Jump to content

Talk:Khairatabad Ganesh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peak height

[edit]

@Ab207 TOI says 65 ft in 2019 [1], while Indian Express says 66 [2] and The Hindu says 61 [3]. I think 66 is the correct one? — DaxServer (t · c) 15:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per this source, its chairman Sundarshan says the height was 61 ft which I think is the correct figure. The discrepancy among the sources could be due to planned height vs actual height or the height including pandal or without pandal etc. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I remember, the height was said to be reversed from 60 until 1 every year. Since we have conflicting sources as to which is the tallest, let's put an efn — DaxServer (t · c) 17:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think we can display 61 feet in the prose as per Sudarshan who can be considered authoritative in this case. Rest of them can be noted in efn. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First idol location

[edit]

I read in an article yesterday that the location of the first idol is now a small temple. I forgot what the article is. — DaxServer (t · c) 12:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This source says that idol was kept outside the temple for the first time in 1978. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rlink2 (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Khairatabad Ganesh in 2021
Khairatabad Ganesh in 2021

To T:DYK/P7

5x expanded by Ab207 (talk) and DaxServer (talk). Nominated by Ab207 (talk) at 20:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

A 5x expansion was accomplished on the date of the nomination. No close paraphrasing was found. I think ALT0 may have somewhat internationally broader appeal and is also a more interesting hook in general; it is verified in the source and is cited inline. No QPQ is needed here. Both images are fine but I think the 2021 image is slightly more clear. My only concern is the sentence During the same time, the organizing committee announced their plans to build 70-foot eco-friendly Ganesh idol made out of clay in 2022: I'm not sure if the article should instead say "plans to build a 70-foot", please clarify if "plans to build 70-foot" (without the "a") is correct in Indian English. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for pointing this out. Yes, it should've been "plans to build a 70-foot." Not sure how we missed it but I corrected it now. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. All issues are now addressed so this is now GTG. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Units of height

[edit]
Moved from User talk:DaxServer § DYK for Khairatabad Ganesh

@DaxServer: I'm wondering why you use feet as the primary unit for this article when India is a metric country and MOS:UNIT would require SI units primary? Avi8tor (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi8tor In India, the units are mixed. We use both SI units and imperial units and depends on what is being quantified. SI is not primary. The height is measured in feet and inches. MOS:UNITS say the same to use MOS:TIES and feet/inches for height. Also, with WP:V, we use what the sources say, which is feet. Hope it answers! — DaxServer (t · c · m) 20:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaxServer: Apologies for the delay in my response. With the exception of the United States and the UK, the Manual of style states: "the primary units chosen will be SI units" MOS:UNIT. In 1956 India announced it was adopting the metric system in December 1956 with the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, this took effect 1 October 1958. Because it is officially a metric country the Manual of Style should be followed. Wikipedia is open to everyone on the planet, 95% of whom live in a metric country. Avi8tor (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd agree with you in principle, the height of the idol in this case is always measured in feet, and conversion to meter is something which we are adding from our end. Switching to meter might also be out of context here as they end up in decimals, instead of unit values in feet. Considering this is a non-scientific article, I believe there's room to make an exception -- Ab207 (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't think feet and inches are like decimals except by 12 instead of 10? There is no requirement to switch to metres, but they should be included and the Manual of style does state SI primary in India MOS:UNIT but does give the option with language to use Indian English MOS:TIES. If you don't like metres use millimetres or centimetres with no decimal, or round out the conversion in the template with |0. Is the height given in newspapers accurate? I think it's more likely to be inaccurate as some journalist is using what he wants or is converting, is there a more authoritative source? I've seen 3 different newspapers round the information given in square metres to 3 different areas in square feet. Avi8tor (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the height is accurate and is in feet and all WP:RS use it unanimously. It is meaningless to use (centi/milli)meters here [as primary], rounded or otherwise, as the height is increased by 1 foot and not by 0.3~ meters. Can you list those 3 articles, altho not sure what the relevance to area here? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance to area is purely to show the inaccuracy of measurement in newspapers, many are not accurate. You are still disregarding the Manual of Style MOS:UNIT "the primary units chosen will be SI units". You use the source unit and the convert template and disp=flip for the results. I will find the article Avi8tor (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three examples of the same place with different areas of the supposedly same mosaic in an 8th century Palace near Jericho.

The picture from AP news shows 827 m2, conveniently close to 8900 ft2. The second is in the text below the picture where it becomes 930 m2 (10000 ft2). You have to hover over the picture or click on it to see the text. https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-middle-east-travel-israel-west-bank-2407e36f6e4302f2670798720008a457

Looking at Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hisham%27s_Palace it’s 836 m2 (8998 ft2). The source here is from the Guardian in the UK with the source as Agence France Press (AFP).https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/huge-restored-mosaic-unveiled-in-jericho-desert-castle So which one is accurate? It seems possible the earlier text on the picture of 827 m2 but conveniently rounded to a nice round number in the latter two examples. Avi8tor (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flipping doesn't make sense here as the notability, in terms of height, is because of the one foot every year. And not because of 0.3 m. Maybe the idols are not exactly one foot to a nanometer precision, but all RS report it as one foot and the respective height in feet of that particular year. Your examples are still irrelevant for this article. You still haven't presented RS that portray the idol's height in m — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to want to follow the Manual of Style which is pretty explicit. Your comments on "Peak Height" seem to suggest the sources differ! Why? Take a look at the article Ingenuity (helicopter. The jet propulsion laboratory uses metric as do all scientists, yet NASA uses feet because the majority of the US population does, yet the article is primarily SI. Why? Because they follow the Manual of Style regarding scientific articles being in SI. It's time you followed the manual of style as well. This has nothing to do with what's used in India or your preference. Avi8tor (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how is this article a scientific article? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is merely and illustration of how the source is feet but the article is primarily SI. Avi8tor (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Peak Height" seem to suggest the sources differ: Yes, sources do differ but only in terms of feet.
If you go through "Special considerations" of MOS:UNIT, it clearly says "Quantities set via definition (as opposed to measured quantities) should be given first in the units used in the definition." So the policy supports that gradual increase to be noted in feet, and not meters. The guideline also says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Hard to see how 0.30 m (1 feet) is an improvement over 1 feet (0.30 m) for this article. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The units are not shown by definition but by measurement, supposedly! defined by definition is a legal term as in the speed limit is defined as ***. The MOS also states: Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the convert template's order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary: 320 kilometres (200 mi). Avi8tor (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand where you are getting the idea that the primary units for this article is meters. All reliable sources say that the primary unit is feet. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source might be feet but the Wikipedia manual of style states the primary unit should be SI. The only countries where non metric can be used as the primary unit are the UK and the USA, India is not mentioned so this applies "the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, etc.)". MOS:TIES Applies to language, how words are spelled and words that are used only in that country. It does not apply to units of measure. Avi8tor (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is abundantly clear that you won't be able to produce reliable sources for your arguments. At this point I'd suggest you to drop the stick. Something tells me you won't. So, please ascend the dispute resolution ladder. We all have something else that we'd enjoy doing so. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DaxServer:@Ab207: I've put in a request at Dispute resolution noticeboard/request Avi8tor (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Units of Measure for Height

[edit]

Should the height of the image be listed with feet as the primary units, or with meters as the primary units? (The other system of units will be given as secondary.)

Please enter Feet or Meters in the Survey, followed by a brief statement. Please do not respond to other entries in the Survey. Back-and-forth discussion is permitted in the Discussion section; that's what it's for. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Feet - The [primary] notability of the idol is that its height had been increased by 1 foot every year since 1954 until 2014. An examination of sources (Khairatabad Ganesh at Google News) concludes that 100% of reliable sources WP:RS [that mention height] unilaterally use feet, in such case it is categorically incorrect for Wikipedia to state otherwise. To MOS:UNITS argument, "editors should usually attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" applies here — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feet The height of the idol is always mentioned in terms of feet in reliable sources. The unit of height measurement is also intrinsic to the subject's notability which is primarily known for its height. As the subject is a non-scientific/non-technical article, little value is added by making meter as a primary unit. As DaxServed noted, MOS:UNITS is a general guideline which allows occasional exceptions. I believe there is strong case for that here. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • The manual of style can provide some guidance on this here. (Summoned by bot) --I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 05:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning toward 'foot', because reliable sources use that instaed of meter. But it is not as clear cut as 'foot' supporters believe. The manual in general prefers SI, and India as a country would not be exempt as the US or the UK are. Although the intended height may be defined in 'foot', the actual height is no longer a definition but a measurement. So you could say, for example, that the speed limit is 30 miles per hour by law, but a car traveled at 40 km per hour. The only tie breaker and potential game changer in this case appears to be usage in RS. Senorangel (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khairatabad_Ganesh&oldid=1207959346"