This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
We appear to have two separate websites: http://www.jaipurpicasso.com/ and http://www.picasso.co.in/, using the same logo imagery, but linking to different addresses and emails. Superficially the Jaipur website appears to be piggy-backing on the New Delhi one. If the Jaipur institution is a legitimate separate college it should have its own page. If it is part of the New Delhi franchise it needs to demonstrate that. Paul B (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jaipur might be a franchise (is that what you meant, or something else?), but regardless this isn't an ideal situation — even if we find that it's a branch campus, the article should concentrate on the parent campus. Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the original institution clearly functions through franchises, but if that were the case with Jaipur the website (and logo and URL) would surely link to the main website, which is clearly not the case here. What this looks like is a copycat site. Hence, I suspect, the need to assert that the Jaipur version "owns" the name. It may be legit, but if that's the case the actions of the editor(s) who have tried to obliterate the Delhi college and assert ownership of the name by posting up documents seems very odd indeed. Paul B (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be right; I should have realised that. With that in mind, it begins to look to me as if they're attempting to forge government documents. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
