Talk:Andhra Pradesh/Archive 2

History

Hai to all(Namaskaram)

User do not answer my question.he is adding his content again and again.here i have a duty to point out.yes .i will make him to understand.May i know in history section where the source telling "Rig veda and Andhras left the North India and migrated to South India"?can you clarify Mr Nagarjuna ?!are you going to rewrite the history,i dont know!let me know?.what you mentioned as a reference where only one is reliable source among the three.even including the three which are not telling the things what you mentioned like "Rig veda and Andhras left the North India and migrated to South India".Am i correct ?let me know?and dont be rude in talk page.Talk page is for to Talk.Please participate.Thank you(Namaskaram)Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 12:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Eshwar. Please read this link Andhra reference in Rig Veda... [1]... I still say that you try to push your agenda because you do not attempt to correct the sections other than History. You are just hell-bent on changing that particular line. Andhra and Telangana has distinct history and please do not vandalize the articleNagarjuna198 (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

what you mentioned which is not reliable source.Any one write a book But which one reliable for this wikipedia article that is need to be focus.Dont say word like agenda.every one does not know everything.What you added like aryan...etc.can i say that is your agenda?!.will it give any meaning.Dont ask ownership of the particular article.Because your behavior seems like that.According to aryan history or story they belongs to central asia..Thank you for your new information.It will help me in my further edits.NamaskaramEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 11:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Namaskaram

I read the book Aitareya Brahmana .Is is telling the story between Devas and Asuras. But here your not mentioning that.Shall we discuss about that further?!.if your ok then we move further.otherwise no issues.NamaskaramEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 11:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Eshwar: Andhra people were mentioned in the Aitareya Brahmana (VII.18). Your understanding of Aitareya Brahmana is wrong..Its part of Rigveda and its social commentary.

@Eshwar...you are indulging in pointless discussion. Andhra people were first mentioned in Aitareya Brahmana as Dasyus. Arya means Noble in sanskrit and nothing more Just like Telugu word Ayya...North India was anciently called Aryavarta..Having said that, I haven't added the term Aryan, but you did.. Bottomline-point here is that Andhra was first mentioned in that sanskrit epic... And that is reliable source. This is to say that Andhra's history can be traced to the ancient times and nothing else. I am NOT here to discuss with you the theories which were debunked by many. Can you work on politics and other section which needs clean up?Nagarjuna198 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Other than Aitareya Brahmana, I am just quoting few places where Andhras are mentioned (In devanagari script as many users cant understand Telugu script)

Ramayama Kishkinda Kanda:

तथा वन्गान् कलिन्गाम् च कौशिकान् च समंततः ।

अन्वीक्ष्य दण्डक अरण्यम् स पर्वत नदी गुहम् ॥४-४१-११॥

नदीम् गोदावरीम् चैव सर्वम् एव अनुपश्यत ।

तथैव आन्ध्रान् च पुण्ड्रान् च चोलान् पाण्ड्यान् केरलान् ॥४-४१-१२॥

English:

tathaa vangaan kalingaam ca kaushikaan ca sama.ntataH |

anviikShya daNDaka araNyam sa parvata nadii guham || 4-41-11

nadiim godaavariim caiva sarvam eva anupashyata |

tathaiva aandhraan ca puNDraan ca colaan paaNDyaan keralaan || 4-41-12

Mahabharata Bhishma Parvam mentions Andhras:

अन्ध्राश च बहवॊ राजन्न अन्तर्गिर्यास तदैव च

बहिर्गिर्य आङ्गमलदा मागधा मानवर्जकाः

English:

Andhraasha cha bahavo Raajann antargiryaas tadaiva cha

bahirgirya aangamaaladaa magadhaa maanavarjakaah

Mahabharata Sabha Parvam mentions Andhras / Kalingas:

पाण्ड्यांश च थरविथांश चैव सहितांश चॊथ्र केरलैः

अन्ध्रांस तलवनांश चैव कलिङ्गान ओष्ट्र कर्णिकान

English:

pāṇḍyāṃśa ca tharavithāṃś caiva sahitāṃśa codra keralaiḥ

andhrāṃsa talavanāṃśa caiva kaliṅgāna oṣṭra karṇikān

Nagarjuna198 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Namaskaram(hai) Nagarjuna198,

i read what you mentioned in the history section ////The Andhras trace their history to the vedic age. Andhra was mentioned in the Sanskrit epics such as Aitareya Brahmana (800 BCE). According to Aitareya Brahmana of the Rig veda, Andhras left the North India and migrated to South India///But words what you mentioned which i could not see in the source itself...Ref 1 is telling that they(Andras)left the northen place of Aryans and migrated to south India.(Note: not mentioned any North India story).Ref 2 is telling that //The Andhras trace their history to the vedic age. Andhra was mentioned in the Sanskrit epics such as Aitareya Brahmana (800 BCE)//(Note: not mentioned any North India story).Ref 3 is telling that Andras where North Indian tribes in ancient period. as i told you i read Aitareya Brahmana book.According to Aitareya Brahmana ,it tells fight b/w Devas and Asuras. Aitareya Brahmana says the skin color of the devas and the asuras and more. the reference 2 ( govt of Andra Pradesh).also says only that The Andhras trace their history to the vedic age. Andhra was mentioned in the Sanskrit epics such as Aitareya Brahmana (800 BCE).So reference 1 says left fromthe northen place of Aryans. ref 3 says North indian tribes in Ancient period.(before Aryan Entry).but you mentioned//According to Aitareya Brahmana of the Rig veda, Andhras left the North India and migrated to South India//?!According to Sanskrit epics Aitareya Brahmana they are devas or Asuras.I dont want say about that.you know that.but what you mentioned that is you know. see according Aitareya Brahmana they left the northen place of Aryans And According to the Ancient history of Andhra Pradesh they are North indian tribes those days.But What you mentioned which are all fully your agenda.Irrelevant too. Yes,I know wikipedia is not for original Research.But reliable know atleast?.Let me know who is pushing their agenda?!Namaskaram(thank you)Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 03:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your original research. Please refrain from disruptive edits. You are Proposing different theories like Big Bang theory, AIT etc.. but as always your understanding is wrong about Aitreya Brahmana... Aitreya Brahmana talks about Soma Yajna and many other vedic sacrifices. Andhras were mentioned in the Aitareya Brahmana (VII.18),They are referred to along with the Pudras, Shabaras, Pulindas and the Mulibas as outcasts since they did not recognize their father’s adoption of Shunahshepa. Please read read this academic source Andhra reference in Rig Veda... [2]. As far as the phrases in devanagari, they are just for the reference and not to answer your question. So, it is acceptable to place them here now that I even translated in English.. I am NOT here to discuss with you the theories which were debunked by many.Nagarjuna198 (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't say thanks Mr Nagarjuna198,i am not talking here basis on original research.i am talking here basis on what references you mentioned.so i hope that apart from Aitareya Brahmana matter you accept the rest of all what i mentioned?is it?Le me know?NamaskaramEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 14:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Use talk page properly

User Nagarjuna Namaskaram(Hai),

Want to use other than English in talk page.you should follow the talk page policy.I told you regarding in your talk page .you simply deleted what i told from your talk page see thatdiff .And you added the thing again.see the diff in this take page.diff1.see the difference. with out any

explanation you adding the non English content again.May i know what is mean by that? see thatdiff2.So while taking in this page u r rude.And what i shared above which is clearly shows how your following the rules of wikipedia.you said i am pushing my agenda.i asked where.but you could not answer for that in correct way.but such a behaviour of yours shows clearly you are only pushing your agenda.still you may ask how?see diff what i mentioned.this is enough proof who is pushing their agenda.Namaskaram(thank you)Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 01:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh My God.. Please now stop this nonsense and dont flood the talk page with your rubbish. I have added translation. So please stop deleting Nagarjuna198 (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

user Nagarjuna198 ,Dont be rude.u mentioned in your page you are a veteran editor.I wonder how you are behave here.do you know the meaning of english translation.Eshwar.om^{Talk tome} 14:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC).I hope i am using the talk page in proper manner.before blaming others you must read your contribution here(talk page) .then you come to know what words you said which is only applicable for you.I hope that 100% what i am telling is true? Ain't i?NamaskaramEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 14:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Eshwar.om: You lack basic understanding. What Nagarjun198 was doing was just quoting a few text where Andhra is mentioned and removing his edits is purely disruptive. He was not using any non-English language to communicate like you did. Now if someone needs to be told how to use the talk page, it is you. You seem to have a battleground mentality and also lack a good command in English! — LeoFrank  ^Talk 14:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Namaskara(hi) Mr LeoFrank,

omg .I used the word only Namaskaram.None of others.you said i have lack of basic understanding also lack a good command in English.is it?but do you know difference between translaion and convertion?But i wonder you have basic understanding also good command in English. you said removing his edits is purely disruptive.same thing happened for me here may i know where you went that time.i am not telling has it happened for me so i am doing the same.if your neutral where you went while the same thing happen for me.plz see the history of the talk page and also read the talk page fully. And i am not here for battle .if you want to battle i am not a person for that.and i dont want to waste my time with person like you.Because you have Regional mind set and your raciest. be cool be polite .thank youEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 15:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Eshwar.om: Your comments indicate you have a battleground mentality. With regard to you using Telugu, I am talking about that edit which Strike Eagle removed asking you to post in English. From what I can see, it is a waste of time talking to you as no amount of sense can be put into you. It is you who needs to learn to be civil in your conversations. Anyways, no use arguing with you. Nagarjun198, just ignore this guy. We're done talking here! — LeoFrank  ^Talk 15:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Namskaram:User:LeoFrank do you know one thing,Normally people point out others what mistake they have?like what u mentioned lack of basic understanding lack a good command in English .:). because May be your mind set may be.:).it is ok.:)NamaskaramEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Politics Section

I am planning to improve the Politics section. Any help is appreciated.. Nagarjuna198 (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC) t

I think Potti Sriramulu, Alluri Sitaramaraju is worth mentioning. Andhrawala2014 (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think they may be mentioned in Famous / Notable people secion, and also the politics should not be like a newspaper update, please anyone improve it with good sentences. Thank you.--Vin09 (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am looking for some good sources. I will try to write article on Alluri Sitaramaraju. Someone, please try to write about Potti Sriramulu.Nagarjuna198 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Urdu

Chittoor, Nellore, Kurnool, Kadapa, Anantapur and Guntur are the districts after the bifurcation left with Urdu as second official language. Reference, Reference2--Vin09 (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Urdu is second language in These Districts Kurnool, Kadapa, Anantapur and Guntur! do not include [Nellore]] and [Chittor]] ok! but Urdu is Second language is before bifurcation but now New Andhra Pradesh government is not officially announcement any GO. (Visakha veera (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC))

You may be right in your view, but they haven't removed it either I guess. I'm not against it, if you can provide any reference.--Vin09 (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean Chittoor. Chittor is in Rajasthan... Thomas.W ^talk 17:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: No, it is a district of AP.--Vin09 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If you follow this link, Chittoor district, you'll find that the English spelling of the name of the district in southern AP is Chittoor, not Chittor (two "o", not one). Thomas.W ^talk 17:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Visakha veera:Ok, let's leave the page like this till some good source is found.--Vin09 (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Corrected spelling.--Vin09 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

just i am giving you a link its Andhra Pradesh Government Offical page just check it http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/languages.html ! Urdu is speaking only in very fiew districts its not as official language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visakha veera (talk • contribs) (Visakha veera (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC))

@Visakha veera:It's ok. Cheers.--Vin09 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

I am neither a member, nor an editor of Wikipedia but have been only a visitor of the site. Recently, when stumbled upon this article on Andhra Pradesh, I have found out that the article is lacking in several vital and subtle details which help our understanding of the evolution of Andhra's history and culture. So, I added very few details as I believed that Wikipeida really allows readers' edits. My edits were based upon actual facts. But unfortuately , I could not give the necessary references or links which I do not deem a sin, as several articles in Wikipedia are yet to provide citations. If the editors are not willing to take my edits for Gospel, they are free to verify the veracity of the info provided by me in my edits. But they have just bluntly chosen to delete all my edits without a second thought. My belief in Wikipedia as a public encyclopedia stood cruelly belied and shaken when I opened this article after a couple of days.

In my edits, I stated that Satavahanas were Brahmins - REMOVED. I added the names of 11 other State universities existing and actually functioning in the State of Andhra Pradesh. - ALL WERE REMOVED.

Why? Why? and Why?

I am sorry that Wikipedia has become the pocket burrough of a few well-entrenched professional editors. It appears as if no one should know anything new, more than what is already known to the professional editors.

117.236.194.82 (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Marripoodi Mahojas Email : mahojasmarripoodi@gmail.com

Border

Chattisgrah do border with AP, for reference please have a look at google maps.--Vin09 (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep article informative

I would ask editors to first read some european articles about spoken languages and others, and try to have accademic view over ethnic or political ideas, good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afroze.shaikh (talk • contribs) 10:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 edits on Andhra Pradesh related to Urdu

Urdu- Andhra pradesh

Reference: http://www.teindia.nic.in/mhrd/50yrsedu/u/47/3Y/473Y0K01.htm, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh#Demographics Also see language in info box panel :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh#Early_history. Urdu is spoken in Andhra pradesh. But it is not declared as official language after bifurcation in june 2014. Svpnikhil (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Svpnikhil

You provided following links:

• http://www.teindia.nic.in/mhrd/50yrsedu/u/47/3Y/473Y0K01.htm

The above link gives law of 1966 and it states, "Clause 7 of the Bill empowers the Government to direct, by notification, the use of Urdu or any other language or languages in addition to the Telugu language, in such areas and for such official purposes of the State and for such periods, as may be specified in such notification."

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh#Demographics
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh#Early_history

WP in itself can't be cited as reference.

I have provided reference for Urdu being official language in AP, please provide reference that after division AP has dropped Urdu as official language.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that you removed this link soon after it was added here, but I guess it didn't suit your purpose, since it seems to indicate that Urdu is not an official language in post-partition AP. If Urdu was an official language in post-partition AP they wouldn't need to request that it become one. Thomas.W ^talk 19:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: And it's intresting that you didn't saw my next edit and edit-comment. And your statement "If Urdu was an official language in post-partition AP they wouldn't need to request that it become one.", doen't it mounts to WP:Synthesis/WP:OR when The news link just says "Urdu as the second official language in Andhra Pradesh", it dosen't elaborates if it means reinstate or continue "Urdu as the second official language in Andhra Pradesh". Your above comment and synthesis shows your POV & bias against Urdu.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not biased, I just dislike POV-pushing, of which there is a lot going on on articles relating to India. Over the past few days alone I have reverted, and in most cases warned, editors for POV-edits promoting Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu and Kannada, so it doesn't matter to me which language, religion or whatever the POV edits are pushing. I saw your next edit, BTW, and edit summary. Edit conflicts removing material do happen, and have happened a number of times to me. All of those edits involved me adding material seconds after someone else had added a post, with the diffs of my edits showing both the material I added and the material that was accidentally removed. But you didn't add any material, there was no edit conflict when you did it (the post was added five minutes before you removed it, and the next post after that was made two minutes later by Vin09 asking you why you removed it), and the diff for your edit shows that all that happened was that the previous editors post was removed. You're allowed to remove posts from your talk page, though, so don't worry, even though it reflects badly on you in this discussion. Thomas.W ^talk 19:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I'm not pushing any POV nor deliberately removing commnets from my talk. If you would have looked for you may have seen that indeed I was refining my previous edit and have added this which was lost when my edit was reverted by Vin09 and which I reinstated in next edit. But all of this if you want to see, or you may try to corner me by your "it reflects badly on you in this discussion" stuff while you fully avoided main point of my previous edit talking about you doing synthesis/OR from the source. But you are free to not to answer or leave discussion if you want--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: can comment on Talk:Andhra_Pradesh#Urdu.--Vin09 (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits on Andhra Pradesh

Hello. I have reverted your addition of a language pie to the article since it's based on pre-division census data, which is totally irrelevant in an article about post-division Andhra Pradesh. It is a well known fact that the vast majority of the Urdu-speakers in pre-division Andhra Pradesh were concentrated to what is now the state of Telangana, so your edits are balancing on the edge of being seen as POV-pushing. In other words, please stop. Thomas.W ^talk 15:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Thomas, thanks for posting at my talk page. But have seen what I have done and on basis of what? Let me explain I had added pie chart which is based on data already present in the article. If you think my edit was POV then the data already present is POV too and you have not taken any step to eliminate the source data but focussed on derived pie and accused me of POV-pushing. Also, the article is full of statistics based on pre-division Andhra Pradesh, how do you plan to get rid of this POV. IMHO, by your given logic and action of removal of the language-pie we sould remove all statistics/data/derived-graphs/etc which is based on pre-division Andhra Pradesh stats. I'll suggest you restore back the language-pie or clear the article of all pre-division Andhra Pradesh stats. Thanks & happy editing.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have posted an answer on my talk page; let's keep it in one place. And no, I'm not going to restore the language pie, and I strongly suggest you don't either. Thomas.W ^talk 16:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Faizhaider: The data in the article seems to be wrong too, yes, and should be corrected as soon as new data is available (data that someone ought to be able to compile from the latest census figures, since the census data most likely includes language distribution per district...). But a large graphic language pie is far more obvious than text, and far more likely to start a larger edit war than there already is, which is why I reverted your edit. Thomas.W ^talk 16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, got your point. Then to start with I'll remove obselete language stats.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 16:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This edit almost makes me believe that you want to start an edit-war. The position of Urdu as an official language in post-partion Andhra Pradesh seems to be very uncertain, yet you try to add a very visible graphic illustration based on language data from a pre-partition census, data that even I, a European with no connection to India, know can't possibly be true for post-partion Andhra Pradesh, and now this... Thomas.W ^talk 17:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you want, I rarely engage in edit-wars, at least I remember none in last few months. Also, you being European doesn't make you of any different status, Europeans too have POV and they may be inclined to one or other side due to any reason. FYI, the category was rather restored by me and not added. I'm just trying to restore the content which had been removed from article in frenzy of partition sentiments. I see these removals as ethnic/linguistic/communal POV-pushing. If something is uncertain than status-quo i.e. provious status should be maintained rather cleaning article by whims and fancies of few editors trying to delink post-partion AP from legacy of pre-partion AP.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That the vast majority of the Urdu-speakers in pre-partition Andhra Pradesh lived in the districts that now make up Telangana, mainly centered around Hyderabad, and not in what is now post-partition Andhra Pradesh is not uncertain, making your attempt to add both the large graphic "language pie" based on data for pre-partition AP and the category in the diff above obvious POV-pushing. For which you will be formally warned if you continue. Thomas.W ^talk 18:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: But you only said, "The position of Urdu as an official language in post-partion Andhra Pradesh seems to be very uncertain". And now you say "not uncertain". If you have source and data please enlighten me and put a fullstop to this whole conversation, if not then you should atleast agree that there are Urdu speakers in residual AP, hence, the category is valid and should be reinstated.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Where do I say that it's not uncertain? Thomas.W ^talk 19:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: In previous edit.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If you read that post again you'll find that I did not say that "the position of Urdu as official language in post-partition is not uncertain", as you try to claim, I said that it is not uncertain that the vast majority of the Urdu-speakers in pre-partition AP lived in the districts that now make up Telangana. Which is something totally different. Thomas.W ^talk 20:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)::

@Thomas.W: If you have source and data "that it is not uncertain that the vast majority of the Urdu-speakers in pre-partition AP lived in the districts that now make up Telangana" please providr and put a fullstop to this whole conversation.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You might be interested in this link to "Language in India". There's a table with population figures for 2003, but a quick check shows that the numbers don't add up properly so I wouldn't trust the table. The page does, however, also say that based on high numbers of Urdu speakers Urdu was a second offical language in 14 of the 23 districts in Andhra Pradesh prior to partition, all ten districts that now make up Telangana, and four of the 13 districts that make up post-partition AP. Which clearly shows that there was/is a much higher concentration of Urdu-speakers in what is now Telangana than in Coastal Andhra. Thomas.W ^talk 20:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already supported it earlier, you can see the AP talk page, but User:Visakha veera provided some proofs, so took back my comment. If you also can provide the correct reference, let's keep it. You saying it is not removed, and not provided where it is kept. So, let's have it on AP talk page. Whichever is correct would be kept. Any of us may right, but the thing is correct info needs to be kept. About Telangana there is no problem they have recognised. About AP still no such news.--Vin09 (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm Vin09. An edit that you recently made to Andhra Pradesh seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Vin09 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the edit was not test/mistake, it was done with full knowledge. IMHO removal of the category is either mistake or POV-pushing. Can you let me know why you think it was test?

FYI, the category was rather restored by me and not added. I'm just trying to restore the content which had been removed from article in frenzy of partition sentiments. I see these removals as ethnic/linguistic/communal POV-pushing. If something is uncertain than status-quo i.e. provious status should be maintained rather cleaning article by whims and fancies of few editors trying to delink post-partion AP from legacy of pre-partion AP.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Faizhaider:ok, so that may apply to Telangana, but as a whole in Andhra Pradesh there is no official language Urdu. Many of the organizations are asking for a review on second language to the chief minister to be considered as second language like how it was before partition. At present, you can see the AP state portal, purely updated post bifurcation which states only Telugu.--Vin09 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you plz provide ref that after division AP has dropped Urdu as official language?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Official State portal--Vin09 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Above link is the article about "Telugu Language" and not about "official language of AP" and states that It is the state language of Andhra Pradesh. The article itself is quite old and belongs to pre-partition AP era. So, I fail to understand how it is able to define anything about status of Urdu in AP (pre or post partition).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not pre-partition, please see the website, it is the new website post parition, also see this demand for urdu.--Vin09 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Only headers and pics of website have been changed neither content nor footer (Copyright © 2008, Government of AP.) has been changed. The news link just says "Urdu as the second official language in Andhra Pradesh", it dosen't elaborates if it means reinstate or continue "Urdu as the second official language in Andhra Pradesh".--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

So, what about this news, if Urdu is the official language demand for urdu? You say that website is new, content is old, then where is the statement about Urdu in that website, the whole website is completely modified. If you want please visit this page.--Vin09 (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You can comment on Talk:Andhra_Pradesh#Urdu.--Vin09 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014 edits on Andhra Pradesh related to Urdu Reply

@Thomas.W: & @Vin09: Let me join above three threads here, we have been discussing the topic and thanks to all, the discussion is still sane and moving in positive direction. We have been discussing,

• Official status of Urdu in post-partition AP,

As far as discussion has gone, still nobody was sure of status of Urdu in new AP, one party saying that after partition, Urdu is no more co-official language while other saying it is. Let us see this in context of Law and other Partition of Indian states. Urdu had been co-official language of states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar before they were partitioned in 1999 to create seperate states of Uttaranchal & Jharkhand respectively, after partition Urdu maintined its status in UP & Bihar (in both old states, no new GO was issued affirming that) while in Uttaranchal & Jharkhand (new states) Urdu lost its status (becuase of new Official Language Acts of the new states). Now in context of AP & Telengana, AP has not issued any new GO ending co-official status of Urdu in old state (plz remember even post-Partition AP lagally & constitutionally is same AP which wast formed in 1956 all laws passed by AP Assembly & all Government Orders (GOs) of Government of AP remain applicable until repealed by new law or GO). So far no editor has produced any proof that Urdu has lost it's co-official status in new AP, there have been few news/portal links which don't say anything conclusive about discontinuation of status of Urdu as co-offical language. The news link just says "Urdu as the second official language in Andhra Pradesh", it dosen't elaborates if it means reinstate or continue "Urdu as the second official language in Andhra Pradesh". While the Official state portal even if it is new both in theme & content (and if we ignore "Copyright © 2008, Government of AP" footer) is about "Telugu Language" and not about "official/state language of AP" and states that Telugu "is the state language of Andhra Pradesh" another official portal's News Papers page lists Urdu news papers, also site is full of govt. official positions like Deputy Director (Urdu), Senior Translator (Urdu), Translator (Urdu), L.D.Typist (Urdu), etc which gives idea that co-official status of Urdu continues in new state. Intrestingly Language & Culture page says nothing about any language not even Telugu just uses term "mother language". At last I found a GO dated '27th June, 2014' i.e. issued almost two months after partition, which reads:

G.O.Ms.No. 63 LAW (F) DEPARTMENT Dated: 27th June, 2014. The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014, will be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette in English, Telugu and Urdu Languages as Andhra Pradesh Act No.4 of 2014.

Above GO clearly states that "Andhra Pradesh Gazette" is still being published in Urdu too, affirming co-official status of the Language in post-partition AP. I hope above proof gives some conclusive evidence that Urdu has not lost it's status in new AP.

Also, in post partition AP, Urdu is second offical language in following districts (based on pre-partion GOs and reports as found in this govt. report/doc,

* Rayalaseema : in all 4 districts of Kurnool, Chittoor, Kadapa and Anantapur.

* Coastal Andhra : in 2 districts of Guntur, Sri Potti Sri Ramulu Nellore

So, in a whole subregion i.e. Rayalaseema Urdu is still second official language, and enjoys same status in 2 districts of another region.

• Status of Urdu as a significant minority language,

It is clear by another link provided by Thomas, in residual AP, Urdu is spoken by 15.1% in Kurnool, 13.9% in Prakasam, 13.7% in Kadapa, 10.3% in Anantapur, 9.8% in Guntur, 8.3% in Nellore, 8.2% in Chittoor, 5.9% in Krishna & less than 5% in other 5 districts. If we take percentages of Urdu speakers from above link and extrapolate it with stats given at List of districts in Andhra Pradesh then in new AP around 3.5 million people out of total population of 49 million speak Urdu (BTW this mounts to data research and I don't intend to put/use these figures anywhere but for purpose of giving perspective). Also AP state has it's own Urdu Academy which shows Urdu is significant minority language.

I hope I have given enough proofs and arguments to put my point, wiating for help from you guys, I stand ready to be corrected if I'm wrong, missed any info or you guys have gathered some other info. Thanks.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

your reference say it is published in Telugu, English, Urdu. so, English is also official language according to you. Publishing is only for the employees. Can you provide perfect proof from State government website? If you have anything to say use the talk page of AP.--Vin09 (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems I erroneously assumed that people particiapating in a discussion entailing status of language in a State of Union of India will be aware of special status of English & Hindi in India especially of English when it comes to interpretation of law, communication between states and centre. Let me give some references from constitution of India,

"As per the Article 348(3), in cases where the State has prescribed any language other than English for use in Bills or Acts passed by the Legislature 'a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that shall be deemed to be the authoritative text ....' in English."

So, all Union & State communications are accompanied by English translation when State has prescribed any language other than English. So, all state publish their communications including Gazette in state/oficial language, second-official/co-official language and in English as required by Article 348(3) of Constitution of India. Publishing Gazette in English shows that the Govt is abiding by Article 348(3) of Constitution of India and in addition if it publishes Gazette in any other language apart from state/oficial language it shows special status of the language namely second-official/co-official language, like in case of Andhra Pradesh Gazette which is published in English (because of legal requirement as prescribed by Article 348(3) of Constitution of India), Telugu (because it is state/oficial language) and Urdu (because it is second-official/co-official language).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: "Can you provide perfect proof from State government website?",

I have provided proofs that Urdu is still being used as special language by Govt. of AP. The Andhra Pradesh Official Language Act, 1966 has made special provision for use of Urdu if you can proove that the act has been overruled/amnded by some another act/ordinance/govt-order please bring your proof. If you give ambigous newspaper article it is good by when I give proof from govt. records it is not okay, is it not hypocrisy? I have shown from your own links that the point which you were trying to make are not supported by those links but you don't answer that and herecome asking proof from me. I'm just trying to restore long standing data & category on the article, but it being removed on weak/futile/meagre pretexts, WP:Burden of proof lies on you to proove that after partition AP govt. has withdrawn co-official status of Urdu. Thanks.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have anything to say, I told you to use the talk page of AP.--Vin09 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: & @Thomas.W: Ok, I have moved discussion from my talk page to here, now can you please bring prrof that after partition AP govt. has withdrawn co-official status of Urdu.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Its not me and the other user, but all other users should have their say.--Vin09 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Urdu in AP

@Faizhaider: The section was getting longer, so a new section, till some of the other users have their say, please see the Government of Telangana and Government of Andhra Pradesh emblem. Watch out for languages.--Vin09 (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: Okay, Government of Telangana emblem has English, Telugu, Urdu & Government of Andhra Pradesh emblem has English, Telugu, Hindi. Do you mean languages in emblem have official status? But I thaught you were talking of some sort of 'perfect proof, is this your perfect proof?--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s

than's not proof, I asked you to check that for reference, apart from English and Hindi, the others are the state languages. For the proof I gave you already the official website Ref check Languages & Culture section. You say it is not removed, I say most of the native speakers are now in Telangana not in Andhra Pradesh. Can you provide the same type of proof for Urdu on AP site. Not beyond bifurcation, I say after June 2014, is there anything on the state website, because official language is not any small thing to forget, the state website definitely updates. IF it is already exists then why this requests to the Chief minister Demand for Urdu. Also, see Talk:Andhra_Pradesh#Urdu this section where I supported Urdu. But after some proofs I took my word back.--Vin09 (talk) 10:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already answered to your above points and provided my own which you have failed to reply. You say, "apart from English and Hindi, the others are the state languages" on what ground you have deduced this? Telangana emblem does'nt uses Hindi, what do you say about that? If all Urdu speakers are now in Telangana not in Andhra Pradesh what about 3.5 million people out of total population of 49 million speak Urdu and why AP govt. is still publishing it's Gazettes in Urdu too as I have stated in G.O.Ms.No. 63 LAW (F) DEPARTMENT Dated: 27th June, 2014. Till now you have not been able to proove that after partition AP govt. has withdrawn co-official status of Urdu, while I have shown it is still publishing it's communications in Urdu too.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 10:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Invited to butt in I would go with Faizhaider on this one....since there has been no official announcement about removing urdu as an official language, I suppose we must continue the status quo. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 10:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  So, earlier a User:Visakha veera removed, where I supported it. It's OK, now you people only decide whether to keep or not. @Faizhaider: take it as an important discussion and nothing against you. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

About Urdu Status

Hi Faizhaider you are above mention some website link is any official website page of Government of Andhra Pradesh! you are showing this reference http://www.apteacher.net/GO/GO-63-Enhancement-of-retirement-age-to-sixty-%20AP-Govt-Employees.php its just a normal website. now i am giving you link about Andhra Pradesh government orders http://goir.ap.gov.in/ can you find any Government order is in Urdu? if you find it i will accept your answer. Telugu is the only official language of Newly Created Andhra Pradesh. this is the official website of government of Andhra Pradesh http://www.aponline.gov.in/Quick%20links/HIST-CULT/languages.html and you will find the truth and i am giving another link to you http://www.ap.gov.in/Pages/LanguageCulture.aspx its all so government of Andhra Pradesh web portal! you will not find any where that Urdu is Offical language on newly created Andhra Pradesh! if you had any source about Urdu is one of the Official language in Andhra Pradesh please provide only government source not a private blog or website source (Visakha veera (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC))

@Visakha veera: I'll analyze and respond your post line by line,

you are above mention some website link is any official website page of Government of Andhra Pradesh!

Frankly speaking, I'm not able to get what exactly you want to say here, but I assume you are saying that I have not refered to any official website page of Government of Andhra Pradesh, what abot GO, Acts of Union of India & State of AP...

you are showing this reference http://www.apteacher.net/GO/GO-63-Enhancement-of-retirement-age-to-sixty-%20AP-Govt-Employees.php its just a normal website. now i am giving you link about Andhra Pradesh government orders http://goir.ap.gov.in/ can you find any Government order is in Urdu? if you find it i will accept your answer.

Yes 'apteacher.net' is a normal website, so what? The link you have provided http://goir.ap.gov.in/, thanks for that, G.O.Ms.No. 63 LAW (F) DEPARTMENT Dated: 27th June, 2014 is present there if you take pain to search it, if you know, the website doesn't give permalinks to documnets but just temp-links for download so it is hard to cite from the site, somebody has to go and will the form to download & verify the citation. BTW, there all documents are in English, none even in Telugu which I was able to find. For ease, I queried the website with following parameters:

DEPARTMENT: LAW

SECTION  : F

GO TYPE  : MS

GO NO  : 63

and got following result,

1 select MS 63 27/06/2014 Service Matter ACTS - State - The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014 - Publication ordered as Andhra Pradesh Act No. 4 of 2014. NO LAW F 0

So will you now accept my answer?

Telugu is the only official language of Newly Created Andhra Pradesh.

Andhra Pradesh is not newly created (if you mean 2 Jun 2014) it is in contnium of Andhra Pradesh which was fromed on 1 November 1956, when the States Reorganisation Act formed Andhra Pradesh by merging Andhra State with the Telugu-speaking areas of the already existing Hyderabad State. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, formed new new state of Telangana comprising ten districts of pre-partition Andhra Pradesh.

this is the official website of government of Andhra Pradesh http://www.aponline.gov.in/Quick%20links/HIST-CULT/languages.html and you will find the truth and i am giving another link to you http://www.ap.gov.in/Pages/LanguageCulture.aspx its all so government of Andhra Pradesh web portal! you will not find any where that Urdu is Offical language on newly created Andhra Pradesh!

http://www.aponline.gov.in/Quick%20links/HIST-CULT/languages.html, is the same page which was there on pre-partition AP portal (e.g. it is based on 1981 census and footer says Copyright © 2002. All rights Reserved.) with same language, by your logic then Urdu had no official status even then. http://www.ap.gov.in/Pages/LanguageCulture.aspx page says nothing about any language not even Telugu just uses term "mother language". And again AP is not newly created it is same state formed on 1 November 1956, Telangana is new state with rest of AP being residual state. When India was partitioned Pakistan was new state and India was residual state gaining seats all International bodies (including UN & ILO), Pakistan was admitted as new state to those bodies.

if you had any source about Urdu is one of the Official language in Andhra Pradesh please provide only government source not a private blog or website source

So, now just for sake of Urdu's status in AP you'll go off-way and deny all WP policies like WP:RS criteria and define your own just to push you POV & bias against Urdu. Anyways I have given GO ref from you "government source" website and above also I have qoted various Acts & Laws of Union of India & State of Andhra Pradesh regarding status of Languages in general and Urdu in specific.

Finally, I'll reiterate, I'm just trying to restore long standing data & category on the article, but it being removed on weak/futile/meagre pretexts, WP:Burden of proof lies on you to proove that after partition AP govt. has withdrawn co-official status of Urdu. Till now no one has been able to proove that after partition AP govt. has withdrawn co-official status of Urdu, while I have shown it is still publishing most important document i.e. Gazette in Urdu too.

Why did you added citation with wrong title?

"Official Language of AP (AP Online)". AP Online Govt. Retrieved 10 August 2014.

The portal has just title 'Languages' and path 'Home > AP Fact File > History and Culture > Languages'. This clearly shows you POV-push in support of Telugu & against Urdu & other languages.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

see bro i am respect all language OK just show me in official website of Andhra Pradesh not in normal website ! don't make it is a issue (Visakha veera (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC))

Have you even read my response above, the link you have provided http://goir.ap.gov.in/, thanks for that, G.O.Ms.No. 63 LAW (F) DEPARTMENT Dated: 27th June, 2014 is present there if you take pain to search it. And as per WP:RS you can't insist on official website of Andhra Pradesh.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

if Government Order is printed in a language its become official language? in your opinion English is official language of state of Andhra Pradesh! every state will officially announce their state mother tongue! show me in Andhra Pradesh Government official website as Urdu is an co official language? there is lot of different between official language and co languages! Urdu is just small minority language in newly created Andhra Pradesh! i am respecting all languages! don't think my points as bad ! (Visakha veera (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC))

Have you even read the thread above, I have already replied to your point above. Let me reiterate it once again,

"As per the Article 348(3), in cases where the State has prescribed any language other than English for use in Bills or Acts passed by the Legislature 'a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that shall be deemed to be the authoritative text ....' in English."

So, all Union & State communications are accompanied by English translation when State has prescribed any language other than English. So, all state publish their Gazette in state/oficial language, second-official/co-official language and in English as required by Article 348(3) of Constitution of India. Publishing Gazette in English shows that the Govt is abiding by Article 348(3) of Constitution of India and in addition if it publishes Gazette in any other language apart from state/oficial language it shows special status of the language namely second-official/co-official language, like in case of Andhra Pradesh Gazette which is published in English (because of legal requirement as prescribed by Article 348(3) of Constitution of India), Telugu (because it is state/oficial language) and Urdu (because it is second-official/co-official language)

You said, "can you find any Government order is in Urdu? if you find it i will accept your answer.", now when I have given the proof, you are making excuses and raising already raised & answered objections. You are not abiding by your words that proofs your anti Urdu POV & bias.

I have provided proofs that Urdu is still being used as special language by Govt. of AP. The Andhra Pradesh Official Language Act, 1966 has made special provision for use of Urdu if you can proove that the act has been overruled/amended by some another act/ordinance/govt-order please bring your proof. I have shown from your own links that the point which you were trying to make are not supported by those links but you don't answer that and herecome asking proof from me. I'm just trying to restore long standing data & category on the article, but it being removed on weak/futile/meagre pretexts, WP:Burden of proof lies on you to proove that after partition AP govt. has withdrawn co-official status of Urdu.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

give answer to me first GO in Andhra Pradesh are any other state in India are Printed in English so all states official language is English?if Andhra Pradesh co official language is Urdu why minority leadres meets Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh urge for make Urdu is a co official language for Andhra Pradesh. http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra_pradesh/Minority-Staff-Submits-Wish-List-to-CM/2014/07/15/article2331570.ece! so still government still not take any decision for making Urdu as official language of Andhra Pradesh understand? and by the way Muslim population in Andhra Pradesh is only 6.9% whole people are not speaking Urdu. (Visakha veera (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC))

Are you reading my replies? It seems not, I have answered all these point in above thread(s). Either you are not reading my replies or you are not able to grasp language of my replies or you are ignoring them because they don't suite you and you don't have answers to them.

User:Vin09 had already raised these points and I have answered them, then User:Vin09 canvased & campaiged on which User:Strike Eagle responded, following is the response (which you can find in above thread too, but because you are not taking pain to go through above thread so for you convinience I'm quoting it again),

"Invited to butt in I would go with Faizhaider on this one....since there has been no official announcement about removing urdu as an official language, I suppose we must continue the status quo. Thanks, ƬheStrikeΣagle 10:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)"

after which User:Vin09, responded,

"So, earlier a User:Visakha veera removed, where I supported it. It's OK, now you people only decide whether to keep or not. @Faizhaider: take it as an important discussion and nothing against you. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)"

I'll again ask you to thoroughly read above thread(s) and don't raise same points which have already been answered, that will safe lot of everybody's time and effort.

Thanks.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Minority Staff urge CM for Make Urdu Is Official language! So Urdu is Not a official Language!

we are showing source but still arguing some people blindly. http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra_pradesh/Minority-Staff-Submits-Wish-List-to-CM/2014/07/15/article2331570.ece. if Urdu is official language why Minority Staff urge CM for Make Urdu Is Official language? still they are not understanding the issue! (Visakha veera (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC))

Plz come with some new argument/point. This has already been raised and answered. I'll strongly suggest you read the discussion thoroughly and then make any further comment/action. That will save everybody's time & effort. Thanks--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is just a small reference not to hurt you, but only for the improvement of the page, if you can see this reference New AP profile page which states -> The most commonly spoken language of the state is Telugu. Hindi, English and Tamil are the other languages used. and this is the Telangana Profile page after state bifurcation which state -> The most commonly spoken language of the state is Telugu. Hindi, English and Urdu are the other languages used. I'll strive for betterment of the page, at the end, anyone of us may right, but ultimately the page should be with correct info for the readers. I forgot to provide this reference yesterday, only to notify you and nothing against your comments. Please check if, it may be useful.--Vin09 (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to dicredit but just to point out, the document although targets post-partition Andhra Pradesh it is dated 20 May 2014 and may have compiled much before. During our above discussion threads, we have seen that status of Urdu still remains ambigous in post-partition Andhra. On one hand it is establish that Urdu was co-official lnaguage of pre-partition Andhra Pradesh, The Andhra Pradesh Official Language Act, 1966 has made special provision for use of Urdu and it is still force in AP and has not been overruled/amnded by some another act/ordinance/govt-order; also, post-partition too Govt of AP is issuing Gazette in Urdu too which as per GOI As per the Article 348(3) shows special status of Urdu in state. On other hand we have govt websites & portals (many of whom are actually old wine in new bottle) are totally silent on Urdu's status even if they mention it. We also know that in post partition AP, Urdu is second offical language in atleast 6 districts (based on pre-partion GOs and reports). This all has generated ambiguity and confusion regarding status of Urdu in post-partion AP. Now we can maintain status-quo untill we have clear proof that that the act(s), GO(s), ordinance(s) giving special status to Urdu in pre-partition AP have been overruled/amended by some another act/ordinance/govt-order in post-partition AP. I have not given link to any site/doc/etc to keep post light as they have already been provided in above threads.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 07:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That may be a good point, there are some news articles by seeing them we getting confused like this urdu missing from ap assembly proceedings. There is a reference in another site maps of India that supports Urdu which may be helpful for you. Fine, I wanted to leave the debate yesterday, but actually I forgot that reference yesterday and posted it today which is in the above section. Fine then, I'll quit this debate, if you have any issue can ping me. Thanks and Cheers.--Vin09 (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: The siasat link proves the level of confusion, that status of Urdu is not clear even to MLAs as they are asking for Urdu script, and the answer itself just says script not printed in Urdu rather saying Urdu no more special/co-official language of state. This link just elaborates the we on WP are not the only people who are confused but even legisaltors too don't have clear picture of the situation.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine.--Vin09 (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014 edits on Andhra Pradesh related to Urdu

@Faizhaider: Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Andhra Pradesh. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Warning for continued POV-pushing. The official web site of new Andhra Pradesh clearly states that Telugu is the official language of AP (in the singular), and doesn't even mention Urdu. Which combined with your attempt to use a book that was published 11 years before the creation of new Andhra Pradesh as a reference for the status of Urdu an unsourced edit. Please see WP:Verifiability, which clearly states that the burden of proof is on whoever adds material, that is in this case you. Thomas.W ^talk 08:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: It is not unsourced, and if you remember there was long entailing discussion on Talk:Andhra Pradesh regarding it and at last it was decided to leave the info until new sources are found that Urdu has lost its status in new AP. Actually it was you who counter to consensus removed the text and now are trying to engage me in edit-war. Don't try to make me afraid of these warning messages.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It is unsourced. Read my message. The warning stands. Thomas.W ^talk 08:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: It is not unsourced, but defiinetely you can always make POV push. Your anti Urdu stand (at least in connection to AP article) is quite evident, you backed out from discussion and didn't participated in it, then some consensus was reached and you still didn't said a word against it. Then one fine day some vandal came and removed the info, I restored it and lo! you get awake from your deep sleep and revert my edit claiming that it is unsourced. Your this act has made all our discussions & efforts at talk page futile and waste of time. You revert edits under assupmtions (or infact pre-assumptions) like ones on my talk page and on Kososvo and then blame other editors. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have checked the discussion on the talk page, and what I see is walls of text posted by you, and repeated attempts by you to push your view. But no clear consensus either way. What you don't seem to realise is that there's no need to prove that new AP has dropped Urdu, they start from scratch. If the official new AP web site says that Telugu is the official language, and makes no mention of the status of Urdu, then that's it: Telugu is the official language, and there's no state-wide status for Urdu. So if you want to add Urdu as official or co-official language in new AP it's up to you to prove that it is, not up to others to prove that it isn't. Wikipedia's rules are very clear about that, the burden of proof is on whoever adds something, whether it's added as new material or as a revert of someone else's removal. And please stop posting talk-back messages on my talk page, I follow your talk page so I will notice if you reply. Thomas.W ^talk 09:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: they start from scratch, is it as per your original research? Because, AP is not new state, Telangana is, AP is old state out of which new state has been formed; you say, "I have checked the discussion on the talk page, and what I see is walls of text posted by you", you may have checked it but not read it, as I have clearly mentioned the point there; and I have posted walls of text becuase I had point & its proof and other editors agreed with it (when they were called for intervention). I know, you not only follow my talk page but have been trying to follow my edits too so that you may get an excuse to act against me but why get offended by talk backs. You were quick to revert my edit(s) but failed to act on actual vandalism happening on AP article that too shows you are tracking my each edit, so, be happy with following me but I don't care. Thanks.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop it, claiming that I follow you around is just silly. You're not that important. Thomas.W ^talk 09:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I didn't claimed that, you mentioned it, and your acts show that you are not intrested in reverting vandalism on AP article but too quick to revert my edit (which was to revert vandalism). And you have not read the discussion fully, your actions and talk clearly reflect that. I'll suggest to move the discussion to article's talk page.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 09:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow every edit on Andhra Pradesh in real time, I just take a look at what has happened every now and then, both on AP and on close to 7,000 other pages (that's what the watchlist is for). And in your case I happened to take a look shortly after you had made the edit. Your edit was not reverting vandalism, BTW, it was yet another attempt to get your view into the article. So you should be a bit more careful with your choice of words. Thomas.W ^talk 09:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Okay, thanks for keeping watch on 7k pages. So, if I revert & restore something, it is POV push, but if you do same act, that is NPOV. It is irrelavant if what I'm doing is my view or not unless it is NPOV, there was agreement to maintian status-quo regarding the status of Urdu in AP and I was trying to maintain that, even other editor(s) were acting on same line which you can see for example, here & here too worked in spirit of consensus reached at talk page but you seem to disagree and act contrary to it.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

VVS Laxman

V V S Laxman born and grew up in Hyderabad and living in Hyderabad which falls under Telangana state. Is it appropriate to include his name in Andhra Pradesh state? I understand that his parents are originally from districts that fall under AP. What are the general guidelines regarding this? See here for dispute. 15:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless the subject himself declares allegiance to one State or the other, he can be mentioned in the pages of both the States. With Andhra Pradesh, we have the additional complication that this page reflects both the undivided State that existed till 2014 and the new `residuary' State. So, in principle, somebody that was born anywhere in undivided Andhra Pradesh is a "person from Andhra Pradesh." That doesn't have to stop him/her also being a "person from Telangana." Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think his current residency and residency during his career should be taken into consideration. Also, we mention Telangana related stuff only in history section (may briefly in introduction), rest of the page is and should reflect residuary state of AP. As of June 2, 2014, Telangana and AP are 2 seperate entities. No need to keep Telangana related stuff in here. But sports persons are different. I know its tricky. In the era of Indian Premier League(IPL), where the Sunrisers Hyderabad have players from all over the world, is there a loyalty of sportsmen to any city or state? Lets see what others feel about this topic. Ramcrk (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion his career team can be taken into consideration. In AP undivided there are two ranji trophy teams Andhra and Hyderabad. VVS played through out his career for Hyderabad (meant for Telangana and Hyd region since Nizams). So, he can be added to Telangana, as well as he can be mentioned in AP too as he used to play for the same team which was part of AP (undivided). So, both are correct. May the better consensus be taken into consideration.--Vin09 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Updating the Map

After the transfer of 7mandals in Khammam district to AP, maps of Telangana and Andhra are changed. We need to update the maps on this page. Google already did. See these links for Telangana map and AP map on google. Ramcrk (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ramcrk: That's not possible, I've already asked the map makers in July. They told some reason that the minute changing isn't possible or some reason which I don't remember.--Vin09 (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Capital of Andhra Pradesh ?

Hyderabad is the joint capital of both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh states. yes Vijayawada was announced as a capital , so the wordings could be changed as "future" capital. --Pavithrans (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Vijayawada is the present capital of AP. Hyderabad is the capital for supportive purpose for administration like assembly and other government organizations. The wording is correct.--Vin09 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with Vin09.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I  Disagree with Vin09 - The refernece quoted by Vin09 does not state that Vijayawada is the new state capital but says that a FUTURE capital will be located "arround Vijayawada. It is better to refer to the city as either an "administrative centre" of if the word capital needs to be used, then as a "de facto administrative capital". Legislation passed by the central government clearly defines Hyderabad as the de jure capital for the next 10 years. Dn9ahx (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the legislation passed by the central government says that Hyderabad remains capital for up to 10 years, meaning that it is/was a temporary solution, until a new capital has been named. Thomas.W ^talk 14:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dn9ahx: You took my statement wrongly, Hyderabad is the de jure that's ok. But Vijayawada is the present capital, the reference which you said was of 4th september, I've updated the 5th september confirmed news, can check it, so both should be placed, neither should be removed. Reference--Vin09 (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I Agree with @Dn9ahx:, till the official capital is declared with the exact location, maintain the status quo suggested by Dn9ahx by stating it as de-facto.--Vin09 (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

To Vin09 and others concerned with Andhra Pradesh, please address the capital region issue properly. The defacto litterally means a fact. According to the Chief Minister the capital will be completely built in Guntur District from Banks of River Krishna to Guntur City. Please check the Reference. It is necessary to correct the wikipedia articles Guntur, Vijaywada and Andhra Pradesh accordingly, mentioning that the capital and region comes in Guntur District --Apstate — Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Apstate: Newspapers write a new news daily, those are predictions, unless a new capital is built, status-quo should be maintained. Also, I advice you to sign your posts.--Vin09 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: No, the news papers have been reporting what Mr. Naidu the chief minister of the state has said. He said the capital region is mostly in Guntur district starting banks of river to Guntur city. There is no such thing as 'de facto' given by the government officialy. Well you did the same thing by referring a new site saying that Vja is the 'De facto' as the capital. You are assuming and being selective that is completely wrong and against wikipedia correctness. Please rephrase the introduction sentences in all the three articles Guntur, Vijayawada and Andhra Pradesh accordingly. I hope you are serious about the fairness of the articles. This needs to be discussed properly. Apstate (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Apstate: de-facto in the sense temporary, where Vijayawada was announced long back (not the assembly bill), till the proper capital region is formed. Hence, there is no proper news saying where the capital is formed, those are all speculations, no need to hurry. You said mostly in Guntur district but not surely. Hence, wait for some time.--Vin09 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: Thanks for understanding and the feedback. It is not me said, it is Mr. Naidu the Chief Minister of the state of Andhra Pradesh said that most of the capital will be built in Guntur. The Capital Advisory Committee said the capital will be built 'in Guntur' long before it is anounced that 'around Vja'. Please update the articles as per the facts. First off 'de facto' does not mean temporary and the AP state already has a temporary capital called Hyderabad. The government never officially given Vja as any 'temporary capital'. Status quo can be maintained but it has to be correct based on facts. Wikipedia is based on facts using the supported references. Please re-phrase the introduction of AP, Gnt and Vja accordingly, as the status quo to be 'in Guntur and around Vja' till the 'permanent capital' is defined offically Apstate (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC).

@Apstate: please wait for the reality, why were in so hurry to change them. The state capital is assumptive, it will take around 2years to get land allotment and to be in reality. @Dn9ahx:, already said the status quo should be maintained. If the phrase needs to be changed only vijayawada region wording should be added, no need to add news paper articles. You said the CM's name, but he said only expected region name, officially still land pooling needs to be done.--Vin09 (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: There is no hurry, as long as facts are stated and that's the main idea behind Wikipedia articles. And that's a reasonable suggestion, as per the Chief Minister's statements please rephrase as "Around Vijayawada and Guntur" or "Guntur-Vijayawada Region" or "Capital Region". Apstate (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait for other users to participate in discussion, till some consensus is reached.--Vin09 (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09: No problem, I agree. Thanks for working with other fellow wikipedians. Based on the facts/official statements given by the Chief Minister both Guntur and Vijayawada need to be included as the 'capital' or 'capital region'. There are enough references pointing 'Most of the capital to be built in Guntur', to 'Capital will be around Vijayawda' to 'Capital to be in Vijaywada-guntur region'. So let's not cherry pick and make sure the facts are given by including both. Apstate (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This link of today's economictimes says "It's for the first time the TDP-led Government has come out with a clear location of the new capital as it has so far been saying it would come up in the Vijayawada region. The 17 villages, of course, are within a 30-km periphery of Vijayawada, though on the other side of river Krishna in neighbouring Guntur district. The villages that will form part of the new capital are: Neerukonda, Kuragallu and Nidamarru in Mangalagiri mandal; Borupalem, Tulluru, Nelapadu, Nekkallu, Sakamuru, Mandadam, Malkapuram, Velagapudi, Mudalingayapalem, Uddandarayapalem, Lingayapalem, Rayapudi, Apparajupalem and Dondapadu in Tulluru mandal. Name of the new capital would be decided after the land pooling process was completed, the panel members said. The existing Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority would be disbanded and replaced by a Capital Region Development Authority." Location for new capital is identified. Until the facilities are built and offices are relocated from Hyderabad to the new capital city and new capital name is published in Gazette, the capital of AP is Hyderabad.Ramcrk (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Latest update: AP Capital to come up in Guntur The latest update from AP cabinet meeting supports what the Chief Minister has been saying that the most of the capital will be built in Guntur (Guntur Region/Guntur District). Additional links pointing to Action Plan and Land to be Acquired in 3 months, for building the Capital city in Guntur District/Region. Apstate (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

New Capital of AP in Guntur District The Andhra Pradesh article needs to be updated with capital to be spelled as Guntur District or Guntur Region or Guntur-Vijayawada Region under Capital Development Region. In fact the latest development from Cabinet meeting clearly and only mentioned that the Capital is coming in Guntur District itself completely. Apstate (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That may be right but it is phase-I, Vijayawada will also be included in the later part. Whatever, as if now Thullur mandal and Mangalagiri mandals (part of Guntur district), is the main capital region. No need of district name in all pages. Those can be mentioned clearly in Andhra Pradesh, Krishna district and Guntur district page elaborately. The VGTMUDA is also dissolved, the new Urban development authority is named as Capital Regional Development Authority (CRDA). Hence, the rephrase may be done with the wording Capital Region of Andhra Pradesh or Andhra Pradesh Capital Region. Any comments?--Vin09 (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point of time the fact is that capital to be built in Guntur only as per the references. You saying 'Vijaywada will also be included' is your personal assumption and not a fact at this moment. Using 'AP capital region' is too generic, vague and also it's only a future developemntal authority at this point. It is highly appropriate to call the capital as Guntur Region as you are so insisting on not using Guntur District. In the future if it happens that Vijayawada is included then it can be called Guntur-Vijayawada region. For now let's call the capital to be Guntur Region. The CRDA can be added as authority for developing the corresponding capital and region. Apstate (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Few facts: New capital will be in Guntur district. Krishna river separates Vijayawada and new capital. Now Prakasham barrage(bridge) connects Vijayawada with capital city. In future there will be more bridges to connect Vijayawada with new capital city. Vijayawada and new capital will be like twin cities of Hyderabad-Secunderabad; Bombay-NewBombay; Delhi-NewDelhi etc. New capital may be in Guntur district but its 40km away from Guntur city. New capital is less than 1km away from Vijayawada(across Krishna river). Ramcrk (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with @Ramcrk:. @Apstate: Let the official name comes out. Till then wait for it.--Vin09 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how we can say that the capital is going to be in "Vijayawada" after the cabinet has announced the capital will come up in the Guntur district and has released the list of 17 villages in Tullur mandal and Mangalagiri (the villages range from less than 5 kilometers to Guntur city to greater than 25 kilometers). I agree with APstate's comments above. At the very least we should say the capital will come up in the Guntur-Vijayawada region and leave it relatively vague until clarity is achieved. Please see: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Vijayawada/ap-capital-to-come-up-in-guntur-district/article6549071.ece

@Boromir123: We just mentioned the city name if it expands, but not supported that Vijayawada is the capital. Definitely it will be in Thullur mandal and Mangalagiri mandal i.e., in Guntur district completely.--Vin09 (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the suggestions. Currently as the facts say the capital is completely in Guntur District. What @Ramcrk: says is that capital is completely independent of Vja and has no relation to the capital name as vja. That is exactly what the facts are saying and thst is exactly what I suggested to make the capital to be Guntur Region till the official and real name is given. As per Naidu's statement that the capital will be completey built in Guntur District towards Guntur not towards Vja. So @Ramcrk: please understand that the capital is entirely in Guntur Region, ofcourse there will be bridges built as naidu mentioned so that the capital region in guntur is easily accessible to all the towns on the otherside of river krishna, not just Vja. So the capital will be mentioned as 'Guntur Region' and will be added 'as part of Capital Development Region'. Vja can be continued to be mentioned as the 2nd largest city in the city as that is what it is, nothing more or less in relation to the capital at this point. Thanks again for your cooperation. Apstate (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please be advised, The Andhra Pradesh article is being rephrased as follows regarding the capital with corresponding references--> " Guntur Region is the capital of Andhra pradesh and will be developed under Capital Region Development Authority. As per Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, Hyderabad will remain the de jure capital of both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states for a period of time not exceeding 10 years. " Thank you all for your continued cooperation in reflecting this wikipedia article with the facts. Apstate (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You can says Capital region will be in Guntur district. You can say its in the suburbs of vijayawada city and Guntur city. You can say its Vijayawada-Guntur region. But you can NOT just say Guntur region. Its not clear whether you are talking about Guntur district or Guntur city. I hope it makes sense. Or wait until we know the name of the capital city which is coming up between Vijayawada and Guntur cities(which are about 30km apart). Krishna river seperates captial city from Vijayawada. But there is at least 15-20km of agricultural land between suburb of Guntur city(autonagar) and boundary of new capital(Mangalgiri). There is no doubt its matter of time when Guntur-capitalcity-Vijawada become one big metro. See this map. Ramcrk (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Apstate: what @Ramcrk: said is Guntur region in the sense it will become confused between a city or district for new readers. So, mentioning capital region in Guntur district would be fine (instead of Guntur region), even the sources which you provided says the same.--Vin09 (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@@Vin09:, @Ramcrk: Thanks for the inputs really appreciate it. Right now the article has false information with respect to the capital. So the article has to be updated.

With suggestions the article is being updated as follows with corresponding references. "The new capital of Andhra pradesh is in Guntur District east of Guntur City. It is being developed under Capital Region Development Authority that includes Guntur City and Vijayawada."

You wrote It is being developed under Capital Region Development Authority that includes Guntur City and Vijayawada." Till now the VGTMUDA hasn't been dissolved officially. How Guntur City and Vijayawada are included? So, what I say, wait for sometime, maintain status quo. You changed the capital to Guntur, which lead to Guntur city page.--Vin09 (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@@Vin09:, Thanks for the inputs, Vja is not the capital and it is a wrong information. It's against the wikipedia integrity to have false information sitting there in an article. I hope you are really serious about the fariness and proper informatin in the article. The Guntur capital link will be updated to point to Guntur District. Wikpedia is not wait and watch game. It's purely based on the facts with corresponding references. That's why we are updating the capital information in the article with proper info.Apstate (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@@Ramcrk:: The article is updated as inputs given by Vin09 by giving wiki link of Guntur District for Guntur under capital. This should be more appropriate. Also edited the Capital Development Authority info. in the introduction accordingly with respect to references. Please advise if anything amiss. Thanks for your help. Apstate (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the capital field in the infobox to make clear that:

• Hyderabad is the only capital of the state at present. I have removed the unnecessary and misleading de jure qualifier, since there is no other de facto capital as the use of the qualifier suggests. (Claiming that Guntur District is the capital of AP is simple incorrect.)
• The footnote explains the limited time that Hyderabad is to remain the capital of AP, and the current plans to build the new capital in Guntur District. Being pedantic, I have changed the wording in the footnote from "will be developed" to "is planned to be developed" since the former is crystal balling in wikipedia's voice (plans can change!) while the latter is a simple statement of fact, as per the source that User:Apstate had provided.

Please let me know if I got something wrong. Abecedare (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks for the input and edits. Apstate (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with @Abecedare. As if now Hyderabad is the only capital. I have undid an edit of User:Apstate, I think the older revision might have replaced (Vijayawada). But User:Abecedare corrected that. @Apstate: wrote Wikpedia is not wait and watch game. I advise there is no hurry, because there are n number of users who needs their contribution to make facts. Only when many users involve, the consesnsus will be formed. Please wait for others opinion too. Let the other users also have their view. Not to hurry.--Vin09 (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with the way it is presented. Should we say new capital is near the suburbs of Vijayawada and Guntur cities(Its like saying statue of liberty is in NewYork state instead of saying instead of saying in the middle of New York Harbor, in Manhattan, New York City)? Guntur district is so big. Suburbs of Vijayawada and Guntur cities will give more exact location of new capital. Ramcrk (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The present sentence by User:Abecedare is fine. @Ramcrk: suburb of Guntur means only the places like Nallapadu, Pedakakani, Namburu etc., but not Thullur mandal which is around 30  in distance. See this--Vin09 (talk) 04:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. @Vin09:. Its suburb of Vijayawada rather than suburb of Guntur city. How about this? Capital city is being built at suburbs of Vijayawada, across the Krishna river in Guntur district. Ramcrk (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ramcrk, Vin09, and Apstate: Does this edit work for all? Any remaining concerns or suggestions? Abecedare (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. Ramcrk (talk) 07:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

{od}} As per my view, the footnotes are OK. But at the capital we need on wording like Andhra Pradesh Capital Region. It is also an existing article, so can we wikilink it?--Vin09 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare and Ramcrk: As per my view, the footnotes are OK.-Vin09 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vin09:: I understand, as I have been saying there is no need to hurry as long as the facts are given in this wikipedia artcile with the enough and right references. But showing the correct information is the crux of wikipedia articles. Consensus is definitely needed that support the facts. Apstate (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ramcrk: The current foot notes are giving false information. It is correct up to that says "..in Guntur District". Vja is not the capital, it is an independent town in itself. This statement gives wrong information to the reader that says as "A new capital is planned to be developed in Guntur District, across the Krishna River from Vijaywada." Apstate (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare: The foot notes are correct as previously added by you. ".. A new capital is planned to be developed in Guntur District" should be enough and factual information. Apstate (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

See this link in deccan chronicle from couple of days which specifies the border of new capital. Here and copy/pasting from the article. The rectangular-shaped proposed capital city area announced by AP Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu will be connecting both Vijayawada city and Mangaligiri town.. It can not be any clear than this. The article also shows google map. Ramcrk (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ramcrk: Thanks for the info. Of course this is very clear that the Capital is completely in Guntur District. This does not in any way convey that Vja in and by itself becomes or represents the capital. That's completely wrong information for the reader. Apstate (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Naidu marks boundaries in Guntur for AP's new capital starting near Autonagar towards east till Prakasam barrage etc. This clearly supports the foot notes as ".. A new capital is planned to be developed in Guntur District." only and gives the correct information to the article and reader. Apstate (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Apstate, I am not sure I understand the issue being discussed now. As I see it (and as sources and proposed maps verify), both of the following are true:

• The new capital is to be in Guntur District
• It is across the Krishna River from Vijaywada (which necessarily means that Vijawada is neither the capital, nor part of it).

To be very clear: the article is not claiming that "Vja in and by itself becomes or represents the capital". So can you specify, which part of A new capital is planned to be developed in Guntur District, across the Krishna River from Vijaywada you believe is wrong, and why? Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Thanks for your time really appreciated. As you mentioned in the second point '(which necessarily means that Vijawada is neither the capital, nor part of it)'. In other words it is unnecessary. Then why even mentioning '.. from Vja' and all that. Capital is not even a land mark that needs to and from, from another town. In fact this may send a wrong signal to the reader. When the whole of the capital is being built in Guntur district, what is even the necessity and need to say some unnecessary pointer. I hope this is clear. It can be re-phrased as ' .. in Guntur District up to the banks of river krishna' which makes some sense. Apstate (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Apstate, I don't think the reference to Vijaywada is liable to be misunderstood by readers as you fear. Rather, the reference to Krishna river and Vijaywada should help the interested reader to visualize the rough location of the proposed capital, which is especially useful since the unnamed capital cannot simply be looked up in any atlas, or any online mapping service. However, if other regular editors of the page support removing the reference to Vijaywada, I won't stand in the way on this pretty minor issue. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I understand what you are saying, I'm okay as long as facts are stated, it's not that it's a major or minor issue. The unanamed capital already has reference that it is to the east of Guntur city and it is a well known fact that it is being developed in Guntur District. That suffice the foot notes as well and is accurate. Apstate (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed capital is 25km away from suburbs of Guntur city where as it attached to Vijayawada suburbs. If you are interested in presenting facts you would mention one of these two things. Proposed capital city is 1) At suburbs of Vijayawada 2) between Vijayawada and Guntur cities which are seperated by 35km. For eg: the pages of Gurgaon, Noida mentions Delhi even though they are not in Delhi state. Its not unusaul to mention closest big city. By you logic we should not mention Delhi in those artilces. Ramcrk (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ramcrk Thanks for your inputs. It's not about any personal logic here keeping the wikipedia articles accurate, it is purely factual and some reasonable references based on facts. This capital (/article) is unique in itself, not sure why you keep comparing with other locations in the world. Previously you mentioned about statue of liberty which is a land mark not a capital, then with Delhi and New Delhi, well it's quite possible the capital could be named 'New Guntur' but these are all speculations. At this point the facts clearly say that the capital is in Guntur district and the developement of this city starts east of Autonagar (Guntur City)/District Capital and to the banks of river krishna. It is not only unnecessary but also redundant to keep Vja as additional reference. I understand you are talking about region's vicinity to Vja as well, which is on the other side of the river. If you still think Vja needs to be included in the footnotes as additional reference, the footnotes can be edited as '.. in Guntur District between Gnt and Vja' for now. Apstate (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Apstate: There are two autonagars. One is suburb of Guntur city. Another is in Mangalagiri(suburb of Vijayawada). Capital city's border is at autonagar in Mangalagiri. See map here. capital is between Mnalagir/autonagar and Krishna river. I think you got confused. See the new reports. 1, 2Ramcrk (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ramcrk There are government offices that are being planned to be setup in Nagarjuna University as well. The official statement also talks about Guntur Autonagar(Naidu marks boundaries in Guntur, as given above). In either case the facts don't change anything, the whole of capital is being setup in Guntur District. It simply does not make sense for a capital city to be referred as suburb of another town/city which actually is on the other side of the river. Some how you are thinking the capital to be vja-centric that is wrong. As far as location in the footnotes is concerned it's okay to keep it as .. in Guntur District between Gnt and Vja for now. Apstate (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Apstate: Its matter of time Vijayawada, Guntur cities will merge and become one metro like twin cities of Hyderabad/Secunderabad. When India become industrial society, all cities grow several folds. Few decades back Secunderabad was seperate municipality. Right now 50% of Hyderabad population is in Rangareddy district. Ramcrk (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ramcrk I understand your projections about Vja 'merging' into Guntur/Capital city in the future, but still Vja is an independent town in itself. As I previously mentioned it's okay to rephrase the footnotes as '.. between Guntur and Vijayawada'. Apstate (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As discussed the foot notes have been as '.. between Guntur and Vijayawada'. Apstate (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Outline of Andhra Pradesh

Can someone please take a look at this orphaned article and try link to it? Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gbawden:If you have any issues related to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana pages. Let me know, I'll help you out.--Vin09 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vin09: Hi Vin09. I am trying to de-orphan articles and came across this outline article. As I am no expert on this I would appreciate it if you could take a look and see if it merits its own article or wether it can be improved. Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gbawden:Actually, this is the first time I saw outline articles. I just de-orphaned by adding main article links. If you need any other help on Andhra Pradesh related articles tell me.--Vin09 (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Addition of important pics in the info box

Someone workout on vizag sea or port pic so that it can be added in the info box. As vizag is the second largest city in AP.

Its already there.--Vin09 (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Andhra Pradesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927042545/http://www.isro.org/isrocentres/sdsc.aspx to http://www.isro.org/isrocentres/sdsc.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140208042931/http://isro.org/index.aspx to http://www.isro.org/index.aspx

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Andhra Pradesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130513154001/http://yanam.gov.in:80/Mapofyanam.asp to http://yanam.gov.in/Mapofyanam.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140603143059/http://www.caa.gov.in/ to http://www.caa.gov.in/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140119000128/http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com:80/records-1/largest-film-studio to http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/largest-film-studio
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141026075843/http://www.jntuacep.ac.in:80/ to http://jntuacep.ac.in/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140701185927/http://www.krishnauniversity.ac.in/ to http://www.krishnauniversity.ac.in/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140404230915/http://www.saap.in:80/aboutsaap.htm to http://www.saap.in/aboutsaap.htm

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for google maps for andhra pradesh in india. @15.8405902,76.2603988,6z

—Kannadabheri (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. The coordinates currently in the article indicate a point roughly in the center of Andhra Pradesh. The ones in your post indicate a point somewhere in Karnataka. Deor (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Geography

"Geographically, Andhra Pradesh is bestowed with two mighty river systems of Krishna and Godavari." - this seems a bit too poetic in style. I suggest rewording to a prose style. Louis Reed (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Louis Reed:  Done--Vin09 (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Andhra Pradesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140408221719/http://indiaforyou.in/states/andhrapradesh/apculture.php to http://indiaforyou.in/states/andhrapradesh/apculture.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Literacy rate

@Rangasthal: The literacy rate per THIS OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OF AP GOVT states as 67.41 after the division of the state. Similarly, TIMES OF INDIA ref states it too as 67%. The claim of the newspaper ref at THIS might have been a mistake.--Vin09 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir the Govt report you have cited is as per 2011 of combined state, (see page bottom of that pdf file) not after division, only the map is updated, same with times of india. This is recent data published in february 2016.Rangasthal (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Hindu reference was given by a Member of Parliament, who has records of updated information. This is equally accurate. Rangasthal (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rangasthal: So, you accepted the ref is as per census 2011. You say it is combined AP, where are the telangana districts listed in that. Check url it clearly has May 2014 in it. Could you provide anymore ref of 91%. I've provided a timesofindia ref which supports it. Also, do not revert older edit vefore you have consensus on talk page.--Vin09 (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

sir you are not getting the point, The PDF clearly states the rate as per 2011 census (2011 statistics was not made under divided state right), since they have created a separate website for Andhra Pradesh, they have included only Andhra Pradesh map, and not the Telangana Map (why will they include Telangana map in 2014 divided state status?). That is why in the pdf document the AP govt clearly cites that the literacy rate is as per 2011 that is undivided state. Just because the pdf is included in Government website, doesn't mean The Hindu should not update the statistics with available data from the M.P.Rangasthal (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, census of India is considered, an MP is not the one who calculates it. If you still can't get my point, calculate with this data. AP has a population of 4.49 crore. As per your data no. Of literates should be 4+ crores, are they? They are not, intact the census figures clearly states it around 3crores.--Vin09 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir, all the statistics are as per 2011 combined state, this is absolute fact, and you or some MP or me cannot deny that. I would suggest retain the new data in the page Indian states ranking by literacy rate, and put old data (2011) in the main article of Andhra Pradesh. But still it will be in-appropriate data, because the next census will be in 2021 only, but naturally the literacy rate could be atleast above 75% of divided state. In conclusion, the consensus should be I will include new data in this page Indian states ranking by literacy rate, and old data or new data I will leave to your decision for the Andhra Pradesh page. Rangasthal (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It is conceivable that the Andhra Pradesh literacy rate is higher than that of Telangana, and it is clear that the Census 2011 figures are for the combined state. However, I don't think the figures given by the Karimnagar MP can be relied upon. Nothing is stated about how it was obtained. Further, if we average the stated figures for Telangana and AP, we don't get the Census 2011 figure for the combined state. So, I think we should ignore the source and continue to cite the Census 2011 figure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir Kautilya3 I agree your point, But, in this page Indian states ranking by literacy rate we cannot put both Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh in the table of other states which includes 2011 census. This is illogical, and unclear data, We cannot rank current divided Andhra Pradesh with old data. Hence we should put old data in main article of Andhra Pradesh, and new data in Indian states ranking by literacy rate, I can give you supporting references from Times of India, and The Hindu for this.Rangasthal (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I think we should continue to state the 2011 figures and add a footnote that they are for the combined state. It is quite common to have out-of-date figures in Wikipedia until better data becomes available. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Then please add the foot note (notelist template) clearly in both the articles of Indian states ranking by literacy rate, and Andhra Pradesh. Also, I cannot agree with in appropriate ranking of both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh among other Indian states, because it is in correct. Please separate, and dont include both state's ranking until 2021.Rangasthal (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If I understand it right, page 2343 of the AP government report, records literacy rate on a district by district basis, not by subdividing the overall state pre-bifurcation figure. It also states these are from the 2011 census - presumably these can be checked? - Basic mathematics (but not interpretation of the result) is allowable under Wikipedia's no original research rule.
As for the statement by the MP - (does anyone believe what any politician says?) what "updated" sources was he quoting? did someone re-survey the entire state? or was this just the census figures "updated" (i.e. altered) by a civil servant? - Arjayay (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

we already came to consensus that we are going with old 2011 data. But Arjayay I will not agree with you, because the 2011 data is for combined state. The survey was done for both states. After division in 2014, the population to literacy ratio will not remain constant as 2011. Rangasthal (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you have consensus, and you are missing my point - if they are recorded on a district by district basis, these can easily be recalculated for the individual states - Arjayay (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Rangasthal not getting the point again. It has clearly mention of district wise population. So where is the point if it is mutual or divided.--Vin09 (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Arjayay, and Vin09 as per THIS OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OF AP GOVT both the population and literacy rates of divided state Andhra Pradesh are given by the source population census - 2011, and literacy 2011 respectively. When both data is as per 2011, what wiill you calculate, we can only get authentic data in 2021. The 2011 ranking is not applicable for both Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh among other states. This is my point. Thank YouRangasthal (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes census 2011 was split district wise, it's simple. You get literacy for both the states.--Vin09 (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir, 2011 was split district wise of 2011. Not as per the population of 2014 (population at the time of new Telangana state formation, where is the data). Hence Ranking among other states is not applicable. But anyways we already came to consensus to retain 2011 census. So discussion end here. Thank YouRangasthal (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

2014 is not required, even state gets split in 2020 also we prefer 2011 census data. They sum up the state population based on district data, as Telanga got 10 and AP has 13 districts. So, there's the split and the census amd population is an easy task from there to calculate.--Vin09 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, further, The M.P. in context here is the "District Vigilance Monitoring Committee Chairman" who will have the current information on the state literacy here - http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/telangana/literacy-rate-dismal-in-state/article8196745.ece. About retaining 2011 data, I do agree with you. But ranking wise, I cant agree since Telangana is a new state, meaning 2014 population must be taken into consideration. Rangasthal (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, page 43 of the report gives the exact data for the current AP state. It is 67%. This has all been a wild goose chase. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to explain the user.--Vin09 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The right and left corners of every page here - THIS OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OF AP GOVT including page 43 indicates population census (2011), This is obvious, what is there to explain here. I would like to stop my discussion here, since you are not getting my point, as why we cant rank Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh among other states in the wikipedia list of ranking.Rangasthal (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

So, we finish the discussion and there is no need to change the present stat.--Vin09 (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Andhra Pradesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714213923/http://www.ap.gov.in/AP%20State%20Statistical%20Abstract%20May%202014/2%20AP%20Demography.pdf to http://www.ap.gov.in/AP%20State%20Statistical%20Abstract%20May%202014/2%20AP%20Demography.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151028005159/http://forest.ap.nic.in/About.htm to http://forest.ap.nic.in/About.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140704033449/http://forest.ap.nic.in/WLINDEX.htm to http://forest.ap.nic.in/WLINDEX.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150619202615/http://www.ap.gov.in/telugu-language/ to http://www.ap.gov.in/telugu-language/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120050546/http://www.mihira.com/wisdommasters/veerabrahmam.htm to http://www.mihira.com/wisdommasters/veerabrahmam.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714011154/http://deccan-journal.com/content/cbn-take-oath-june-8th to http://deccan-journal.com/content/cbn-take-oath-june-8th

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Population Trend Box

Someone needs to check this, as the figures shown here differ wildly from the figures in the census (which it claims as a source somehow), the 2011 census put population at just under 50,000,000 but this box claims that the population surpassed this in the 70s and that it has steadily risen to just under 85,000,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.226.120.187 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk:151.226.120.187 Andhra Pradesh state has been bifurcated into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in 2014, which results its decline in population. --Imahesh3847 (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Andhra Pradesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150514060323/http://crda.ap.gov.in/APCRDA/Downloads/CRDA%20Other%20Issues/23042015MAUD_MS97.PDF to http://crda.ap.gov.in/APCRDA/Downloads/CRDA%20Other%20Issues/23042015MAUD_MS97.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313210732/http://igmlnet.uohyd.ernet.in:8000/gw_44_5/hi-res/hcu_images/G2.pdf to http://igmlnet.uohyd.ernet.in:8000/gw_44_5/hi-res/hcu_images/G2.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C799076-2%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220113947/http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/history_post.html to http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/history_post.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://forest.ap.nic.in/About.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160911225305/http://msmehyd.ap.nic.in/PROFILE%20-AP.pdf to http://msmehyd.ap.nic.in/PROFILE%20-AP.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050401032522/http://www.apassemblylive.com/ to http://www.apassemblylive.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917143549/http://apsrtc.gov.in/Contact%20Us/Grievances/Citi-Chart.htm to http://www.apsrtc.gov.in/Contact%20Us/Grievances/Citi-Chart.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007142943/http://www.rgukt.in/home-aboutrgukt.html to http://www.rgukt.in/home-aboutrgukt.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andhra Pradesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120716182646/http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/history.html to http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/hist-cult/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921144224/http://hyderabadonline.in/Profile/History/ to http://hyderabadonline.in/Profile/History/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140619002749/http://www.kgbasin.in/ to http://www.kgbasin.in/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923172904/http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/Economic%20Survey/economic6.pdf to http://www.aponline.gov.in/quick%20links/Economic%20Survey/economic6.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Andhra Pradesh

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Andhra Pradesh's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "apedb":

• From Chittoor district: "Economy of Chittoor District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 25 April 2017.
• From Srikakulam district: "Economy of Srikakulam District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 25 April 2017.
• From Guntur district: "Economy of Guntur District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 23 April 2017.
• From West Godavari district: "Economy of West Godavari District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 25 April 2017.
• From Visakhapatnam district: "Economy of Visakhapatnam District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 25 April 2017.
• From Krishna district: "Economy of Krishna District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 25 April 2017.
• From East Godavari district: "Economy of East Godavari District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 25 April 2017.
• From Kadapa district: "Economy of Kadapa District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 25 April 2017.
• From Vizianagaram district: "Economy of Vizianagaram District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 25 April 2017.
• From Anantapur district: "Economy of Anantapur District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 25 April 2017.
• From Prakasam district: "Economy of Prakasam District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 25 April 2017.
• From Nellore district: "Economy of Nellore District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 25 April 2017.
• From Transport in Andhra Pradesh: "Economic Development Board Andhra Pradesh - Infrastructure". apedb.gov.in. Retrieved 23 April 2017.
• From Kurnool district: "Economy of Kurnool District". Andhra Pradesh Economic Development Board. Retrieved 25 April 2017.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Andhra Pradesh Official Logo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2019

remove the topology. its completely incorrect. 165.225.104.70 (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Political Party Abbreviation (attached beside chief minister cell) is not in uniformity with other states

Political Party Abbreviation which is adjoining chief minister referring to which political party chief of the state belongs is not in uniformity with pages of other states where the chief minister political party is mentioned in abbreviation not in full name whereas in this page the party is mentioned by the full name which needs to be as YSRCP not by its full name which can be even referred to all other states pages where it's like for example BJP, INC, CPI (M), JD(U), AIADMK, NPP, NDPP, MNF, JD(S), TRS, SKM, AAP, AITC so hence please change it from YSR Congress Party to YSRCP to make uniform with other pages which refer to states of India Hemanth07 (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Andhra pradesh has been formred by potti sri ramulu at the year of 1951.the andhra pradesh been a backward state up to 1980's. Because of a lot of chief ministers was changed a yearly by yearly.The unconditional change of chief ministers the people will be suffocated and the development is nothing occurs in the state.later An actor enter in to the politics name as n.t.ramarao.He is the first c.m to stable in seat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.3.209 (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Andhra pradesh has been formred by potti sri ramulu at the year of 1951.the andhra pradesh been a backward state up to 1980's. Because of a lot of chief ministers was changed a yearly by yearly.The unconditional change of chief ministers the people will be suffocated and the development is nothing occurs in the state.later An actor enter in to the politics name as n.t.ramarao.He is the first c.m to stable in seat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennamallu (talk • contribs) 10:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Andhra pradesh Capital misplaced

Why is it showing Andhra has 3 capitals when the bill is not passed Such a mistake can be considered as intrusion in state affairs and politically motivated Make it as AMARAVATI which is legal Rohith komarapati (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

From:

Capital Vishakapatnam (executive) Amaravati (legislative)

Kurnool (judiciary)

TO:

Capital Amaravati

From: Visakhapatnam is the new executive capital. Kurnool is the judicial capital. Amaravati is legislative capital.

TO: AMARAVATI is the new Capital

Reason : There is a new proposal by state govt to divide Capital into 3 regions. The process of changing that is still under debate in state assembly which sent the proposal to a select committee that takes a minimum of 3 months to make a detail report probably with referendum. Even 7 petition filed in state high court challenging the same proposal So this is under judicial scrutiny too. Any changes to the status quo with out court's approval can be considered as contempt of court.

So please change back that capital to amaravati which is true and legal as of now till the bill is acknowledged by governor with his assent and completion of judicial review

Proof: https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/andhra-hc-orders-status-quo-on-jagans-capital-plan/articleshow/73569820.cms Rohith komarapati (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done As per source, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered "status quo" on shifting the capital. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2020

Please update the capital name as VIJAYAWADA Chanduporeddy (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: MOS:ALLCAPS. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Update GDP Data

Please update the GDP (2018-19) data in the infobox and in the lead section of the fourth para. Update GDP Per Capita :151,173 and Main GDP : 8.62 Lakh Crore. Source: Thanks--103.218.236.50 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Already done: Your link automatically downloads an Excel sheet, this is not considered a reliable source. However, I was able to find a good source from Economy of Andhra Pradesh. Article updated. Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 19:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Amaravati Buddha Statue.png
• Light House at Vizag Beach.png
• Vontimitta kodandaramalayam.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Update GDP Data

Please update the GDP data in the infobox and in the lead section. Source GDP Per Capita :151,173 and Main GDP :8.62 Lakh Crore. Thanks--103.218.236.58 (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Your source only contains GDP per capita information. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 10:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please click the first tab you'll notice main GDP data.--103.218.236.58 (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please update GDP data.--103.218.236.58 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please find a source that is not an Excel sheet, per WP:CITE. Thanks. Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 19:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

References

AP's new capital(s)

@Vizagite01: "De jure isn't required now as it is law passed by Andhra Pradesh government with due assent from Andhra Pradesh governor and published in gazette." That's basically what De jure means, its legal but may not actually be the ground reality. Just because Bill has become an Act does not mean that all the infrastructure in the former capital will magically be transported to the new one. This is a radical change and it takes time. In fact this source which you have silently removed says that actual change may not happen until October or even January. By removing this info your edit is not consistent with WP:NPOV.
"I request administrators to lock this page from misleading edits from anonymous IP addresses and politicially affiliated people." Instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion by assuming good faith, you've accused your fellow editors of bias on the very first edit which is completely uncalled for.
Thanks and Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Replacing proper citations with bare urls

@Chinnusaikrish: You have twice replaced proper citations with bare urls, here and here. Its unclear what's your motive behind this. As far as I believe, ANI source is important because it confirms that act has been published in the gazette. It would be helpful if you could explain it here. Thanks --Ab207 (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

please change the name of state game of Andhra Pradesh from Kabadi to 'Chedugudu' because 'Chedugudu' is the Telugu name for Kabadi game. 103.98.63.172 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

De jure and de facto capitals

@Ab207: I don't think so. As per Indian parliamentary act, Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 which has clearly mentioned that Hyderabad as common capital for 10 years to Andhra Pradesh as per here. We have to take parliamentary act into consideration. It mentioned in context that "Capital" not "Capital(s)" there. On that basis, Amaravati has been notified as new capital for the state earlier. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has given verdict to not to relocate any government offices to any other places and argued the state government to maintain a status quo on these issues as per here. Your recent changes do impact neutrality of this article. Any recent developments to this article should be qualified for Wikipedia's standards and policies such as W:NPOV and WP:POLICY. — Lakshmisreekanth (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lakshmisreekanth: You are right in saying that Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 has a provision for common capital, but specifically says "not more than ten years." We don't know for sure if AP Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, 2020 will supersede it. If the High court does not allow shifting of offices from Amaravati then Amaravati will be the defacto capital, not Vizag and Kurnool as you have mentioned. That's what I was arguing above. Vizag and Kurnool are also de jure (not de facto), because they are also capital by law like Hyderabad. We need to present this information in a better way. I have reverted your good faith edit for now, until we can agree on how to present this in NPOV. Regards. --Ab207 (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ab207: Yeah you are right, it's best to make a proposal on this issue. These are having many legal hurdles and currently being stood in Court's desk. As per recent verdict, the state government cannot shift any capital buildings to another place for at least now. So far, they are ongoing statewide protests on this issue. I doubt, whether these bills are legal or not. According to the Constitution, the state government or the state governor either do not have any constitutional powers to relocate the state's judicial buildings such as High Court to Kurnool without President's Gazette notification, and Supreme Court's consent. But, the Secretariat can be shifted to Visakhapatnam as per that ordinance. To be sure, the State Legislature cannot make amendments to the Parliament Legislature. In this case, Parliamentary act might have more importance than that of State's ordinance. Hence, your proposal will solve this matter. Regards! — Lakshmisreekanth (talk) 09:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Lakshmisreekanth: Yes, as far as I can see the legalities are somewhat murky. On one hand, Centre says states can decide their own capital. But its not clear what happens to the provisions of Reorganization Act. Until High Court is relocated to Kurnool, it is judicial capital only on paper. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

De jure

• Visakhapatnam (executive)
• Amaravati (legislative)
• Kurnool (judicial)
• Hyderabad

De facto
Amaravati

Amaravati will be mentioned as defacto capital, because obviously that's where all state government offices and infrastructure exists as on date.
Visakahapatnam, Kurnool and Hyderabad, are de jure capitals, it will be clarified with the note, as per which act they are capitals. You may give your input. Thanks. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This proposal seems fine to me. After the executive capital moves to Visakhapatnam, it can join the list of Defacto and so will Kurnool after the High court has moved there. As of today, Amaravati is the only De Facto capital as all the capital functions are happening from there. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support! @Ab207: Thank you! This proposal would be great. As per today, each and every government offices are functioning under Amaravati. — Lakshmisreekanth (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Update: Thank you @Sharkslayer87 and Lakshmisreekanth: for your input. I have updated the page as per the above proposal. You can review my edit here. I have taken the liberty to replace bold font of "De jure" and "De facto" with italics in order to comply with MOS:BOLD. We can update the infobox when secretariat is officially shifted to Visakhapatnam. Regards. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Development as on 4 August 2020

It seems that High court has given stay on gazette notification. How should we interpret this? Is there any need to change the current version of the article? Court says status quo be maintained till August 14, So should we also maintain the status quo then? -- Ab207 (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Inviting previous participants, @Sharkslayer87 and Lakshmisreekanth:. Others also welcomed to share their view. --Ab207 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing needs to change until the bill is revoked. I don't think the court has the authority to revoke it. The stuff we have currently can remain. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, HC did not revoke the bill or declare it unconstitutional yet. So even I'm inclined to keep the status quo. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's wait for other's opinions also. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sharkslayer87: No, the both High Court and Supreme Court does hold constitutional powers to nullify certain unconstitutional laws. If any law or legislation violates basic structure of the Constitution, then High Court/Supreme Court can strike down that law even after Governor of the state's assent to the bill. Under Article 226, 136 of the Constitution in respect of High Courts, and, in respect to fundamental rights violations, under Article 32 in the Supreme Court. — Lakshmisreekanth (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

While its not beyond the reach of HC to strike down the act, its prudent wait until the judgement is passed. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it would be best if we wait for the final judgment of the HC on these issues. As i said earlier, the state government do not have any legislative powers to relocate the high court and any judiciary buildings based on this act as stated clearly here. And, there are some legal hurdles in this act known as Andhra Pradesh Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, 2020. The previous government has made the agreement to the farmers of guntur and krishna districts. The present government has to pay compensation to those farmers, the calculations are estimated around 40,000 crores. Which i think it's not possible under current scenario, as the state is already under lot of debts. Those legal hurdles to these bills are clearly explained here by the high court senior advocates 1 and 2 for references. Till then, we gotta stay focused on these articles. There are some chances, that vandalism might take place here. Regards! — Lakshmisreekanth (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good research Lakshmisreekanth. I started a discussion so that all points of view are considered. We shall maintain the status quo until something concrete emerges per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sharkslayer87, Ab207, and Lakshmisreekanth: Inline with status quo (HC's order to retain Amaravati as capital until the final verdict), shall I archive this discussion?--iMahesh (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@IM3847: Given its an ongoing issue, we might want to keep the discussion open. --Ab207 (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ab207: Sure, but the edit will be reverted based on HC's verdict dated August 14. If the outcome's a stay, then the discussion would be archived complying with High Court's order to retain Amaravati as capital and vice verse for 3 capitals. The three capitals of Andhra Pradesh can only be added to article (from August 14), after the G.O. pass Judicial review. Hope it clarifies. --iMahesh (talk) 07:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@IM3847: Slight disagreement, The Three capitals act (AP Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, 2020) still stands as on date, even if its under judicial review. Stay order does not mean that the Act has been struck down, until and unless, HC passes its final judgement, Three capitals are de jure. --Ab207 (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ab207: Agreed that Three capital act (AP Decentralisation and Inclusive Development of All Regions Act, 2020) was already passed by Government of Andhra Pradesh. But, the 'status quo' issued by the High court defines as, to continue the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues, which implies the government or any party doesn't poses any power to change the existing state until the High court agrees and lifts off the 'state quo'. The Governor Gazette issued is temporarily halted inline with 'status quo' and Judicial review. Correct me if I'm wrong.--iMahesh (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@IM3847: You're correct in saying that the existing state of affairs won't be changed.

"It said the matter required status quo as the petitioners feared that the government might start shifting offices to Visakhapatnam and Kurnool by taking advantage of the Bill becoming an Act upon its clearance by the Governor."

Therefore, GoAP cannot start shifting the offices in order to make three capitals operational. In other words, Amaravati will remain de facto capital for now while three capitals remain de jure (exist only on paper). The situation is reflected in our current version, regardless of HC stay order. --Ab207 (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ab207: Sorry, my mistake!, I've overlooked the de jure & de facto text. Anyway, thanks for confirmation.--iMahesh (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@IM3847: Its alright mate, Cheers! --Ab207 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2020

Please change current hyperlink of Ashoka from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashokan_(actor) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka Venkatmithun (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done NJD-DE (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

"Change the population of Vijayawada Municipal corporation to 11,43,232 as per the source of 2011 census, page no. 51, 3rd Paragraph 2nd line" SanjayRam1431 (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also please mention where changes are supposed to be made by mentioning the section name or paragraph/line number. -ink&fables «talk» 02:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The IPA for the state should be /ˌɑːndrə prəˈdɛʃ/. Khronicle I (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2020

A change has to be made about the capital city of the state on this page. Thank you! Vssrtd (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Language demographics after Telangana separation

@User:C1MM, Your edit to language demographics cites a reference which gives only statewise numbers as of 2011. Can you add the citation for Telangana numbers which I hope helped you to determine the numbers for the left over state of Andhra Pradesh after 2014?--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@User:C1MM, After observing your related changes, I found this link, where district level statistics of mothertongue for states are available. Can you confirm whether your calculation used this reference so that this could be added as a citation.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I used this data. Since it is Sub-district level I also accounted for mandals transferred from Khammam to East Godavari for Polavaram project. C1MM (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@C1MM, Thanks for your response. Nice to hear that you accounted for transferred mandals in the left over state of Andhra Pradesh. Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

Capital: Amaravathi 219.89.200.67 (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Current state of 3 capitals

What is the current state of 3 capitals? — DaxServer (talk to me) 11:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It's sub judice. The High Court deferred the next hearing to Nov 15. Last year, the court ordered the government to maintain the status quo until the final judgment. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

What should be done with this edit [3]? — DaxServer (talk to me) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Better to mention both de jure and de facto captials inline with this article. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

CSK made edits to all three cities. Perhaps you could take a look and do the necessary? — DaxServer (talk to me) 16:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, they seem to have added proposed in each of them which isn't entirely inaccurate. I'd be more concerned had they removed it altogether. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Infrastructure

The numbers on power production and consumption don't bear any resemblance to numbers available from Government of India or the UN.

Claim that Andhra is a power exporter is also incorrect.

Whoever made these statements/claims should provide the sources as references. 2601:246:4A81:20C0:20EB:A1E2:3941:B14D (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Literacy Rate

Article claims 91% literacy rate for 2021 and provides a bogus reference for it.

The claimed number is egregiously incorrect.

UN and Government of India number based on latest available census is near (less than) 70%. 73.22.160.18 (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sex Ratio

2021 census numbers published by government of Andhra Pradesh show 912 females per 1000 males.

The articles claims a much higher number, egregiously incorrect. 2601:246:4A81:20C0:20EB:A1E2:3941:B14D (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Several Inaccuracies

There are several inaccuracies in the article (examples : literacy rate, sex ratio, power production, etc).

Several references provided are bogus (references pointing to claims/statements made in newspaper articles, unverified and in conflict with numbers provided by census data, governments of India, Andhra Pradesh or UN). 2601:246:4A81:20C0:20EB:A1E2:3941:B14D (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tirupati International Airport , Terminal Building.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Urdu status

@DareshMohan: Following up this edit, do we have any confirmation that the bill received governor's assent? The official website says it was passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council but the Date of Publication in Official Gazette is blank. Also ping @DaxServer: for input. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arjunaraoc might know the details — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ab207: You're right. Wait for the Date of Publication in Official Gazette. DareshMohan (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer, Thanks for the alert. I do not have info on Governor's assent. Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

AP districts restructure on 2002-04-04 - Interwiki coordination

Hello, This comment is to help people interested in improving the Andhra Pradesh article across wikis. At Telugu wiki, a small team is working to bring this article and its linked articles on tewiki upto date. We are coordinating our work at te:వికీపీడియా:ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ లింకు వ్యాసాల అభివృద్ధి . While we use content translation from English articles to improve related Telugu wikipedia articles, English wikipedia contributors may find something of use from Telugu wikipedia articles. You can interact on our Telugu wikipedia coordination page in English also. Arjunaraoc (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to update that implementaion of article changes and article improvement for all the district articles and articles linked from them are completed on Telugu Wikipedia. I would like to thank @DaxServer for his support on Wikidata and OSM contributor Heinz Vieth for their support. Several corresponding English articles have been found useful in improving the content on Telugu Wikipedia articles. I would like to thank all the editors who worked on English Wikipedia articles related to AP districts restructure who number about 50 (or about 5 times the contributors on Telugu). You can read my experience sharing essay (in Telugu) or its English translation via Google Translate. Please discuss if you have any questions, comments here or on Telugu Wikipedia. Arjunaraoc (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2023

Andhra Pradesh new capital is Visakhapatnam. Akhil7211 (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/hyderabad/visakhapatnam-to-soon-become-andhra-pradesh-capital-cm-8415160/ — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Change Request

Capital needs to be updated to Visakhapatnam 2600:4041:6621:3700:F816:675E:317C:42F9 (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Amaravati remains the capital of Andhra Pradesh as of now. CM's announcement alone cannot shift the capital, relevant laws need to be passed first. The law to do this was repealed after High Court order, and the matter is now under Supreme Court, and until a judgement is passed in favour of the CM, Visakhapatnam cannot be the new capital. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

Change capital of Andhra Pradesh from Amravatti to Vishakhapatnam as per latest data in January 2023 103.153.227.250 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:CRYSTAL — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox replacement

The {{Infobox settlement}} used on this page is going to be replaced with {{Infobox Indian state or territory}} as per the Proposal and Consensus of RFC. Any questions/suggestions? Discuss Here.

You can also contribute by replacing Infobox settlement with Infobox Indian state or territory on other pages , or by improving this one. Tojoroy20 (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Replaced — Tojoroy20 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Improving AP district pages

I have initiated work on improving AP district pages as I found lot of areas to improve compared to their Telugu wikipedia versions. ( See See previous discussion on collaboration for improving pages . The current proposal for improvement and status is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Andhra Pradesh/Districts update - 2023. I request all interested to participate in this initiative. I found some anonymous IP editors trying to revert these improvements without any explanation or discussion. I request all interested to discuss before reverting changes. Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@C1MM , @456legend, @Hmains, @AVI3347, @Mutyala Raviraj,@Jeevan naidu, @MindConqurer, I noticed that you are one of 8 people who contributed valid content on an average of 3 edits per month or more to Andhra Pradesh districts pages in the first year after districts reorganisation on 2022-04-04. Thanks a lot. Hope you have noticed my initiative. I invite you to join in this initiative and contribute content or give feedback to the best of your available free time and interest. Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The analytics for this initiative is now complete with a scatter plot of page views, active editors and article quality. You can choose the pages to work on easily from this. I hope you will make an attempt at editing one page at least in the next three days, the target closing date for the first monthly sprint. Thanks. Arjunaraoc (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The first monthly sprint was completed and progress of 25% was achieved. See the project page for updates and the first sprint report. There were only two editors, who focused on updating as per the proposal. Please share your feedback and participate as per your convenience in this month sprint, which is in progress. This will be very encouraging to the initiative. Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

The table on the right lists the total population as of 2011 at 4,957,103. However, this number is incorrect. The 2011 population of Andhra Pradesh in 2011 was 84,580,777. However, Telangana split from Andhra Pradesh in 2014. Subtracting the 2011 Telangana census population (35,003,674) from the 2011 Andhra Pradesh census population yields 49,577,103. The number in the current article is missing the second 7 in this figure. Djklein5 (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Djklein5, Thanks for idenifying it.  Done Arjunaraoc (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Andhra Pradesh is revamped for improved collaboration

I am happy to report that the project page is revamped to show the Hot Articles, Article alerts and Popular articles by signing up on respective bot configuration pages. First two are already active and the Popular articles will become active when the bot refreshes the page in a week's time. Apart from this Top active editors information on weekly, monthly, yearly basis is available through Quarry queries. For more information and links, please see the project page. I hope these updates will help improve the collaboration of contributors to Andhra Pradesh Project pages. Please give feedback and discuss any ideas for further improvements. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on May 18 2023

Change "In 2017, Government of Andhra Pradesh began operating from the its new capital Amaravati." to "In 2017, Government of Andhra Pradesh began operating from its new capital Amaravati." Aiue (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Aiue, Thanks for your suggestion. The article is updated. Arjunaraoc (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Updating the article in the context of post reorganisation of districts in 2022

The article needs updation as per the reorganised districts in 2022 and also needs to be updated to 2022-23 data. I have taken up the same. Request others to join and give feedback on where further improvements are needed. Arjunaraoc (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I have updated Transport, Education and Research sections. I request others to join and update the sections as per interest. Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I have updated most of the sections on the eve of 9th anniversary of Navya Andhra Pradesh. On this occassion, I would like to thank User:Vin09, who made lot of improvements in the year 2014, when the new state came into existence. I would like other contributors to especially review History section and improve it further. Arjunaraoc (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I have revamped the entire article and checked the citations. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Reducing the number of images in infobox

There are too many (8) images in infobox, which leads to much less focus on the rest of the important content. My proposal is to reduce them to three, representing the three regions of the state and three different aspects of the state. For the Rayalaseema, Tirumala Venkateswara temple is top choice, as it is the most visited tourist place in the state. For the Coastal Andhra, I propose Undavalli caves and for Uttarandhra, I suggest Vizag sea port.

File:Ananta Padmanabha Swami Temple.jpg

as given below. These also illustrate the ancient, medieval and modern representation of the state. The proposed montage may not be perfectly aligned. This could be corrected once the choice of pics is finalised. Please give feedback and also suggest alternate pictures so that we can finalise with in a week. Arjunaraoc (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Agreed. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Support Makes sense for me. Prarambh20 (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Implemented in the article. Further layout improvements in due course. Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment and Suggestion The current layout seems to be inconsistent with the other Indian States + possible non coverage and non pleasing to the viewers due to the current layout quality. I suggest to put the layout with 7 images similar to Uttar Pradesh, which is identified as a Good article on Wikipedia after identifying good images for Andhra Pradesh.456legend(talk) 04:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Arjunaraoc: I propose the following:

Sri Venkateswara Swami Temple

Undavalli Caves

Dhyana Buddha statue

Satish Dhawan Space Centre

Araku Valley

Lepakshi Nandi

Visakhapatnam Port

456legend(talk) 04:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@456legend, My understanding is that photo montage is not a criterion for Good Article. Adding more than three images is more like abusing the provision of picture in infobox, as it reduces attention to lot of useful content in infobox. The pictures you suggested can be added in the relevant sections with a summary information. Arjunaraoc (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Copy edit clarification

@Mox Eden, Your copy edit of this sentence "As per the 8th century BCE Rigvedic text Aitareya Brahmana, the Andhras left North India on the banks of the Yamuna river and migrated to South India.", does not seem meaningful. You have used "'on"' instead of "'from"'. I suggest an alternative for you to consider. "As per the 8th century BCE Rigvedic text Aitareya Brahmana, the Andhras left the banks of the Yamuna river in North India and migrated to South India".. Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood. I will change that right now. Mox Eden (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mox Eden, Thanks for completing the copy edit. I looked at the change you made at the first occurrence. "As per the 8th century BCE Rigvedic text Aitareya Brahmana, the Andhras left North India of the banks of the Yamuna river and migrated to South India." It sounds odd to me. Should you use 'Off' instead? Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because 'off' as a preposition is used to indicate the physical separation or distance from a position of rest, attachment, or union, whereas 'of' is used to point out what something is made of or what it contains. I will fix it again. Mox Eden (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Arjunaraoc, as a side note: What did you mean exactly when the article said Dr. YSR Sports School has classes for "4-10 grades"? Mox Eden (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've figured it out. Mox Eden (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Abbreviations copy editing

@Mox Eden, As per the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Write_first_occurrences_in_full, the directive is not to capitalize the first letters of the full form. I found that you did not follow for HDI when you did the copy edit recently. Is there some exception? Can you clarify? Thanks Arjunaraoc (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Arjunaraoc, MOS:1STOCC says to not use capitals in full form just because capitals are use in the abbreviation, not that you should not use capitals at all. The full form can contain capitals sometimes. Mox Eden (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Addressing Peer review feedback

I am starting to address recent peer review feedback from User:Z1720 at Wikipedia:Peer review/Andhra Pradesh/archive2, copied below for tracking. Request others to collaborate, or give feedback on the same.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

History

The History section devotes a lot more space to recent events than it does to older events. I suggest summarising the information more effectively and moving prose to the History of Andhra Pradesh article, which can go into more detail.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Word count for post independence section reduced to 688 from 1056 (-36%). Addressed. Arjunaraoc (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Religion

Religion section needs expansion.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed the section headings to address the issue, as there is less content on religion demographics. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Family Health

The "Family health" section doesn't really talk about family health, with demographic statistics listed instead. I think this should be moved to the general Demographics section.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed the section heading to address the issue. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrative Divisions

"Revenue divisions" and "Mandals and village panchayats" need expansion. As someone who does not know about India, I do not know why any of this is important.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Merged the text into districts, as these are important administrative divisons in the state. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Services

Expand the two paragraphs of the "Services" section and remove the headings as they are not needed and cause MOS:OVERSECTION "Meanwhile, Jagan Mohan Reddy announced that Visakhapatnam would become the new capital when he addressed a meeting on 31 January 2023, relating to an upcoming investment summit." has a "needs update" tag that should be resolved. In general, be aware of MOS:OVERSECTION. Sections with a short paragraph should be merged.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed the headings for now to avoid MOS:OVERSECTION. The question regarding needs update addressed already. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Festivals

"Festivals" should be expanded or merged with another section.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Expanded with details about Sankranthi and Ugadi. Arjunaraoc (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Native name

I think ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్ should be added as a native name but there's no space in infobox for this and idk how to do that Helloisgone (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Helloisgone, as per WP:INDICSCRIPT, name in Telugu is not allowed. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andhra Pradesh/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Arjunaraoc (talk · contribs) 13:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 13:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is largely clear.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	As per MOS:CITELEAD, Lead section shall summarize the same and if it is already referenced, it is redundant and not required. Please do not re-link names that has already been linked before in the article. E.g. River names are linked multiple times There are links to non-existent pages such as Annamayya project Capitalization need to be checked as there are multiple instances where capital letters are used in the middle of the sentence for common names. E.g. Early, River, Salt in the first few paragraphs Sections need re-arranging as per MOS:OVERSECTION. Move culture before economy. Combine Administration and Politics. Not sure why there is a separate section for Science and Technology, it should be part of economy. Tourism shall be part of either economy (it is mentioned in economy as well) or sports and recreation. Religious places can move to religion. Government finances and GDP should be part of economy.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are bare citations E.g. Buddhism in the Krishna river valley of Andhra, Tibetan renaissance. Please ensure references are quoted in proper style. Please check if the sources are quoted with the required parameters as access dates are missing for few cases. Maintain uniformity in style as isbn numbers are in different formatting across the article and some sources have 10 digit old isbn nos.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Lot of work is required on citations. Please ensure that citations are provided for all the sentences. There are multiple instances of no citation being provided or complete citations are missing. E.g. in the culture section, most GI products have no references, literature section has unreferenced lines. Data needs to be updated wherever recent data is available with the year mentioned. Say the sentence "Pandit Nehru Bus Station (PNBS) in Vijayawada is the second-largest bus terminal in Asia" is based on a 2013 source. It is not applicable as of today. "The AP statewide area network (APSWAN) connects 2,164 offices of state administration at 668 locations" does not quote any year or when the data is from.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Please ensure that the citations mention what is conveyed in the prose. E.g. There is no mention of Kalagnanam being written in 16th century in the quotes.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	As per Earwig, no major issues here. Some sections would be better served with additional sources. Say for e.g. Festivals largely rely on a single source and almost follows the source text.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There are quite a few sections with just a few sentences or does not have adequate coverage. Would be better to cover with some more detailing. E.g. Services, Air transport, sports, health
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some sections go into unnecessary detailing in some aspects and give undue weight to certain events/persons. Even peer review comments have pointed out the same. Say majority of the post independence events in the history section belong to politics. History shall point generalized points without going to detailing on the politics behind it. Why only 2024 elections is covered in a separate section while there is no mention on any of the previous ones. In the sports section, it simply gives names of few cricket stadia and select sportspeople with a select school being mentioned. It can talk about traditional sports, state sport and other general infrastructure.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Most images do not have licensing issues. Some images have restrictions on usage. Please check. E.g. File:Zamin Ryot masthead.jpg
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There is a lot of image clutter. Almost every section has a gallery of images which are not essential to the content with multiple images being cramped. Please refer to WP:NOTGALLERY and keep only representative images. The images and charts also do not conform to the respective sections and are spilling over to other sections. E.g. Meeseva office image in history, multiple images of rivers, companies, power plants, colleges, temples etc.
	7. Overall assessment.	As per the comments, the article needs quite a bit of working. Say for citations, I have checked sample cases while the entire article might yield more similar issues. Please work on addressing the issues completely. As you have worked on this article extensively and the article has been waiting for a review for a while, I am putting it on hold for the moment. But given the extensive rework required, not sure if you can address the same within the next few days. Let me know your intention on the same. Thanks! Update: Closing the review as agreed there needs to be more work done on the same. Thanks!

@Magentic Manifestations, Thanks for your review. I have read through the review and agree with most of your feedback. I use the following sections for review feedback requiring clarity/discussion. I hope to address the feedback as soon as possible. I will request for additional time after working on it for 3-4 days.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Arjunaraoc Appreciate the intention. Would be happy to help provide clarity wherever required. You can start working on the article and if it proceeds as expected, no issues in giving it a reasonable few days. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Overlinking

As the article may be read in parts by readers, I tried to see that linking to same article is not repeated inside each major section(==...==). If the GA recommendation is to link only the first occurence, I will follow the same. Let me know.Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a practice to link only the first instance of mention in the article (excluding the lead) across sections. Tables, image captions, templates or infoboxes can be exceptions. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Magentic Manifestations, As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Duplicate_and_repeat_links and related guidance, I have updated links to provide balanced linking. Arjunaraoc (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

ISBN numbers

ISBN numbers are quoted as available in the source at the time it is published. Striving for standardisation in this aspect may not be required, as any ISBN can be searched in relevant directories or may not be possible, if the title is not republished after changes to ISBN number standards.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You can easily refer to the relevant pages for information. For e.g. Wikipedia:ISBN gives you the required information on why ISBN-13 need to be used, why ISBN is necessary and why hyphens are a good practice. A good article is not an average Wikipedia article and it needs to have uniformity in conforming to the good practice standards. Suggest that you try and address the concerns, rather. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have updated the ISBNs in History section to use ISBN-13 with hyphens. I will address the issue in other sections as well. Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 elections coverage

2024 elections is a major current event, hence it is covered as a subsection under Government and Politics. It also has links to articles which cover the topic in detail. Please elaborate on your feedback.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, undue importance to a particular subject in the context of the larger article. This should rather be a part of the article related to 2024 elections in Andhra Pradesh and not needed to be covered in such a detail in the article about the state. Every election is important and I do not see why only this one should be different. In a good article, sections should be balanced, covering an aspect with sufficient information, not provide too much detailing of a particular subject and not give too much weight to certain aspects. These are listed in the basis criteria for Good articles. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I removed the section. Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I reinstated a less detailed coverage, as a major current event can not be left out of the article. If you have any further feedback, I will address it as part of update of Government and Politics. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the section, as it is no longer current. Arjunaraoc (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Images with restrictive usage

There is only one image (File:Zamin Ryot masthead.jpg) with restrictive usage. This was used to illustrate the history of publishing news in Telugu. Let me know if this needs to be removed.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

As the license suggests restrictive usage and is suspect, better to remove the same if it not clear. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the image from the article. Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

History section update

I have updated History section addressing review feedback. I have omitted most of the details, reduced the number of pictures, updated citations to use Cite templates and also updated 13 digit ISBN with hyphens in the citations. I have retained pictures and names of key historical people. Let me know whether the revision meets GA expectation?--Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review 2a feedback

I have addressed the feedback. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Additional time required

@Magentic Manifestations, I think I am half way through the changes. I will need another week to complete the changes. Can you approve the request for additional time and also give your feedback on the changes done so far and discussion items?

The article seems to be heading in the right direction and has seen significant improvement. You had requested more time to fix this. It has already been on a hold for a few days and as per WP:GAN/I#R3, it can be on hold for up to seven days pending changes. I think, given that we agree there is a large amount to be done and that it will take some time to do, we should end this GAN now. You can address the concerns and renominate it for GAR once done. I look forward to seeing the rewritten article when it is ready. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Magentic Manifestations, Thanks for your response. I will continue the work and resubmit in due course. Arjunaraoc (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the candor. Look forward to the revised article. Thanks. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Update based on GA review item 1b feedback (MOS:Oversection)

"Culture" is placed after "Demographics". Administration and Politics is combined to form Government and administration. Bifurcation related political issues are moved to a separate article. Science and Technology is now renamed as Research and development and made subsection of Education. Tourism retained as a separate section as it is an important topic that may be of interest to readers. (Previous GA article Karnataka also followed this structure). A new section Infrastructure is introduced to capture Transport, Communication, Water, Power etc, which provide useful info about the state. As there were only few GA articles from India till now, I am proposing the present structure as better. Further tweaking of the structure can be done based on the future GA review feedback.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

After further thinking and investigation of other GA articles, I moved the contents of Tourism section to Geography, Demographics and culture sections. Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Update based on GA review item 3 feedback (Broad in its coverage)

Coverage broadened for the section cited in the review and other sections. i.e Services, Air transport, sports, health --Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Update based on GA review item 6 feedback (Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio)

Image clutter removed by removing gallery of pictures at several places in the article and retaining key or representative images or media.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Style edits

@Ng565, Thanks for editing the article. As per [Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Serial_commas], there is an option to use serial comma in two different ways. I used the serial comma before 'and'. You have changed that to the other option. I will try to do a consistency check after I am through with addressing the GA review feedback. It is better to discuss such changes for GA nominated article on talk page, before changing. Thanks. Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary level of details reverted

@User:Yashwanthpyadav, Thanks for your edits to the article. I had to revert your edits as those changes involving statistics are not substantiated with citations and other changes involve unnecessary level of details for state level article. You may like to incorporate such content in subordinate level articles of Andhra Pradesh. As you may see from talk page comments, I am working on improving the article to qualify for Good article status for more than a year. If you have any objections or would like to make big changes to the content, please discuss on the talk page first. Thanks for your understanding. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Any feedback before fresh submission to GA review?

GA review feedback of April 2024 is addressed by today's version including making the article upto date. If any contributor has any more feedback, please share in couple of days, as I plan to submit the article again for GA review. Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I have renominated the article for GA review today. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)