but just looking at the category list (and there could be more) creating a subcat of Category:Hindu temples in Mumbai seems reasonable. We don't need to wait for 10+ articles, if there are a few significant temples, it's best to split them off to a subcat under the tree and add more as they are created. The utility value of a category is lost when you have too many entries within. —SpacemanSpiff 10:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Support removing "around" categories as too vague. My only hesitation would be: is there any legitimate organisational relationship between these? That is, is Madurai some kind of ecclesiastical seat and those temples "around Madurai" are part of its jurisdiction? Even if that is the case, such would need to be documented and better phrased by whatever the equivalent of "parish" would be in this context. Failing a category scheme which reflects a formal temple organisational system, I'd say by-district, and even if there is a formal parish scheme, there should also be a parallel by-district tree anyway to address them geographically. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, by district please for geographic organization. Side note: people were so strongly opposing using ", DistrictName" if disambiguation is needed anyway, I now wonder what is up with Kalyanasundaresar Temple, Nallur, Mahalingeswarar Temple, Thiruvidaimarudur, Veetrirundha Perumal Temple, Veppathur none of these have any content at the plain name. I would vote for dropping the district name in these cases. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've created temple articles like that for disambiguation purposes. I guess there are plenty of notable Mahalingeswara Temples, Perumal Temples, etc., in India. Therefore for identification purposes, such sort of naming is needed.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 04:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, those are all town names not district names.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 04:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tributes

Are tributes allowed in wikipedia pages? for example U. Srinivas Mallya

-djds4rce

You can mention tributes made by others, but you cannot give tributes of your own.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 12:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That is fine, if he has statues as in this case, or streets named after him or if he appears on a postage stamp etc. etc. the section is sometimes called Honours or Legacy. Refs are always nice, though (Crusoe8181 (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)).

The article seems to be edited now, initially it had a tribute section which had experts from various news papers. (djds4rce djds4rce) —Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Invite to WikiConference India 2011

- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiConference India 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi, Noticeboard for India-related topics, The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011. Official website Facebook event 100 day long WikiOutreach Scholarship form
As you are part of WP:IND community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience.Thank you for your contributions.
We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011