Jump to content

Talk:Indian tax forms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Form 3CD)

Prod From Talk:Form 2E

[edit]

I did a google search,[1], plenty of sources for the subject of this article, I suggest that the article be expanded and references added etc. deletion IMO is like throwing the baby with the bath water, unless of course it is a policy that "forms" are unencyclopaedic, if that is the case evidence may be presented in support of that argument. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats so encyclopedic about this article? And those google results are just about how to fill the form, where to get it from and where to submit; just what the current article is about. If you go by google hits, every competitive exam's application form will have article here. We can then also categories them under colour-photo-required and blank-and-white-photo-required, fill-with-black-pen-only, fill-with-caps-letters-only, etc. If anything that's worth noting in an encyclopedia is that this form is applicable for Hindu undivided families. Write that in The Income-tax Act, 1961 or Income tax in India or some other suitable article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My question is generic, are articles regarding forms not encyclopaedic? I don't have an opinion on that yet, I would like to base it on comments here, that was the purpose of raising that question here.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It is wrong to compare an exam form with an Income Tax return form, there creation establishes a method by which Income Tax is assessed etc., they are introduced with due diligence and deliberation at the highest level and have serious implications on assessees, assessors and authorities. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I sort-of intimated on your talk page. Otherwise, given the Europe/US centricity of this project, we'd definitely already have an article for VAT 100, which is likely the most-commonly seen form issued by HM Customs and Excise for VAT reporting. - Sitush (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to pursue this then I suggest WP:N/N, although since two of us have already done the work that appears to show there is no real coverage of this other than as "how to fill in a form" etc, I would hope that common sense tells you that it fails to meet our guidelines. You may wish to look at Form 2553. I am happy to redirect this article somewhere, once I've established where would be most appropriate and whether or not there are other organisations that use a Form 2E (highly likely, I'd hazard). - Sitush (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Are European forms absent by design or as a matter of chance, can we have a link to a deletion discussion which resulted in an article related to a "national income tax return form" being deleted? I must inform here that "Form 2E" is very notable in the sense that any Indian/ Indian HUF income tax assessee has to fill one, that makes hundreds of millions of instances. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh, with regard to your edit-conflicted response above, I couldn't care less if this is about income tax, registration of vehicle details, exams or applications for a passport etc. Unless there is substantive coverage about, for example, the history of the form or something particularly unique (the world's first scratch-and-sniff form, perhaps?}, it simply does not cut the mustard. Use your noodle: how many forms are there in the world? Do you seriously think that we should have an article on each one, basically saying "this exists, it is used by/for and here is a link to download it"? - Sitush (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my responses as they appear. "A" doesn't have an article, "B" is like "A", therefore you cannot have "B" is a bad reason to delete "B". Regarding quality of content, any article has the potential to improve with time, articles also merge or are redirected. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to Animesh's statement above, I think it becomes encyclopaedic when you discuss IT forms per se and not the individual rows and columns in individual ones. While not a great example, I think IRS tax forms serves the purpose of identifying the different tax forms in the US and their applications, something like that might be an appropriate list-article. —SpacemanSpiff 05:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can move the useful information (i.e. criteria for filling) from all these articles (Form 2E, Form 3CA, Form 3CB, Form 3CD, ITR 3 and ITR-1 SAHAJ) to The Income-tax Act, 1961, the place where they originate from. But, without leaving redirects. These terms seem to be very ambiguous and might not make sense globally in the manner that they make to Indians. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is to remain at all then the content should certainly be merged in all of the instances where the user has created articles about forms. I'm not too bothered about then deleting the merged articles. Redirecting them will do for now, and in the event that some sort of issue arises in future then it can be dealt with at that time. For example, if it turns out that there are two different bodies using a Form 2E.

We are getting into a situation where the PROD may no longer be appropriate, btw, as it is only for non-controversial deletions. I am hoping that Yogesh can see sense but if not then I'll remove the thing and we'll carry on discussing (if we really must!) - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I see my not "seeing sense" is generating a debate about articles regarding forms, having this article for a while won't hurt the project IMO, then we can have a mass deletion or the like for "forms" in general. I am interested in a clear policy, we ought to be objective. Regarding Dharma's views that the form prima facie has not much for non-Indians, I ask him so what? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yogesh, as so often you appear to be on the wrong side of consensus here. I have removed the PROD but see no reason why we should not merge and redirect and seem to have support from others who have so far contributed. I've already suggested one way that you could do this. Another would be to flag it at WT:INB, although that may not be so neutral. In any event, I am not prepared to go through yet another long and meandering discussion with you: it is something that you have been warned about fairly recently. Either you progress this or you do not. I'm prepared to wait for a few days but not for weeks. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I oppose arbitrary deletion, if forms are bad, all forms need be treated equally. It is a pity that the issue is personalised, more so considering that doing so is a chronic ailment. Someday those responsible ought to take notice and action. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one is saying delete: we are saying merge and redirect. I refer you to WP:OSE but nonetheless if you want to list a few articles about forms here then fine: I for one will take a look. Unless you can prove the notability of this one, however, it is rather a waste of time. Just because something is used a lot does not necessarily make it notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. That is why I suggested you go to WP:N/N if you feel strongly about this. If you do not sort this out then consensus here is going to prevail, and that consensus is not in your favour at present. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "No-one is saying delete..."? Most surprising, then what was the PROD about? I am very clear on OSE, let us first say this article is being deleted/merged/re-directed because forms are bad as a policy, which I'm sure cannot be arrived at on an article's talk page. Once consensus is arrived for that, well we can take action starting from this article, I won't bother anyone with OSE type of arguments. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PROD was removed at 0702, as I intimated I would do in a reply here slightly earlier. As for the rest of your comment, well, I know the signs and am not going to prolong this agony. You'll get no more response from me unless you make some pro-active attempt to move on this issue. You are showing your usual idiosyncratic interpretations of how we work and I am fed up of seeing this sort of thing. Now, if you think that is a personal attack then report me: I do not know how else I can get the message across to you other than to add what you already know, ie: WP:CONSENSUS. Which is a policy. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my Euro-centric viewpoint, this seems like an unnecessary article. I do not see the need for articles on British, Swedish, or American bureaucratic forms being necessary either and would recommend deleting any such entries. Agree entirely with Dharmadhyaksha's proposal just above. We also ought to delete VAT3 for good measure.  Mr.choppers | ✎  06:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Yogesh, you've had long enough and nothing here has changed. What do you want to do? Your choices are basically to see this at AfD and almost certainly be embarrassed once again or to accept the consensus that has formed here. I know that you are around, so I'm not going to wait too long for a response. It's your choice. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the embarrassment to be about? For the probability that I may find myself in the minority. Never heard anything more pathetic than that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since that is not a substantive response, I'm merging in accordance with the consensus above. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that you wouldn't treat this as a vote, and address concerns that I have raised, viz. (regardless of OSE) since the consensus here is about forms in general and not specific to this article, you could initiate a restructuring of all form articles and not just this one, that is just my view, take it or leave it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yogesh Khandke for your support. My request to contributers who think this pages is not important, is that if possible let me know how I can improve this page. I am ready to edit it

Sharmapriya5590 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_tax_forms&oldid=1198845368"