Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Revisiting exceptions to INDICSCRIPT: proper titles of creative works?
Would there be any appetite for an RfC to codify an exception to INDICSCRIPT for proper titles of published works in those languages (film, books, etc.) in articles? It seems like it should be relatively straightforward to determine/enforce. It doesn't appear to have been considered in the close for the original discussion , and I'm not aware of further revision discussions. The current implementation of INDICSCRIPT makes it very difficult to search for non-English sources. I note that FA-class Pather Panchali does include its Bengali name, although my impression is that for better or for worse, most articles about published works diligently toe the INDICSCRIPT line. signed, Rosguill talk 22:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Rosguill: While craving an exception from WP:INDICSCRIPTS for some literary works and films, will be relatively straightforward, that won't be the case in general. For example, prior to adoption of this guideline, there have been numerous wiki-battles about whether classic Bollywood films and songs are in Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani and which script(s) should be included and in what order. And several high-profile South Indian films nowadays are simultaneously filmed in multiple languages, which makes determining their "actual" language(s) a target for wiki-fights too. Even the language of Indian national anthem has been subject to on and off-wiki-dispute. So while I personally support inclusion of পথের পাঁচালী at Pather Panchali and tacitly follow the practice of not removing Indic-scripts from articles about written literary works whose language/script is not subject of any dispute, don't expect formulating or enforcing a general exception to be easy! Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- I know it's common for films in India to be produced in multiple languages but am less familiar with how many languages are a common upper limit for simultaneous filming. If it's less than say, 5, I think it should be straightforward enough to include all of the languages of production. If films are commonly produced in more than 5 languages at once it becomes truly unwieldy. I think we could come up with a similar workaround for Hindi vs. Urdu or other languages (e.g. do not include Hindi or Urdu if at all ambiguous) that are similarly paired. signed, Rosguill talk 17:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, absent anyone jumping out of the woodwork to identify major problems with this idea, I'm going to start an RfC shortly. signed, Rosguill talk 04:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I know it's common for films in India to be produced in multiple languages but am less familiar with how many languages are a common upper limit for simultaneous filming. If it's less than say, 5, I think it should be straightforward enough to include all of the languages of production. If films are commonly produced in more than 5 languages at once it becomes truly unwieldy. I think we could come up with a similar workaround for Hindi vs. Urdu or other languages (e.g. do not include Hindi or Urdu if at all ambiguous) that are similarly paired. signed, Rosguill talk 17:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
INDICSCRIPT RfC
Should we add the following exception to MOS:INDICSCRIPT (changes highlighted in bold)?
Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, articles on creative works originally produced in Indic languages. This exception does not apply to dubs or translations of original works, but does apply to works produced and released in multiple languages simultaneously (e.g. Radhe Shyam). For works whose spoken language is ambiguous (i.e. languages in the Hindustani continuum), defer to the spelling/language(s) provided in the earliest publication of the work itself
.
Note that the status quo text already provides for exceptions for articles on texts originally written in a particular script.
; the proposed change would expand this exception to include films, music, video games, and other creative works with specific, identifiable languages of production; text in the guideline related to written works was changed purely for copyediting purposes. signed, Rosguill talk 15:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
- Support As I noted in the above discussion, the current implementation of MOS:INDICSCRIPT makes it very difficult to search for non-English sources for these topics, and there already appears to be a tacit lack of application of INDICSCRIPT's restrictions in high-quality film articles such as Pather Panchali. In prior discussions of INDICSCRIPT, suggestions to include carveouts for films and other creative works were suggested but not discussed in depth, and ultimately not included as part of the consensus results (despite not receiving direct opposition). I think that the nature of a creative work's original language of production is such that this exception would cause little additional disruption, and could provide significant benefit to both to readers in itself, and to editors searching for more sources to expand or establish the notability of articles. While multilingual productions are relatively common, the list of original languages of production rarely goes higher than a handful and should not present a significant obstacle. I am also open to further workshopping of how to handle Hindustani languages or other areas of potential confusion that I have not been able to anticipate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support That seems perfectly reasonable. I have pondered and can't think of any downsides - but if anyone has cogent arguments against......now is the time. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- BTW It seems premature to have an RfC now but as this is a dark corner of WP I understand why you have. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I initiated a discussion a week ago to test the waters and attempt to do an RFCBEFORE, and got a limited response. Given that this is a very wide-ranging guideline, an RfC seems more appropriate to me than boldly making the change--even if I took the perspective that this change was totally uncontroversial, the lack of publicity associated with a bold change would mean that we'd end up with confusion and inconsistent application of the guideline. (As a side note, I think you could even wikilawyer a case that the original RfC from a decade ago should have been closed with the inclusion of carveouts for creative works, as it was raised in that discussion as a reasonable exception by editors primarily arguing for wholesale removal--but I'd rather get community buy-in and a new consensus than legalistically challenging a decade-old, widely-applied decision). signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- BTW It seems premature to have an RfC now but as this is a dark corner of WP I understand why you have. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Support That seems perfectly reasonable. I have pondered and can't think of any downsides - but if anyone has cogent arguments against......now is the time. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose The guideline has stood for a long time and for a good reason; the language battles are too frequent (Hindi-Urdu-Bengali, Tamil-Sanskrit-Devanagri etc.) and the script clutter too high whether it be for any topic including the arts, creating very specific exceptions while leaving other topics out will not work. Similar proposals were there in the RfCs back then (e.g. of allowing only local official languages on geographic articles) which were rightly shut down as they had not worked in the past as well. There are already not enough users to enforce the existing guideline (e.g. the Pather Panchali script you cite was only [incorrectly] added about a week ago) and creating further loophopes will deter anyone from further enforcing them (you can also expect a rollover effect where drive by editors will be adding scripts all over place [scripts in popular film etc. articles only serving to encourage them]). The guideline is already limited to India-specific topics and articles, the result being that you find the same script clutter for which this guideline was created playing out in broader topics (e.g. interboundary rivers, religious topics etc. where they have lead to the same language wars and in cases their removal entirely), we do not need to further weaken the guideline by creating a large exception that too for the most popular topic area. And "articles on texts originally written in a particular script" was incorporated for religious/older texts in a language not covering popular culture areas of literature et al.
- As for the comment about scripts being needed for non-English sources, that is easily resolvable by going to the apt language wiki for the same or Wikidata itself.
- I have consistently and strugglingly enforced the previous guideline for years now and will be heavily discouraged to enforce a guideline if such a gaping hole is brought forth. Gotitbro (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- The Wikidata method you suggest is not really workable, as typically new articles are not already linked on there, if an article even exists on the relevant projects. I'm a little confused by the logical jump from "this is already near-impossible to enforce" to "another exception will make it harder to enforce". If anything, our ability to enforce the current wording is undermined by the absence of these common-sense adjustments that people unfamiliar with our guidelines are going to continually make in perpetuity. I am also skeptical that names of Indian topics is really so much more of an intractable problem than anything else we face on Wikipedia, or that CTOP remedies are not sufficient for addressing disruption related to the region (case in point: we don't appear to need similar provisions for Pakistan topics, despite the presence of multiple sizable minority languages that use both Persian and Devanagari scripts, and plenty of ethno-politico-linguistc tensions both within the country and in relation to its neighbors). I can understand the wisdom of the guideline for matters such as people's personal names or the names of geographic locations, where the correct spelling/language is genuinely ambiguous much of the time, but the same is simply not true for creative works that have an unambiguous language of production. signed, Rosguill talk 20:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Google Translate would be your friend then, also finding sources for Indian films etc. topics has never been an issue as most of them are in English. The script sclutter has always been an intractable problem, the reason this guideline exists in the first place. And the reasoning is perfectly justifiable, language warriors always pop-up now and then and no-one is willing to put in the work to cleanup after they are done. Those who do (such as Fylindfotberserk) know how laborious it is and would not really be impressed by this proposal. Gotitbro (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate Fylindfotberserk's opinion, but am still mystified by the logical gap in your argument as to what creates more work for us to do. I'm no stranger to article cleanup, or dealing with intractable nationalist editors across a variety of regions (including naming disputes in particular) and can't say that your comments speak to my experience in this field of editing at all. signed, Rosguill talk 20:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- The case of Pakistan is also not really applicable to India, Devanagari is not used in Pakistan at all Perso-Arabic is the standard (the language writing in Devanagari, i.e. Sindhi, Kashmiri, Punjabi (Gurmukhi) is not done in Pakistan but on the Indian side where these language are also spoken) and Urdu is universal. And unlike the multiple-language cinema of India, the cinema in Pakistan is also mostly in Urdu (Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto cinemas existed but are mostly extinct nowadays and anyhow they all use the same script). Gotitbro (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Is that true of Pakistan-administered Kashmir as well? At any rate, while there may not be a single country that perfectly lines up to India's particularities, I'm still left a little skeptical that there's something inherently more problematic about linguistic rivalry in India as compared to Kurdish regions, the Caucasus, or Israel/Palestine, to name a few linguistically contentious regions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, and Kashmiri is barely spoken in the Pakistani-administered region in any case. The fact that the other mentioned regions don't have a similar policy would be a testament to that, the maximum scripts in any of them would at most be three (Cyrillic/Perso-Arabic/Latin), simply not the case with India. Gotitbro (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Friend, you vastly underestimate the diversity of language in the Caucasus and Syria. Kurdish-adjacent conflicts can involve Kurmanji (written in Latin or Arabic), Arabic, Syriac (written in Aramaic, which looks a lot like but is distinct from Arabic) or Turkish (Latin-derived, but with a different character set than Kurmanji that intentionally excludes letters important for Kurmanji), Circassian (which can use Arabic, Cyrillic-derived, or Latin scripts) and Armenian, among other smaller minority languages. The Caucasus meanwhile, is home to about 30 different languages across seven entirely distinct families of languages, using (often heavily expanded, unique) variations of Cyrillic, Latin, Georgian, Armenian and Arabic scripts signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was talking from the perspective of single country applicability. I doubt all of the languages mentioned above would be applicable to a single article. In an Indian film article say for a film simultaneously filmed in three languages (Tamil, Telugu, Hindi) and released in dubs (such as Malayalam, Kannada, Punjabi, Bhojpuri, Marathi, Bengali, Odia) the avenues for shenanigans become significantly higher. Gotitbro (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Turkish-Arabic-Kurmanji edit wars, with the occasional addition of Syriac, Circassian or Armenian for relevant villages, are frequent for northern Syrian topics; linguistic disputes in southern Russia and Georgia can easily include upwards of four languages, although you would be correct that Azerbaijan-Armenia disputes tend to be mercifully simple in their linguistic dimension. signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I was talking from the perspective of single country applicability. I doubt all of the languages mentioned above would be applicable to a single article. In an Indian film article say for a film simultaneously filmed in three languages (Tamil, Telugu, Hindi) and released in dubs (such as Malayalam, Kannada, Punjabi, Bhojpuri, Marathi, Bengali, Odia) the avenues for shenanigans become significantly higher. Gotitbro (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Friend, you vastly underestimate the diversity of language in the Caucasus and Syria. Kurdish-adjacent conflicts can involve Kurmanji (written in Latin or Arabic), Arabic, Syriac (written in Aramaic, which looks a lot like but is distinct from Arabic) or Turkish (Latin-derived, but with a different character set than Kurmanji that intentionally excludes letters important for Kurmanji), Circassian (which can use Arabic, Cyrillic-derived, or Latin scripts) and Armenian, among other smaller minority languages. The Caucasus meanwhile, is home to about 30 different languages across seven entirely distinct families of languages, using (often heavily expanded, unique) variations of Cyrillic, Latin, Georgian, Armenian and Arabic scripts signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, and Kashmiri is barely spoken in the Pakistani-administered region in any case. The fact that the other mentioned regions don't have a similar policy would be a testament to that, the maximum scripts in any of them would at most be three (Cyrillic/Perso-Arabic/Latin), simply not the case with India. Gotitbro (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Is that true of Pakistan-administered Kashmir as well? At any rate, while there may not be a single country that perfectly lines up to India's particularities, I'm still left a little skeptical that there's something inherently more problematic about linguistic rivalry in India as compared to Kurdish regions, the Caucasus, or Israel/Palestine, to name a few linguistically contentious regions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Google Translate would be your friend then, also finding sources for Indian films etc. topics has never been an issue as most of them are in English. The script sclutter has always been an intractable problem, the reason this guideline exists in the first place. And the reasoning is perfectly justifiable, language warriors always pop-up now and then and no-one is willing to put in the work to cleanup after they are done. Those who do (such as Fylindfotberserk) know how laborious it is and would not really be impressed by this proposal. Gotitbro (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- The Wikidata method you suggest is not really workable, as typically new articles are not already linked on there, if an article even exists on the relevant projects. I'm a little confused by the logical jump from "this is already near-impossible to enforce" to "another exception will make it harder to enforce". If anything, our ability to enforce the current wording is undermined by the absence of these common-sense adjustments that people unfamiliar with our guidelines are going to continually make in perpetuity. I am also skeptical that names of Indian topics is really so much more of an intractable problem than anything else we face on Wikipedia, or that CTOP remedies are not sufficient for addressing disruption related to the region (case in point: we don't appear to need similar provisions for Pakistan topics, despite the presence of multiple sizable minority languages that use both Persian and Devanagari scripts, and plenty of ethno-politico-linguistc tensions both within the country and in relation to its neighbors). I can understand the wisdom of the guideline for matters such as people's personal names or the names of geographic locations, where the correct spelling/language is genuinely ambiguous much of the time, but the same is simply not true for creative works that have an unambiguous language of production. signed, Rosguill talk 20:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Gotibro has expressed my misgivings with this very well. The bottom line is that our INDICSCRIPTS policy has put an end to the plague of script wars and I would much prefer to keep it that way. Additionally, carving out an exception for film articles is unnecessary since, almost always, a serviceable transliteration into English for a film title already exists. I don't see much point in including a polyglot set of non-Latin scripts (e.g., the Telegu and Hindi for Radhe Shyam - OP's example above) when a perfectly acceptable transliteration already exists (e.g., the poster image in that article). What purpose does it serve the English language reader of Wikipedia to see the Telegu, Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, and Devnagri scripts for RRR (film) stuck in the infobox or the lead sentence of the article, interrupting the textual flow? RegentsPark (comment) 20:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something but it looks like RRR (film) was only produced in Telugu? Where would consideration of other scripts come in? signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- It was dubbed in the other languages. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- The current proposal is to explicitly only include primary languages of production and to exclude dubs. signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah. The exception to the exception! I think you're getting stuck on trees and are missing seeing the forest. When you build an exception, we're going to see endless discussions on where the exception applies and where it doesn't. For example, if the dubbed Malayalam verion was advertised in Malayalam, does that mean we should include the Malayalam script as well? Since it does exist. Regardless, I'm not seeing any purpose in including any indic script for Indian films when they are also heavily advertised in using English. Or, to put it another way, if we think indic scripts are useful for films, why exclude other areas and not just toss the whole policy out? RegentsPark (comment) 21:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- It's not an exception to the exception, it's a boundary, no more unenforceable than delimiting it to the country of India, or providing an exception for textual works but not films. My reasoning for the proposed scope is that I believe that the parameters are unambiguous (for the Malayalam-dub-and-ad example the answer would be "no"), that the titles are of some use to readers and editors (if not necessarily every reader and editor) and that the genuine confusion at the root of guessing the correct spelling/language the names of Indian people and places (or the languages notable enough to merit listing) is not present for creative works that typically have objectively-verifiable primary languages. signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ah. The exception to the exception! I think you're getting stuck on trees and are missing seeing the forest. When you build an exception, we're going to see endless discussions on where the exception applies and where it doesn't. For example, if the dubbed Malayalam verion was advertised in Malayalam, does that mean we should include the Malayalam script as well? Since it does exist. Regardless, I'm not seeing any purpose in including any indic script for Indian films when they are also heavily advertised in using English. Or, to put it another way, if we think indic scripts are useful for films, why exclude other areas and not just toss the whole policy out? RegentsPark (comment) 21:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- The current proposal is to explicitly only include primary languages of production and to exclude dubs. signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- It was dubbed in the other languages. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Also, has it
put an end to the plague of naming disputes
or not? Gotitbro above implies that such disputes and enforcing the existing guideline are a constant battle, hardly something resolved by the guideline. signed, Rosguill talk 20:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something but it looks like RRR (film) was only produced in Telugu? Where would consideration of other scripts come in? signed, Rosguill talk 20:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- That was put an outlay of how these problems will be exacerbated not a rebuke of the guidelines as a whole. Atleast with the current guideline you don't have multiple users vying for a place for their language when all can be removed in single swoop without the need of debating on what original language script needs to be there. The latter gets tricky as films in India a lot of times carry mutiple strands of lects, take Nadiya Ke Paar (1982 film) for example and see a back and forth of language wars, with scripts its all the more tiring. Gotitbro (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would imagine that any conflict that would occur would be identical to the existing conflict or lack thereof over the listing of Hindi, Bhojpuri and Awadhi in English in the infobox. signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Ib conflicts much easier to handle, but if you give prominence to one script in the lead there most definitely would be a significantly higher increase in drive-by script inserters (speaking with experience). Gotitbro (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would imagine that any conflict that would occur would be identical to the existing conflict or lack thereof over the listing of Hindi, Bhojpuri and Awadhi in English in the infobox. signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- That was put an outlay of how these problems will be exacerbated not a rebuke of the guidelines as a whole. Atleast with the current guideline you don't have multiple users vying for a place for their language when all can be removed in single swoop without the need of debating on what original language script needs to be there. The latter gets tricky as films in India a lot of times carry mutiple strands of lects, take Nadiya Ke Paar (1982 film) for example and see a back and forth of language wars, with scripts its all the more tiring. Gotitbro (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I may have been here too long, but I well remember the chaos before WP:NOINDICSCRIPT was first introduced in 2012, and then the repeated need to tighten it up over the next 5 years, as people kept trying to find/force loopholes in it. I find it difficult to explain how bad this was to any editors who did not experience it. This proposal seems a very retrograde step to a system that is currently working reasonably well, partially because of its simplicity. If the average reader, sees Indic script in one article, they will assume this is acceptable, and add it to others, without reading any guidelines, thus creating far more work for us WikiGnomes who clear the mess up. The suggested "benefits" of the proposal seem insignificant compared to the drawbacks. Indian films are a battleground as it is, including arguments over releases in multiple languages and dubs, we don't need more chaos and language-warring. - Arjayay (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I see a lot of oppositions based on script fighting but I think I have a potential solution. What if we create a collapsible template which has fields for a variety of Indic scripts (ordered alphabetically to be as neutral as possible)? It can be implemented on Indic script allowed pages and users can populate the fields with the Indic script they want to include (perhaps we have start off with all the officially recognized scripts of India as default fields and expand as needed). Since it would be collapsible (with its default state being closed and not expanded until users click “show”), it wouldn’t hug too much space in the article and it’ll keep Indic scripts out of the text of the article, where I assume most of the script fighting occurs. It can be titled “Template:Infobox Indic scripts” or something along those lines. I have no idea if an idea like this has been suggested in the past. What do you all think? ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Would not really serve any purpose for disparate language really. Pages where Indic scripts are allowed either do not really suffer language wars or are better off without any scripts. The issue is not the relegation of scripts but their removal, even if you include all official languages in such a template, users will still find a way for disruption. All manner of solutions for not removing scripts entirely were proposed in varied ways in the RfC for the guideline, they were not implemented for good reason. Gotitbro (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Having read through the prior discussions, while "lack of consensus" is in a sense a good reason to not implement something, I think it's an overstatement to imply that all alternatives were decisively rejected. The original discussion was closed as
There is ultimately no consensus about which language to use...
defaulting to the encouragement of IPA by the closer as an attempt to resolve the impasse. The various discussions listed in the guideline itself since then are a rather confusing list of primarily one-off challenges by an editor unsatisfied with the status quo and which led to minimal further discussion, and a much more relevant 2017 discussion to expand the lead-ban to an infobox-ban. I'm not aware of any past discussion that has really taken up the question of exceptions to the rule. signed, Rosguill talk 22:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)- Yes, I had gone through each one of them thoroughly before I set off in implementation of the guideline on enwiki. The 2017 discussion's conclusion was pretty conclusive in not wanting any scripts in any manner whatsoever in India-specific articles. Localized solutions did not work, Infobox solutions did not work, expansion of exceptional areas was not done and templates are not going to work - keeping in line with the spirit that this guidelines set was put forth for, that of reduction and elimination of script clutter. Gotitbro (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Having read through the prior discussions, while "lack of consensus" is in a sense a good reason to not implement something, I think it's an overstatement to imply that all alternatives were decisively rejected. The original discussion was closed as
- Would not really serve any purpose for disparate language really. Pages where Indic scripts are allowed either do not really suffer language wars or are better off without any scripts. The issue is not the relegation of scripts but their removal, even if you include all official languages in such a template, users will still find a way for disruption. All manner of solutions for not removing scripts entirely were proposed in varied ways in the RfC for the guideline, they were not implemented for good reason. Gotitbro (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose: Yes it is problematic for the very reasons discussed in the previous RfC and here. Another thing, I don't know people have noticed it or not, it is even problematic in articles that are exempt from the policy, e.g. language and religion-related ones that are relevant for more than one script. Bhojpuri language is one such article, that has faced POV additions and rearrangements of scripts. Durga is another one I used to patrol before, see these versions, this one with two scripts, only Devanagri, and the current version with a list of scripts in the infobox. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I feel Indic scripts should be in the infobox under the param "infobox name module". When Chinese and Japanese scripts are allowed, why disallow Indic ones? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I won't repeat the oppose reasons already stated above, which I agree with, but emphasize that it is not trivial to determine the language of Indic creative works or assign a script, even if a a language is determined. With regards to the former, consider, List of multilingual Indian films; Carnatic and Hindustani classical music; all Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani films, plays and songs, etc. For the latter, consider works in Hindustani, Konkani, Kokborok etc. While referring to the "earliest publication of the work itself" as prescribed by the proposed amendment may work for written literature, i don't see how that is supposed to help with oral, visual and performance arts. The ambiguity and complexity is best handled in the article body with appropriate sources rather than by adding clutter in the lede sentence, which more than a decade of experience has shown becomes a focal point for linguistic warriors to express their pride and mark ownership over the article's subject. Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose for the reasons noted above. Enough discussions that got extremely contentious, too much drama and not enough return. Ravensfire (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Rupee formatting
I've noticed that most articles mentioning the Indian rupee appear to use the old Rs[.] symbol or the lakh crore system, rather than the new (as of 2010) ₹ symbol. Is there a standard around which symbol to use, and should instances of "Rs" when referring to the Indian rupee be changed to the new symbol? Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 13:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Exobiotic You can use Template:INR and Template:INRConvert — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)