Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Average awareness level and seriousness about copy right laws is some how missing even amongst Indian wikipedians.Some Indian wikipedian will get caught unaware of his mistake some day and end up in jail.

Please we need to have some good articles in this respect.I have posted one article and is in dire need of support from Indian wikipedians ;please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Fair use

Mahitgar 04:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad this has been raised. Some amendments to the Act are due soon. See Copyright website. It would be good if those with the interest can go through the amendments and clauses and comment, since this is currently open to public comment. One possible good thing for wikipedians would be to ensure that there is a clause similar to Work of Government in the US. This means that work done by government servants as part of their daily duties (non-sensitive and which can be obtained through the RTI) and funded by taxpayers is copyright free. Currently there is a 50 yr copyright on government work with some minor escape clauses. Shyamal 04:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That's unlikely to happen. Indian copyright law is based on the philosophy of English copyright law, with its notion of crown copyright for government works, broad copyright protection for works of private authorship, and specific limited exceptions for fair dealing. This is all very different from US law, with its notion of government works belonging in the public domain, and a broad principle of fair use. I don't see us convincing the government - not to mention the legal profession - to accept such a radical change of philosophy. -- Arvind 08:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Arvind, for taking interest in the issue. But do weigh in on the same and give the government your feedback via the website [1] Section 18 Chapter 5 is the one that has the relevant material. And even the Crown copyright is not entirely without criticism. [2] I hope all of us wikipedians can see some merit in voicing our POV on the GOI site :) Shyamal 06:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Caste lists vs. Caste cats

Myself and User:Utcursch have been discussing what to do with lists like List of famous Rajputs, List of Famous Nairs, Category:Brahmins, Category:Dalit, etc. Check WP:DSI for all Afd's.

  • My logic - Caste is something not notable to the subject if not covered in the article. Also, cats create a false impression that castes define Indian people. Lists may be ripe for caste-cruft but are not usually looked at by people unless they are of than clan. I think lists are a better idea than cats.Bakaman Bakatalk 04:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Utcursch's views

I nominated a some "List of famous <caste-name-here>" for deletion, because they were full of unsourced stuff and wrong information, and in my personal opinion, "indiscriminate collection of information".

After discussion with Bakaman, I realized I should not be really bothered about these lists -- he is right when he says that caste-cruft is usually not looked at unless except the people of that caste. But at the same time, I don't want Wikipedia to become a tool to glorify castes.

The problem is that if you keep lists, you can't stop creation of categories. People will eventually create categories, and if somebody moves them to deletion, the first argument will be: We've got Category:Indian Americans, so why we should not have Category:Yadavs, Category:Mahars, Category:Gaud Saraswat Brahmins. For example, recently a Wikipedia:Single purpose account (User:Sbei78) was created to carry out this task. Ignoring WP:INN, the argument given was "If xyz list exists, why should not this list exist?". In my very personal opinion, caste-based lists are not like List of Indians, rather they are akin to List of Rednecks, which we should not have (since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information)

As of now, we do have Category:Brahmins and Category:Dalit, but these consist mostly of articles on sub-castes or related topics. But in future, I see biographies being categorized as Category:Dalits, Category:Jats, Category:Deshpandes. If such things are moved to deletions, people will cite existance of other such lists, ignoring WP:INN.

I'd suggest having a formal set of guidelines for this caste-related stuff. Like Bakaman said, lists are a better idea than categories (I am against creation of lists as well, but many already exist).

My ideal set of guidelines would be:

  1. No caste-based lists -- they are against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
  2. The caste-based categories should include only articles on sub-castes/related articles, not people.
  3. If an article says that "Person xyz belongs to this caste", the source should be provided. Otherwise, the statement should be removed. Also, in case of anti-caste people (such as many nationalists), the article should not begin with: "XYZ was an Indian Bhumihar/Dalit/etc...". Instead, there should be a statement in bio: "XYZ was born in a Bhumihar/Dalit/etc family".

But I know this is wishful thinking, and hardly anybody will agree with it. So, here is another set of proposed guidelines:

  1. Creation of caste-based lists and categories should be highly discouraged. The Category:Indian caste system should be maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject India and any major changes should be discussed. You can't have official sources for most of these lists, as the Government of India documents only SCs/STs/OBCs. Also, inclusion of anti-caste nationlists such as Ramdhari Singh Dinkar and Swami Sahajanand Saraswati lists such as Famous Bhumihars (on the grounds that they were born in Bhumihar families) should be considered wrong.
  2. If lists are created, they should not consist of any unsourced items. Also the sources should not include sites/groups/forums dedicated to that particular caste (because they list almost every famous personality as theirs).
  3. The caste categories should consist prefereably of sub-castes and related articles, not people. If a biography article is categorized in such a category, sources should be povided on the article page.

I strongly suggest that we have an official set of guideline for this caste-related stuff, as a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject India. The guidelines can be decided by discussion and voting. utcursch | talk 05:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Utcursch

Your logic sounds good. If there are any lists at the present times, no red links should be permitted, and each person should have a reference proving they are indeed from that community or clan (caste).Bakaman Bakatalk 22:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Rama's Arrow

The initiative for discussion by Utcursch and Bakasuprman is excellent. By and large, their logic and arguments are also quite sound. However, I disagree on 2 points - (1) Go on case-by-case basis. It is not groundless to create articles, lists and categories based on castes, but there must be good sources and convention to justify it - no WP:OR, nothing that violates WP:RS or WP:POINT. (2) we must not develop a guideline through WikiProject India. This is vital - no group of editors based on nationality, religion, etc. should determine which content is advisable to create or not. I completely understand that our motives will be clean and our restrictions minimal. But we cannot create a guideline that inhibits the creation of new content. We don't, and shouldn't have this power. In addition, it will be a pain to change the guideline in due course of time if mandated by new developments. New crops of editors will look at things a lot differently.

My advice is, stick to the fundamentals - WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CITE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR. These provide ample protection against articles that are poorly referenced, inherently biased or intended to prove a WP:POINT. Wikipedia's standards provide excellent protection against content that is questionable. No new criteria or guideline should be created by a smaller group of editors. To deal with fresh cases that may arise from time to time, begin with WP:AGF and work through discussion and consensus-building. No knowledge is unwelcome here. But that which is fake is not knowledge anyway. Rama's arrow 01:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobleeagle's views

I have found the caste pages troublesome throughout my time at Wikipedia. The desires of vandals and POV-Pushers editing these pages can be summarized as.

a) to promote and glorify the history of their caste
b) to denounce and defame members of other castes.
c) to announce that famous Indian personalities are of their caste.

This often gets out of hand, because enforcement of Wikipolicies cited by Nirav above aren't being adhered to. Basically, what I'm getting at is people love creating these lists and probably won't stop just because we decide over here that we shouldn't let them. So, what is the solution? The creation of categories to divide people amongst castes is something I am opposed to. Firstly, it's very hard to get people to provide sources when working with categories, as one has to end up tracking down addition of categories on many different pages and we end up in a bit of a mess. It also gives undue weight to the caste system, which is diminishing in India. So let's keep it to lists. Maintaining lists can be hard as well, but we need to be especially strict. We have some pages dedicated to last names associated with a caste (eg. List of Khatri last names), I say we should be strict on these pages to prove that these last names are indeed the caste they are meant to be. There are some sites that can help here, such as Ancestry.com, which can give us the caste for Malhotra, Arya, Basu etc. etc. It would follow logically that people with any of these last names can be placed in the lists for their respective castes.

Now, not all surnames can be researched, in which case one would have to find a reputable source that states that a particular person is indeed of a particular caste. If this source is not provided, then names should be deleted almost instantly. One could easily source sites like Ancestry.com as we are pretty sure of many people's surnames. There's nothing wrong with redlinks as long as the people pass the test of notability. A few restrictions need to be placed on this list, Dalit activists who have converted and renounced their caste are no longer famous Dalits. If one has renounced the caste system and their caste, they cannot be labelled as part of a caste. For the most part, I think many Indians would know their caste (at least a broad caste, such as Brahmin, Kshatriya) and if they have not officially renounced their caste then they can be noted as part of this caste.

Now, note that all these comments are based on the fact that we can't control these lists from appearing. If one can have List of Hindus, List of Catholic American entertainers then people have justifiable incentive to create a List of Nairs. If you guys have a way of keeping these lists out of the war forever (and stopping them from being created on pages, see Khatri#Distinguished Khatris) then that would be ideal, but I don't think that's very easy to do. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

RaveenS views

Bakasuprman's response to all

Lets scrap list of brahmins, list of dalits, list of kshatriya because those are way too large. We can think of Iyer, Nair, Bhumihar more as clans or tribes and keep them in the mold of List of Bengali people, List of Tamils, etc. I think caste based categories are atrocious and require way too much policing. If lists are ripe for cruft, cats are ripe for more malicious things like mislabeling that would appear on the article and possible defamation.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Shyamsunder's views

LRBurdak's views

List of clans of notable people of certain social groups should be retained. A clan has historical significance. The list should not reflect caste bias. If a list says such and such caste is higher or lower be deleted or modified. Normally people of that particular group see a caste list. Others only see when some thing is to be verified. Caste based categories reflect caste bias so should be discouraged. A list already is divided into sections so we need not to increase categories on caste basis. A list should contain entries with inter wiki links. This entry should have some external source verification to be cited. List should not have red entries.burdak 08:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bakasuprman response to LRBurdak

I think you have a very good plan, and your proposal seems to make the most sense once we consider WP:BLP and WP:V.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hyderabad (India) has been moved to Hyderabad, India

I have placed a move template (with the discussion poll section), in its talk page, to move it back to its original name. As suggested in WP:RM. Thought anyone interested should know. --hydkat 14:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

update to all those interested: Hyderabad, India been moved to Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. It was basically the result of a new poll conducted. (the result of the previous one was not move). --hydkat 11:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed redesign of the notice board

There is a on-going discussion about improving collaboration in the India project. As part of the discussion, we are proposing a redesign of the noticeboard page as a portal. This will improve and increase visibility to various activities in the projects. The proposed design page is at Indian Wikipedians' notice board. Please check and comment. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Please specify support or oppose the move to the new portal page:

Discussion

Add your additional comments:

Help needed for belgaum border dispute

I request to take a look at Belgaum border dispute and check the bulking and additions of sundry, insiginificant information merely to push the POV.A short summary of events which sparked the trouble-

  1. I had added information with the help of a citation,everything was reviewed by admin User:utcursch.He himself contributed to the article.
  2. Kannada editors objected my addition of Yuvamelava subsection in the article.I argued that the convention was attended by 40,000+ it needs to be placed here.
  3. They (Sarvagnya,Naveenbm,KNM,Gnanapiti) started the trouble by adding sundry and irrelavant stuff and blatant POV. Their additions included a minor flag hoising ceremony by a mob of 15 people.Note that many Marathi news-citations I added had ample of POV but I think I avoided most of it and didn include it in the artcile.Thats why I had insisted the admin to examine the article.I was blocked for 3RR while the kannada users(they are suspected sock-puppets and a case is pending against them) The bulkying still continues while i am away...
  4. As a response I strted to edit out but I was resisted by them.I too added some insignificant stuff.(this was before the block)
  5. I plead neutral intervention.I request admins to examine the article, decide yourself what should be there,what should not be.Its an earnest request to enforce NPOV.

Thanks. Mahawiki 17:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC) PS:Pl look the talk page and the history of that article to verify my claims.

I would advise you to take this to the formal dispute resolution process. That page is quite a mess with sock armies, heated tempers and so on. -- Lost(talk) 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I take exception to Lost's 'sock armies' comment. Mahawiki has been insinuating me and other editors of being sock puppets. He and his great friend Baka have filed a checkuser on me. Its been a long time and for some reason, may be because the clerk sees the filing itself as frivolous, there hasnt been any result yet. In the meanwhile Mahawiki, Baka and their comrades are using that flimsy, good for nothing, 'official' accusation to try and mislead people about me. When it comes from the likes of Mahawiki and Baka, I couldnt care less about such accusations. I've learnt enough to 'hand wave' it away. But, it is extremely unbecoming of a senior editor like Lost to buy Mahawiki's rhetoric at face value and 'play along'. Yes, I know he didnt specifically mention me when he said 'sock armies', but the insinuation is there for everyone to see and plain as day. Shameful I should say. Sarvagnya 18:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Any particular reasons for mentioning "sock armies" specifically? I'm taking it as a personal attack on me as Mahawiki has explicitly mentioned my name. Branding someone as "sock" without knowing anything about the issue is not welcomed at all.Gnanapiti 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Guys, please cool down. I am talking about single purpose accounts that come on the page and start abusing the other states and their denizens. Here are a few diffs for your reference [3] and [4]. I am not pointing at anyone trying to resolve the dispute. Please try to assume good faith before feeling hurt -- Lost(talk) 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
And my advice to take it through a formal dispute resolution process still holds -- Lost(talk) 19:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi lost, what do u mean by dispute resolution? I was asked by admin to post here.Please specify so that I can approach it. BTW the page continues to filled with POV and nonsense by Kannada editors. They think their 'gang' will overwhelm me and I shall give up!
And sarvagnya mind ur tongue.Just because I am not responding to ur/ur friends comments doesnt mean I have given up. Make sure u behave urself or else u know I can give u equal and opposite reaction! Thanks.Mahawiki 05:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mahawiki, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It explains step by step what needs to be done in the case of a dispute. There is also an informal way to go about it. You can request at Wikipedia:Mediation cabal for a mediator. -- Lost(talk) 05:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Article name updates for some Cities of Karnataka

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move all except Belgaum (to be decided in a separate poll). Both sides have their arguments, so I went after the votecount (yes, I discounted the SPAs). In a nutshell: I see several precedents which justify the change, and English usage (especially for smaller cities) is/will be determined chiefly by Indian usage. While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball indeed, its comparative advantage is that it's updated much faster than other paper encyclopedias. Duja► 11:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. There seems to be an uncertainty whether the names should be with -oo- or -u-. As far as I checked, the -u- ones are official so I moved them there and created missing redirects. Duja► 12:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Today (November 1st, 2006), by Government of Karnataka, some of the cities of Karnataka are being renamed to their original form from the current anglicised forms like Bangalore to Bengalooru (IBNLIVE article. More references and developments available in 2nd paragraph of Bangalore article).

Changes:


Now, what needs to be done in Wikipedia?

Based on the lines of Mumbai (redirected from Bombay), Chennai (redirected from Madras), Kolkata (redirected from Calcutta), we should be providing the redirects from current name to the new name, (eg: provide the redirect from Bangalore to Bengalooru). Then we will need to provde the sentence in introduction of each article, referring to the old name, like ((formerly Audio file "Bangalore-pronunciation.ogg" not found) ). This is exactly how it is done in other articles(Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata).

Along with these redirects/moves, we will need to write a general paragraph applicable for these changes and should be put in a section of all these articles. I request Admins' help in this regard. - KNM Talk 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

*Strong Support - Since the movement has been made officially by the authorities and the government of Karnataka, we should be following the same strategy that has been applied for other such cities such as Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai. Gnanapiti 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The dispute/controversy is about where the city should belong, and not about the name of the place; and it is going on since several decades. At present, and as long as it is part of Karnataka state, the Government of Karnataka is the governing body of the place. The name is Belagavi as per the governing body and it is considered official. Please let us not mixup border dispute with the name change. Thanks. - KNM Talk 02:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The decision to change the names from Nov 1st 2006, was taken many months ago by the then government headed by the Congress party. It is being implemented by parties which were then in the opposition, but are now ruling. BJP is one of the ruling parties and its common knowledge that Congress and BJP are as bitter political opponents as they get. So the question of 'some other party' changing it doesnt arise. Also, such a precedent has never been there in India. Political consensus was never a problem in this issue.
  • As for WP:NAME saying it should be named according to the 'English speaking world' - well, I couldnt find it on WP:NAME. Maybe because it has lot of sub articles. I havent searched through all of them. I request you to please post the specific link.
    • "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." -nutshell. Septentrionalis 04:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also going by that convention would be treading in gray area. Because when I last checked, many airports and post offices around the world still go by Bombay, Calcutta, Madras etc.,(the old names of those cities) while the corresponding articles on WP are the new names.
  • Also, the fact that it is Bengalooru has been reported widely in all kinds of media in India - English and vernacular. Sarvagnya 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The belgaum_border_dispute should be made exception for Belgaum. This is an emotional angle to it. The disputed region should be spared. Belgaon (marathi) and Belgavi(kannada) shoulkd not be used and English Belgaum should be used to avoid clashes. The case of dispute is with Supreme court of India,the name change is most likely to stay on paper as marathi people are bound to oppose the name change and never implement it. BTW the voting counter should look here before the final verdict. Mahawiki 18:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose: Use common names in English. A preference for official names where usage is mixed is legitimate, and this is what was used to move Bombay to Mumbai. However when one name is overwhelmingly common in English, we should use that one. --Delirium 03:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The case of Bengalooru/Bangalore is in no way different from Mumbai/Bombay. Just like Mumbai, Bengalooru has always been what the native 'Bangaloreans' have called it. And just like Mumbai, Bengalooru is just about going 'back' to what the native residents have always called it. "Bengalooru" is not something somebody conjured out of thin air overnight. Sarvagnya 03:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Indian media has now started using Bengalooru since yesterday while covering issues related to erstwhile Bangalore. Also, it is an official decision to rename the city similar to what happened in case of Chennai, Mumbai, Kolkata and Beijing. Here is one more news story from one of India's premier news papers (Times of India) on the official decision. [5]. Naveen (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Pl note that renaming of Belgaum doesnt hold above explaination. Belgavi is a alien name for the Maharashtrians (which are in large no and relative majority) of Belgaum and they call it Belgaon. Mahawiki 04:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Please don't mix border dispute and renaming. As of this writing, Belagavi is still administered by Government of Karnataka and its decision is binding on it. FYI, MES legislatures from Belagavi attend legislature seesions in Karnataka and not in Mumbai. People can refer to it as and how they want, but Wikipedia articles are based on official names and Belgaum is now officially called Belgavi. Naveen (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
How can it be when it will never be used by locals? MES and Marathi people care less about Karnataka's naming policy. The case is in Supreme court and hence I would urge not to use names of either language here.The new name as i said before will remain on papers when Belgaumkars will stick to Belgaum. Mahawiki 04:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See WP:UE. Maybe when the new names become more widely used in the English-language media. --Xiaopo (Talk) 06:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The state name invariably becomes the most used name with time. BTW has the state government brought in the legislation or released an official notification about the change? because thats when such a name change takes legal effect (if I am not mistaken)
  • Official decision has been taken and announced. All thats left is minor things like "Geological Survey of India" printing new maps with the new names, new forms etc., being printed in govt., offices etc.,. In other words, the order has been given, it just has to percolate down. According to media reports, this may take a month or so. Sarvagnya 07:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
nevertheless its official only, and only when, all the formalities are completed :). Shouldn't take long. [6] --hydkat 08:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Those are the new official names in English and as such should be used. —Nightstallion (?) 08:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral but who came up with some of those crazy spellings? Mysooru? What language is that from? Shouldn't it be Maisūru or Maisuuru if it's derived from Kannada script? —  AjaxSmack  08:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the BBC[7] and NDTV[8] the spelling will be Bengaluru. Other newspapers say Bengalooru. Which is the correct one? Also is the approval of the government in Delhi needed? Here they say it may be.[9] I didn't understand fully what they were saying because I don't properly understand the center-state relationship in India. Otherwise, I also agree the article should be under the official name. -- Ponnampalam 09:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Please read this article [10] which confirms that the Kannada name will also be used in English language(for those towns/cities whose names have been officially changed). So why the capitulation?. Its Bengaluru in English as well. Who is anyone to decide whether the name will catch on, gain popularity or change again over the decades. The name of Mumbai may change again too. Did that stop people from using it as the official name on wiki?. Lets get on with it and let us not allow doubting Thomases and prejudists to stop us from doing the right thing. Let us not forget that the its the dream of the common man with no access to computers and wikipedia which has been fulfilled. Where are there votes? This voting thing is bogus as it accounts for the affluent who dont care much and prefer English names anyway. Bangalore just does not belong to Bangaloreans but to the whole of Karnataka. Take a census with the 55 million people in Karnataka and you will see the right % of those want the change and those who dont. The whole idea of changing the name is to assert ourselves and our pride in Kannada. We dont need to prove whether the name will catch on or become popular.Dineshkannambadi 14:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, check the talk page archives; there was quite a bit of dispute on the whole Bombay -> Mumbai and Calcutta -> Kolkata moves, and they only really happened when the new names caught on in the international media. For a brief period around the time of the Olympics, the mayor (I think) of Turin requested that the city be called Torino—which it was among some of the US media—but it never really caught on, and the page remains at Turin. Also note that Kiev is still at that spelling, despite the fact that Kyiv is seen as official by both the US government and the Ukrainian government. For a slightly less-related example, see Czech Republic vs. Czechia. The point is that English doesn't have any regulatory body; a government can declare a name to be "official English," but that doesn't make it so. Wikipedia follows actual English usage, not (for instance) Kannada usage or what the government of Karnataka thinks English usage ought to be. To answer your question "who is anyone to decide ...?": surely the decision as to what the name of a Wikipedia page ought to be belongs to the consensus of Wikipedia editors, not the proverbial "common man." --Xiaopo (Talk) 18:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Right. Take a census with Belgaumites and they will tell u that they dont want Kannada name to their city. Belgaum has majority of Marathi speakers and they are comfortable with present name. Many of them may want to change it to Belgaon. So keep Belgaum as it is.

Read this and this to ascertain the majority of Maharashtrians and their 'opposition' to Kannada.Mahawiki 16:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Very clever arguements from user Xiaopo but at the end of the day, (be it tommorow or 45 days from) I think the only ones who are really going to stand against changing the name are those with some axe to grind. Why should Turin be an example for Bengaluru. Once again, an attempt to evaluate India and everything Indian from an european point of view. What America calls Turin is immaterial. I see a lot of vested arguements. 1.lets wait for 45 days 2.Let us see if becomes popular 3.Its not officially official yet 4.The naming convention has nothing to do with common man. 5.Bengaluru may not be its English version. Is'nt Mumbai English?

At the end of the day, wikipedia has to come around and follow main stream, no matter what happens in this vote.Dineshkannambadi 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Firstly, it seems like nobody's sure whether the new name is Bengaluru or Bengalooru, or what have you. But more importantly, it looks like the change won't be "official" for at least a month:

The changes are yet to come into effect.
Says Kumarswamy, "The government has taken the decision but we have sent it for gazette notification. The process will be completed within one month." [11]

Or from the Houston Chronicle:

The name change would have to be approved by the federal government and India's president. The state government would have to wait for a few months before it formally changes Bangalore's name to Bengaluru. Houston Chronicle - Bangalore, India to Get New Name.

Let's be careful not to jump the gun here. --Xiaopo (Talk) 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong support - The names are not only made official, but also the printed and electronic media have started using the name as Bengalooru, Belagavi, Mysooru etc. To be consistent with Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata etc articles, we should certanly make the movements for all these cities' articles. Mr mahawiki, do not mention that marathi people will oppose the name change , It is only MES and people like you are opposing. The marathi speaking people in karnataka have clearly said that.. they want Belagavi to be part of Karnataka and in few days the representation from marathi unions is planning to meet the Maharastra CM to stop such unwanted instigation and allow them to live in karnataka as they are very much comfortable in Karnataka --NAnuyAru 20:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please note that there are possible sockpuppets here too. NAnuyAru seems to Single purpose acoount to build consensus here.(See his contribs) Gnanapiti is confirmed sockpuppet of Sarvagnya.. Please be sure of this while taking decision (especially about Belgaum). Mahawiki 04:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Mr mahawiki i need not create account only to respond for people like you.. before telling anything check and speak. Off course which you do not do as you are known only for putting your view and trying to prove that is correct. I think you have only created account to respond where kannada people are writing and oppose it irrespective of right or wrong. Please avoid such personal attacks. --NAnuyAru 13:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
MES is elected representatives of Belgaum.So their view matters.No Marathi speaking people cares about what Karnataka calls Belgaum. I dont know what ur talking about.A handful of power-hungry Marathi politicians cannot beat MES who has won continously for 50 years on the issue of merger with Maharashtra. Your govt. is fooling u.Mahawiki 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh my god.. thanks for enlightening me with what our govt is doing to us. I never knew this till you mention, I am really thank full to you.
I know what MES is doing in Belagavi.. their strength was decreasing day by day so they wanted some issue and they do not have any other issue than this. which they try to dig now and then to win elections and people like you believe them and elect. --NAnuyAru 13:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support - There is no reason why the movement should be opposed, when the government has announced it on the Rajyotsava day (Nov 1st). 'Bangalore', 'Mysore', 'Belgaum', 'Shimoga' are all not the correct names of those cities anymore and having the article in those names will be against the fact, which is not we are supposed to do in wikipedia. Sritri 01:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • First of all I dont see how WP:UE applies here. To start with, WP:UE is a guideline, not a policy. And it seems devoted to ensuring that English as in Roman alphabets minus diacritics and such is used. It also says that the most popular spelling in English should be used where two different spellings exist like in Wien and Vienna. Wien obviously seems like the way Germans or Europeans would spell it, while Vienna is the common English spelling, which I believe even the English media in Vienna(if any) would be using. The case of Bengaluru/Bangalore isnt exactly a parallel, because Bengaluru/Bangalore are not just spelled differently, they're basically two different names(though rooted in the same). It is for nothing that it is being said that Bangalore is being renamed as Bengaluru. They're different spellings, different pronunciations and different names.
  • As for the Torino/Turin example that people have cited more than once here, I'd like to say that even WP:UE which itself is only a guideline, lists it under borderline cases. Surely borderline cases cannot be used as precedents.
  • The only fair precedents here is what was followed for other Indian cities and nothing else. I say this because, when it comes to usage of English, I feel India is uniquely positioned compared to other non-english countries with English media. Because in India the English media is as mainstream as the vernacular media and vice versa. I am not sure if the same can be said of a country like, say, France or China or Saudi Arabia etc.,. And as far as the Indian English media is concerned, all of them have reported that the name has changed. Details like new maps being printed, new forms being printed will happen in course of time and that shouldnt be used to hold up Wikipedia. Imo such an attempt would just be about splitting hairs for nothing.
  • So I really dont see anything in WP:UE or even WP:Naming conventions that should prevent this move. And it is not as if someone who doesnt know about the name change wouldnt find the article on Wikipedia. He can always search for "Bangalore" and he will be redirected to "Bengaluru" and in that process, he will learn something new and information will be shared and spread. Sarvagnya 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Ditto to Nat Krause's question. Wien and Vienna aren't just "two spellings," they're pronounced differently as well (Wien is pronounced [viːn]). The local language name just happens to differ from the English name. Same thing with Moskva, Roma, or even Jīlóng. The point of the whole "common names" guideline is to have the article named whatever people are most likely to search for and link to (to avoid double redirects). It's been hashed out at great length (and the arguments about redirects have been made, several times) and this isn't the place to replicate that. Added to the fact that it's not certain what exactly the new names are, and whether they've actually been adopted yet, I think it's best to keep everything where it is now. [Edit: Also, with respect to the Indian English media, it doesn't matter whether they've reported the name change. The real question is which one is used more in English-language sources, and which one is more familiar to the average English speaker. Calcutta wasn't moved to Kolkata when the name change was announced, but only when it became the dominant form used in the English-language media—both Indian and international.] --Xiaopo (Talk) 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
In any case, check out WP:POL—guidelines are authorized by consensus and actionable. The naming conventions can certainly admit of occasional exceptions, but I hardly think this is clear-cut enough to be one of those. Remember, a guideline is basically like a policy, but less so. --Xiaopo (Talk) 22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose for belgaum (because of sockpuppetry and 3RR gaming). Support for all others.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment How does one determine when a name has become common, especially for Shimoga, Belgaum, Mysore, Raichur, Hubli, Gulbarga etc which are really not internationally known. Are we saying it should become common within state media or Indian media or within International circles. These places are hardly known outside of tourist circles and how many people visit Belgaum, Raichur, Gulbarga anyway?. Is it enough that these places be gazetted with new names or should maps be drawn also?.Dineshkannambadi 02:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Bengalooru, Shivamarga are ok. I dont know about the others, as they are really new. I suppose english speakers will have to adjust to all but Belgaum. In no way should that be changed.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment: One common way is WP:GOOGLE. It needs to be in common usage among English-speakers and publications, which includes both the several million English speakers in India and the ones outside of it (as well as past publications, where the previous name has been historically used). There's precedent for a sort of "officialness bonus," where articles are moved to the "official" name when that name is relatively common, but not the most common. Check out the "nutshell" summary at the top of WP:NAME. --Xiaopo (Talk) 03:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. MikeZ 05:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support How would the english speaking people know about the new name if it is not updated? I think the main intent behind the name change was to make the english speakers use the correct name. Sumanth 09:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. This is a good example of why the pages should not be moved, regardless of how many people vote in favour of it.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think this is a case of chicken and egg. Should the name become popular first with English speakers or the name be made popular to English speakers. Sumanth puts forward a good example of sound reasoning. Keep it up!!. Why would the English speakers of the world want to use a non-English if they did not have to. Its like saying, the English of the world have to recognise the Indian flag before India can be considered free!! They finally did when they had no choice!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dineshkannambadi (talk • contribs) 05:38, 3 November, 2006 (UTC).

Reply I think everyone here could do with a read of what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a soapbox to advance a social agenda, no matter how wonderful or compelling it might be. The point of Wikipedia is to reflect the current state of affairs. Wikipedia isn't a tool to get people to use "Mysooru" or whatever, but if people do start using that, then Wikipedia will reflect it. Incidentally, Dineshkannambadi, do please sign your comments with four tildes at the end. --Xiaopo (Talk) 19:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply Awww... but then all the fun is gone! ;) --hydkat 20:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sorry I forgot to sign my last comment.Dineshkannambadi 14:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:NC(CN) & WP:UE, as Xiaopo, Nat Krause, Húsönd & siafu said above. At a future time, when/if the new official names become widely used (as happened with Mumbai & Beijing), I'll be happy to support this move. - Regards, Evv 02:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, use the common name in the English language instead. If/Once the new names become common as has happened with Bombay, Madras, etc, then move the articles with a redirect from the former name. Lankiveil 02:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Attukal?

Pardon me if I sound ignorant.. but the place referred to in Attukal appears to be the same as Attingal. Can someone check? As far as I know, Attukal is the Tamil name for a kitchen implement used for grinding. The Silent Contributor 14:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Attukal & Attingal are two different places. AND yes you are pardoned.-Bharatveer 14:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Bharatveer is right: they are different places. Btw, Attukallu is a kitchen instrument even in Malayalam.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 14:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Attukal is a place in Thiruvananthapuram city, where the famous Attukal temple is located. Attingal, on the other hand, is another place lying on the suburbs of the city(or so, I think). rohith 15:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets confirmed.what to do next?

Please see this This user has been harrasing and bothering and pushing his POV (escaping 3RR rule as well) Talk:Belgaum, Talk:Belgaum_border_dispute are few of his misdeeds. I request a strict action against Sarvagnya. What furthur steps should be taken?Mahawiki 19:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this matter, I would like it if some admins from here keep an eye on the articles for a while as it is getting too late in Ahmedabad. Also keep an eye on AN too. - Aksi_great (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in S.I.E.S_High_School article.

It seems the S.I.E.S_High_School article is the target of someone's personal grudge. At least twice has it been vandalised - the person keeps changing the fees information to say that the school is expensive. I am an ex-student of the school and know that the fees are minimal. However that may have changed, but this user - who is known only by his/her IPs (83.219.101.152, 83.219.104.35) - keeps changing the fee information without providing any sort of reason or reference. I request the WikiProject India moderators/admins to look into this. I have posted this notice here, since the school article has been made part of the Indian WikiProject. For the moment I have reverted the vandalism, but something more permanent needs to be done. Thank you. Rohitbd 05:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Need for saprate articles---- Vishal1976

Article needed on Pandharpuri Buffalo Please create a one with the help of following links

Farewell,wikipedia.

Mahawiki is thinking of departure of this bad-faith ridden, impolite, politics-infested, ungoverned world of English wikipedia.Mahawiki has been extremely unhappy at anti-Maharashtra face of wikipedia and pushing of opposition propoganda at sensitive articles like Belgaum border dispute. Kannada users have being using sockpuppets to seek concession of WP:3RR rule, build fake consensus and harrass opposing editors.They moved in groups and hijack the article keeping no option but to break the 3RR rule and get blocked or stay quiet and give in to their vandalism.User:KNM, User:Naveenbm, User:Sarvagnya(which is confirmed) and god know how many sockpuppets of them are the players! Added to that is ignorance and partisan attitude of so-called admins who extremely prejudiced who propogate injustice by defending the likes of users like User:Sarvagnya and his Kannada-emphatic troops.The mosy recent example of this is when User:Arya_Rajya_Maharashtra was blocked for its very likely being a sockpuppetmaster and Sarvagnya was spared even after he being sockupuppetmaster of User:Gnanapiti WAS CONFIRMED.

Mahawiki says :its time to take a graceful exit while my innocence and my point has been proved. Maharashtra or Marathi cannot be defamed by wikipedia and just because some nonsense is written here. Belgaum doesnt go to Karnataka just because Kannadis push their POV at belgaum_border_dispute. There's no point to stay here when shameless trolls roam unapologetically even after serious charge of sockpuppetry is being proven and incapable admins buy his claims of- we used same laptop!, he moved to other city!!. It has been proved umpteenth times that there is a way to make wikipedia work as u want.IF you dont know that you should not work in wikipedia. Seriously I havent understood how wikipedia system works and truth disperses...

Mahawiki signs off- Good-bye and happy trolling!! Mahawiki 06:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I really wonder how mundane would life be without you people. Adios. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 13:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Hogbit bartini! also Punha bhetu!-- Ganeshk (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hogbit bartini, but only if you're leaving too. ;-) --Xiaopo (Talk) 07:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hogi banni is optimistic to an unreal degree in most such cases, believe you me! Punha Bhetuya is definitely more the trend. ImpuMozhi 01:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rotational mechanism?

I ask for input and views on an idea I've had to improve productivity on WP:INCOTW and perhaps the wider WP:IND and other India-related wikiprojects. We're having some trouble attracting participants, especially from the growing numbers of new Indian and India-interested editors. While Ganeshk's outreach initiative is the best way to build a communication network, I have something a bit radical to suggest:

For INCOTW, we create a list of editors from WP:IND's member list and those interested in INCOTW (being careful not to pick newbies who are not acquainted with WP:IND and teamwork). Then using random draws, we compile a team(s) of 4-5 editors. These editors will be charged with producing 1 FA on a topic that they should decide between themselves. They will have 1 month to do this (1 week is impractical in growing an article, much less FA'ing it) - alternatively, they can have 2 weeks to write a GA - upto them. We can also run such a system collaterally with the regular nom-and-vote system.

The same idea of random draw can be used to select editors to work on specific jobs that need doing, like deletion sorting, maintaining Outreach, running INCOTW, doing the various jobs on Wikipedia:WikiProject India/to do. An editor who is picked is given the responsibility for 2 or 4 weeks (depending on the job). Editors on wikibreaks are not eligible for random selection and those selected may choose to decline the chance, whereupon someone else is selected.

We can also create a rewards list - barnstars, an "India editors hall of fame," etc. What thoughts? Rama's arrow 15:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is quite close to WP:PINQ (just realized!), which is frequented by many editors and is quite popular. Rama's arrow 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nirav, I back your suggestions. The only problem is that writing an FA requires a lot of patience and research which not everyone may have (you seem to be turbocharged in that area). I am willing to help out with Outreach for sure and can distribute the newsletters on a regular basis (reserving the easy job :) -- Lost(talk) 08:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually I disagree becoz its not appointing 1 person, but 3-4 editors to do the job. Most of the resources are available on the internet. Nevertheless, in appreciation of your point I had included the GA provision. I wouldn't say writing FAs is overrated, but its certainly not difficult for a team of editors. Rama's arrow 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Plus, its an India-related topic of their own choice. Rama's arrow 21:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Be part of local user categories as well

Hi Indian wikipedians, I think we should also become part of local categories like [[Category:New Delhi Wikipedians]] to collaborate more effectively and locally. I am now seeing the (positive) trend of more and more locally relevant articles are being added to wikipedia and (thankfully) such pages have started surviving 'non notability criteria', thus it becomes more important to be part of such categories which can enhance and maintain local information as well (I see city/town wise Viki (Wiki) Clubs emerging out of wikipedia and such effort will help there). This notice board is fine for topics spanning regions (e.g. 14'th Lok Sabha, Hindi Film Industry, Indian Railways etc) but not for state/city wise information, for such local data its better to use discusssion page of corresponding page (e.g. discussion page of Jhansi) and/or corresponding page(s) category (e.g. [[Category:Jhansi]]) and/or corresponding user category (e.g. [[Category:Jhansi Wikipedians]]) Regards, Vjdchauhan 06:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

After seeing the recent Maharashtra vs. Karnataka fiasco splashed all over, I have my reservations dividing people further than India. I would prefer instead that we build portals and wikiprojects for states where our interests may lie. That would be a much more constructive way of adding meaningful content. Then even if I belong to Delhi, I can still contribute to Maharashtra and say Bengal. And personally I would rather be categorised as an Indian Wikipedian than a Delhiite Wikipedian -- Lost(talk) 07:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Lost makes a point. The marathi-kannada bakwaas is a good reason why not to. I would rather be categorized as a Hindu wikipedian than any of the above, and Indian by descent. Bakaman Bakatalk 16:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
One should get carried over by Marathi-Kannada fiasco, being part of local user category or not such things cannot be prevented not will it escalate it, it (local user category) will primarily help in keeping a tab on a set of pages and enhancing it collectiely and networking can also help to do positive things beyond scope of wikipedia. More localization of Wikipedia content and such categories and networking through it (all very positive things) will anyway happen/emerge over time, I was only trying to hasten it by acting as a catalyst :-) . Regards, Vjdchauhan 17:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC).
I meant that the MK fiasco is something to keep in mind. Most indian users arent trolls , sockpuppeteers, or spammers. If you take the initiative, I'll support you, as will most Indian users. I will tell you that I dont live in India, and dont really feel the need to say where I am.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


We already have Category:Mumbai Wikipedians, Category:Wikipedians in Bangalore etc. Such categories are meaningful only if there are enough users from a particular region. They're mostly useful for meet-ups, rather than collaboration. Creating categories for every city unnecessarily doesn't serve any purpose. Discussions at respective category/talk pages anyway happen on Wikipedia and people who bother about those pages have them on their watchlist. Discussions on Category:Bangalore, Category:Jhansi or Category:Mumbai won't invite much participation. We've some state-wise WikiProjects, but these are mostly inactive. Dropping a note about some dispute or asking for suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maharashtra hardly evokes any response. On, the other hand, this notice-board serves as a better platform. utcursch | talk 13:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that making such "local user" categories would not serve any important use. HeBhagawan 02:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Appeal

ALL INDIANS AND HUMANS PL. APPEAL TO MR.TERRYJ-HO IN STRONGEST WORD FOR HIS SUCH COMMENTS ON TALK PAGE OF Dmcdevit. Swadhyayee 14:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The practice of Sati continues till this day..mostly due to religious sanction TerryJ-Ho 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr.TerryJ-Ho, If, your above statement is intentional, you are doing the worst thing of tarnishing the image of our country. I do not know your back-ground. Hope you will appreciate that sentiments of any person get hurt when his/her nation/religion/societies come under false attack. How would you feel, if so done to you? India has a population of 120,00,00000. I have completed 56 years in this country and sufficiently informed about things going in this country. I have moved in villages regularly and live in Mumbai from birth. I have hardly heard of one or two instance of Sati during my life of 56 yrs. You can't help the people who wants to self immolate. We have rich & poor, educated and un-educated, modern and orthodox, good and bad all kind of people like any other country would have. Sati Pratha came in social practice because of Muslims invaded small kingdoms, killed or captured males, raped and made women folk their wives. Indians mostly were strict vegetarians. Muslims are non-veg. The women preferred death over being raped or marrying for the second time against Hindu culture and customs. The pride of woman-hood and un-civilised behaviour of Muslims are the route cause of this deprecative social system. Though people like me who borned later are also full of wounds of the root cause of Muslims behaviour. Pl. don't make fun of our pitiable social system which do not exist anymore from more than 5 decades. You shall make yourself and your society a shame for such remarks. Can you show me a single evidence that the system of Sati exist and the roots are our religion? Where did you get this information from? You are a shame Mr.TerryJ-Ho. God will not forgive you for such in-human behaviour. Swadhyayee 14:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit"

ALL INDIANS AND HUMANS PL. APPEAL TO MR.TERRYJ-HO IN STRONGEST WORD FOR HIS SUCH COMMENTS ON TALK PAGE OF Dmcdevit. Swadhyayee 14:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India"

Look, it's becoming clear to me that if anything tarnishes the image of Hinduism or if anything is defended by Hkelkar or Bakasuprman, Terry-J-Ho will seize that opportunity to convey Anti-Hindu views. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
If you guys don't mind... I'm changing the heading: the previous one look terrible on my watchlist --hydkat 08:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for knowledgable editors

An anon made this edit of accuracy I don't know. Could someone a) check that and b) clean/source the article better? I don't know enough about the topic to be at all helpful. JoshuaZ 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Top 20 projects with highest FAs

Here is a interesting stat. I created the following table from this page. Listed below are Top 20 projects with highest FAs. India came 3rd. -- Ganeshk (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Project FAs
Biography articles 197
Military history articles 140
India articles 51
Australia articles 33
Film articles 32
Computer and video game articles 32
Biography (musicians) articles 31
Meteorology articles 30
Biography (politics and government) articles 29
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles 28
Tropical cyclone articles 28
Germany articles 27
Football articles 19
Biography (military) articles 19
Rail transport articles 19
Song articles 18
Biography (royalty) articles 18
Biography (core) articles 17

Great work by our FA writers. This table should also be displayed at Wikiproject Council!! -- Lost(talk) 05:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

One should note however that there isn't a WikiProject Great Britain or WikiProject United States on that list. GizzaChat © 08:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The list is very misleading as it doesn't capture the effort done by Wikiproject concerned in bringing the articles to FA status. If we take this into account, I think that Military history, India, and Tropical Cyclone Wikiprojects would emerge with top honours. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Duplication

I see duplication at Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics/It's new and Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics/New articles. Merge? -- Lost(talk) 08:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest the title be "/New Article" but the layout should follow the other because of its simplicity. The "It's new" is also more actively updated. GizzaChat © 08:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
They are two different pages. It's new is a section of the India notice board. New articles is the archive page for the it's new section. Items on It's new page must be archived to the New articles page after 1 month. Hope that explains. -- Ganeshk (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Save Indian Family -- is this organization sufficiently notable to stay in Wikipedia

Does this organization meet Wikipedia's notability standards? The intial text for this article may have been based on material written as part of a campaign mounted by MyWikiBiz.com to upload paid articles to Wikipedia; see the discussion on the WikiProject Spam talk page. Other editors added links to various India-related news sites, but some discuss men's concerns without mentioning this organization. Other links mention the organization but I can't tell if they are to sufficiently notable and reliable news organizations to meet the reliable sources guideline. Since its original upload, multiple editors have worked on it, sometimes with strong feelings, pro and con, about this organization.

This article was the only thing its original editor, Newageindian, ever edited; his single purpose account has been flagged as a possible sockpuppet. Thanks, --A. B. 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. It is mentioned by independent third party media sources like Hindustan Times and The Tribune, Chandigarh [12]. (Google news

Image replacement request

Hi, there are two historical nonfree maps of India currently needing replacements: Image:SungaMap.jpg and Image:MauryanMap.jpg. I'm wondering if some of you talented mapmakers could get to replacing these. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 22:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote on caste

If you are interested, please place your vote for the best among competing versions of a paragraph on the caste system in Hinduism. Vote at the bottom of the Hinduism discussion page here: [[13]]. Thanks! HeBhagawan 13:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)==

Project banner change

There is a Wikipedia-wide initiative to make the talk-templates smaller and reduce the clutter on talk pages. I have changed Indian project banner to allow for a parameter, small=yes. It will resize the template and move it to the right. You can see it working on Talk:India. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Ganeshk (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ganesh, will this need to bring any change in the way LostBot is tagging articles or do I continue in the same way? -- Lost(talk) 07:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No change on your side. You would continue tagging articles just like before. The small parameters is additionally added on talk pages where the clutter is noticed. This can be done manually. -- Ganeshk (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
OK thanks.. -- Lost(talk) 07:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Question for Wikipedians from Karnataka

Do you know what BK and KH stand for in Kangrali (BK) and Kangrali (KH)? Thanks for the help. -- Ganeshk (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Newsletter!

Chezhiyan has made a great start with the November newsletter. We need more ideas and contributors. Please weigh in here. Lets roll out this issue ASAP!! -- Lost(talk) 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Mudiraju

Can someone knowledgeable about the subject check the heap of original research at Mudiraju? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Raja Sahasi II

is this info correct?--D-Boy 09:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kannada names redux

Putting Belgaum aside for the moment, all the places whose names were changed by the Government of Karnataka on 1 November have been moved to their new names, with the exception of Bangalore which has repeatedly been moved back to Bangalore. Don't we have to be consistent? If the other places were moved because the Karnataka Government's notification is what counts, surely that applies to Bangalore too? Or if Bangalore can't be moved because the new names haven't come into use as yet (as has been argued here), that, too, should apply across the board. I've not seen anyone try to argue for treating Bangalore as a special case, yet that's what we're doing in effect.

I also note that the debate above was closed by an admin with the result being "Move". I'm not a regular participant on :en, so I'm not very familiar with the procedures here - is it the rule here that such decisions are not binding? -- Arvind 10:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

None of them should be moved: since when has the Government of Karnataka had the right to dictate English language usage? All these places were known by their Kannada names in Kannada anyway. Attempting to force the use of these forms in English is highly politicised and reflects a narrow ethnic and linguistic chauvinism, just as it was when the Shiv Sena changed Bombay to Mumbai. If popular usage shifts to "Bengaluru" and "Mysuru" then fine, but "official" policy has no bearing on this whatsoever. It's Moscow, not Moskva, Florence, not Firenze, Germany, not Deutschland. Why the blazes should Indian names be any different? Sikandarji 10:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Narrow ethnic and linguistic chauvinism?? Yeah right. huh. Would you mind explaining how it is 'narrow ethnic and linguistic chauvinism'?? And also why your POV is relevant to this discussion?? Btw, remember that making nonsensical accusations against elected governments is incivil. The Karnataka govt., has explained its reasons for the name change and you just have to AGF and live with that. If you cant AGF and live with it, its your problem and your 'conspiracy theories' are irrelevant to this discussion. So take them 'off-wiki'.
As for Moscow/Moskva, Florence/Firenze etc., your analogies arent valid. Simply because like I've already said, the state of English, its usage and the number of English speakers in the two countries is vastly different. Ambiguous guidelines and irrelevant analogies cant be held as precedents here. The only valid precedents here would be how other articles on Indian cities have been handled.
In that light, may I request you to take a look at Pondicherry/Puducherry - no discussion, no vote, no 'narrow linguistic and ethnic chauvinism' muck thrown around. Just a simple WP:MOVE. Guess its just fashionable for people these days to have a say about anything that concerns Bengaluru and Karnataka even when they know zilch about it. Sarvagnya 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The point that they seem to be making is that all these moves are wrong - until usage changes, the article should stay under the old name regardless of where the place is. If you take a look below, you'll see they said that if the name of New York were to be changed, the article would stay at New York. I was also pointed to Talk:Dingle. This does seem to be WP policy, unfortunately. I don't think the policy debate considered the question of whether there is a difference between a country which uses English as an official language and a country which doesn't, but unless the debate is reopened I don't see a way out other than waiting for newspapers to start using Bengaluru. Ditto for all other name changes in India - Ooty, for example, is still at Ootacamund though its official name has been Udhagamandalam for years, and it probably can't be moved because most papers outside TN do not use the official name. -- Arvind 13:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
That's not a good analogy. The Government of India clearly doesn't have the right to change the French or German or Japanese name of a place in India, but English is an official language of India, and English names therefore have an "official" status in India, which they don't in Russia, Italy or Germany. A better analogy would be asking whether the Government of Switzerland has the right to change the German name of a place in Switzerland, or the Governments of South Africa or Australia or the US to change the English name of a place in their respective countries (and what effect this has on the German and English languages, respectively).
Anyway, this isn't really relevant to the question I asked. Since I'm not a frequent user of :en, I actually have no idea whether policy here requires place names to follow the official English names in countries where the English names are the principal official ones - the naming conventions for places seem to have been written with names in foreign languages in mind, rather than changes in English names in countries which use English, so trying to apply it to situations like this is anything but straightforward. I also don't really have strong views on what name the articles should be under (which is why I didn't vote when the issue was being discussed), but it would be good to take a decision and stick to it. If the decision taken above isn't binding, let's flag it as such and try and arrive at a consensus on what's to be done. -- Arvind 11:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Arvind. AFAIK User:Nat Krause moved the article back to Bangalore because it's in violation of a guideline, which reflect consensus and are actionable (see WP:PAG). If people want it moved, they should challenge the consensus on that guideline. I'm not sure how it's relevant that Engish is an official language of India, since the Use English guideline clearly stemmed from the guideline that people should use the name most English speakers (including Indian English speakers) are likely to search for, not what any government dictates in the face of popular usage. Essentially, it's not relevant that the Government of India considers English an official language, though it is potentially relevant that India has many English speakers. I think it's pretty obvious that the guidelines do apply to countries like India; there was an entire Wikipedia:Naming policy poll on this very issue a few years ago that you might want to check out. Note that other countries have tried to mandate the use of other names in English without success, e.g. East Timor (Timor-Leste), Kiev (Kyiv—which even the U.S. State Department uses), and the Czech Republic (Czechia). That's why the articles remain at the commonly used English name.
As for the vote above, remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy—straw polls can be used to gauge consensus, but they're not binding. AFAICT, the discussion above mostly consisted of people (myself included) talking past each other. There really wasn't an effort to address the various issues, viz. that the name change isn't really even "official" yet, that much of the Indian media (including the Hindu, Times of India, and Business Standard)—not to mention the international media—are still using the old names [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], and that it's not certain exactly what the new name is (the article was moved to Bengaluru, but f'rinstance, the Economist says it's Bengalooru). --Xiaopo (Talk) 18:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you - that's quite a helpful overview of the policy on :en. So if I've understood right, if, for example, New York were to be renamed Libertyport, the article would remain at New York until Libertyport came into common usage worldover. Interesting. Which also means that the discussion above was essentially pointless, since the guidelines mean that the articles couldn't be moved whatever the outcome of this discussion. It would have saved much time if an admin had pointed that out and closed the discussion right at the beginning. Anyway, getting back to my original question, shouldn't this apply equally to Mysore, Shimoga, Hubli, Mangalore, etc.? -- Arvind 19:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, which is why some people noted that we shouldn't even be having the vote in the first place. While I'd agree about the poll thing, I'd say that we could have a valuable discussion on how to apply the guideline (which seems to me to be a good one) to these specific cases. For instance, User:Duja had a good point above about many of the smaller towns, like Hubli/Hubbali—these usually aren't even mentioned in the international press, so it might not be a terrible idea to move them. Where common usage is divided or inconsistent (like when one name is used primarily in historical texts) people have moved to a newer name on the basis that it's "official," and that seems fair to me as well. On the other hand, the Hindu is still using Gulbarga (Interestingly, I just checked, and even kn: has the article at Gulbarga. Go figure.). That's really what we should be discussing, IMHO.
After all, we know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. ;-) --Xiaopo (Talk) 23:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Duja really has a point. There is a large English-language press in India, which gives us plenty of scope to see what name is commonly used in English. I'd expect the Deccan Herald and the Bangalore editions of the Indian Express, Hindu, and Times of India to mention each of these places fairly regularly, so the same standard should apply. I make no comment on the guideline itself, since I'm not going to do anything about trying to change it even if I disagree. -- Arvind 08:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I certainly think so, but then I work on Indian history so all these names are familiar to me. I'd have thought that to the generality of English-speakers outside India only Mysore is a well-known city under its current name. For English-speaking Indians who do not know Kannada all the Anglicised versions are likely to be much more familiar than the renamings for some considerable time.Sikandarji 21:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
English is widely used all over the world, whether it has official status or not. English-speaking Russians refer to Moskva as Moscow, just as English-speaking Indians refer to "Bengaluru" as "Bangalore" (and will no doubt continue to do so, regardless of government diktat). The whole thing is absurd political posturing. And Wikipedia policy is to reflect common usage, not official terms, so this decision is a clear violation of that. Sikandarji 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The article on India is at India, not Republic of India. The former is common usage, while the latter is official. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Rollback to Nichalp's text at India

I've just attempted this edit. I need to get feedback regarding whether restoring Nichalp's original text is justified. The India article has sadly become cruft- and POV-laden. I fear that a successful FARCing of the article is not far off. Please do comment at Talk:India. Regards, Saravask 06:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I endorse it unconditionally. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo request

A photo on one of the articles on my watchlist, Image:McChicken India.jpg, has been marked for needing a freely-licensed replacement (it is a copyrighted promo photo). If anyone in India has a hankerin' for a McChicken in the near future, would you mind snapping a photo first? I would gladly owe that person a Wiki-favor. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Hindi Wikinews

Hello all, I have made a proposal for Hindi Wikinews on Wikinews/Start a new edition. If you think, the launch of the project is worth doing, please support. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Argh, updates hardly ever are made on the ताज़ी घटनाएँ on the Hindi Wikipedia and that project is just barely beginning to get moving. Though it's had great growth in the last couple months, it needs a ton of work in interface translation and streamlining and translating the help documents and even basic templates. It seems to me until that project is really humming along, that a Wikinews edition is just a distraction. But everyone should work on what they like to of course. - Taxman Talk 20:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem on Nargis

I'll direct everyone's attention to this WP:AN post and note that there are two actresses that share the single name Nargis, one from India and one from Pakistan. To facilitate disambiguation, I suggested that Nargis be renamed to Nargis (Indian Actress), Nargis (Actress) be renamed to Nargis (Pakistani Actress). The original Nargis should redirect to a disambiguation page, due to multiple persons with articles sharing this name. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A small modification. The original Nargis article should be the disambiguation page rather than the redirect page. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

{{India-scientist-stub}}

(posted on WP:IND) This stub has been proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2006/November to sort out {{India-bio-stub}}. STTW (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Indian politician images

  • I have been trying to follow the fair use discussion for the past few days. From the look of things, Wikipedia is going to come down very heavily on fair use images. Fair use images are going to be actively discouraged in the future so that people make more effort to get free images. -- Lost(talk) 15:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think "fair use" is overused and abused. A big example is the category:Fair use stamp images, which has a large number of stamps. These were supposed to be used only in philatelic articles, but in many cases, (including those from India Post), these are being used as portraits in bio-articles. Wikipedias in many other languages have banned use of fair use images as part of their policy. Sometimes, being a free encyclopedia means you accept a no-image article rather than a nonfree-image one. That's ok. --Ragib 17:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd add further that, Indian postage stamps are copyrighted, and CANNOT be used/distributed. Many articles try to squeeze in yet another stamp serving as a portrait, by adding one or two sentences on the stamp. But IndiaPost website specifically mentions that:
The copyright in the material contained in this Web Site belongs to and remains solely with Department of Posts. Your access to it does not imply a licence to reproduce and/or distribute this information and you are not allowed to any such act without the prior approval of Department of Posts. [20]
Claiming "Fair use" is void in such cases, as the articles where these stamps are added, mostly are NOT on stamps, but on persons or organizations. Even in philatelic articles, IndiaPost specifically limits the circumstances under which these type of usage is allowed:
Re-production of stamps is allowed for illustration purposes in Philatelic Publication or in an article relating wholly on postage stamps which may appear in any magazine, newspaper or publication of a general character. Such reproduction should however, be only in black. If stamps are to be produced in colour for publicity purposes, prior permission of the Director General of Posts must be obtained. To avoid similarity with the postage , such reproduction must be distinctively in smaller or larger sizes than the actual stamp and must be without perforation on the edges. Further, across bar will also be placed on one- corner of the stamp, obliterating the denomination. It must be noted that reproduction of the stamp in colour of the actual size of the stamp with perforation of the edges may be deemed to be taken as production of the actual stamp" [21]
I therefore request everyone to refrain from using Indian post-1947 stamps. Thank you. --Ragib 20:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review at WP:INDIA

I just submitted Portal:Kerala for peer review at Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Peer_review (comments, please!). The articles listed there don't seem to receive much feedback. What's happening? Everyone too busy?--thunderboltz(Deepu) 13:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_18&oldid=1091651043"