Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

Hari S. Kartha

Hari S. Kartha could use some help. The article needs sources, but I don't know where to look. I found a reference for his being the editor of Janmabhumi newspaper, but couldn't find more. I'm guessing the needed sources would be offline or not in the English language. Cloveapple (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've merged Hari S. Kartha into Janmabhumi. I'm not sure it satisfies WP:CREATIVE as the only reliable sources I could find about him were trivial and just mentioned his position as chief editor.  Office of Disinformation  11:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bonfire Night#Requested move. Trevj (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation of place names

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/July#Places in India.

I think India is big enough to use the same convention of disambiguation with levels below country and not with country as do Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. The all use "X, statename", "X, territoryname" or similar if disambiguation is needed. If no disambiguation is needed, the articles on localities in India can use the plain place name of course. So no mandatory disambiguation as is done with the US. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment left; very interesting and important proposal. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India):

I suggest that places in India use the state or district for disambiguation and not "India". India is such a large country, 2nd most populous, that it will be much more clear to use a lower level. Otherwise, it would be like using "Europe" for places in Europe.

A list of places that would need renaming is at Talk:List_of_cities_and_towns_in_India#Analysis_of_disambiguation_tags.

If these are renamed, all articles left as "X, India" should be set index articles, as in Category:Set indices on populated places in India. This is good for automatic checking with bots. Bots could even create these set index pages.

Maybe you can reply at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of a SIA page

The set index page Begar, India has been deleted. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What can be done to prevent such deletions? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, please ease up on the moves and creation of new dabs with redlinks. Most of the pages (e.g. Rameswaram) are WP:PRIMARYTOPICs and should reside in their current titles. Likewise, there's no point in creating dabs with redlinks. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

These are WP:NOTDAB but WP:SIA pages. And there is a lot of use in these SIA pages, e.g. see Hosur, India - several India templates linked to Hosur, but meant Hosur's in more than a dozen different districts. I collected this information, so people can take more care with their links in the future. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But please do not move pages until you send them through WP:RM; you are moving primary topics to disambiguated titles. —SpacemanSpiff 16:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Note also that WP:SIA is not a standalone guideline. You need to figure out whether or not a title is a primary topic or not. Thus, Rameshwaram doesn't need disambiguation because the city in Tamil Nadu is clearly the primary topic. Set Index articles are not disambiguation pages and you shouldn't disambiguate just to create an SIA. You might also want to consider whether a SIA is necessary for places with the same name because all you'll end up creating is a disambiguation page anyway and an SIA is not meant to be a disambiguation page in the first place. --rgpk (comment) 16:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you disagree with Rameshwaram, but why got Begar, India deleted? I repeat SIA are not DAB pages. And one does not need to disambiguate to create SIA pages, these are separate matters. SIA pages, if they are at "X, India" are completely separate from the article names. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You are better off asking that question to the deleting admin than on this page. —SpacemanSpiff 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do you only attack me, and not him? You could also go to his page and say he made an error. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no attack anywhere in my posts, I have been patient despite the fact that you have created unwanted effort for everyone else by breaking links etc and you accuse others of being "anti-Indian". Quite some nerve really. —SpacemanSpiff 16:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I create content, I fix links going to "X, Y" but meaning "X, Z". You attack me again, by calling this work "unwanted". I fixed a lot of links in templates. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

States of the Indian Union inferior to U.S. states?

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan, can you refrain from phrasing this as accusations of racism/nationalism, and instead focus on the technical reasons why specific state names are used in various country articles, and how those also apply to India? Yes, there is a chance that endemic bias plays a role here, but unless you have some hard evidence of that and can address it dispassionately, it's unlikely to be a productive argument. Further, as you yourself note at the page, many other non-Anglo countries use the same naming conventions as the US; it's unlikely that Brazil somehow has more English-speaking supportive contributors than India. Lastly, you have already posted a request for input (and in more neutral terms) earlier in the page. This kind of POV phrasing gets close to WP:Canvassing, so suggest you remove this (feel free to remove my comment here too) and stick to your original posting, and keep it to technical arguments as to how state-based naming would make India articles more clearly titled. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
No MV this is all pervasive, on Ganga too, it was told that it cannot be called national river, when it was pointed out that the Bald Eagle is called National Bird of the US, the argument put forward was that it was a bird. So we have these stupid circular arguments. Which makes one wonder whether the only reason is that this wikipedia has one set of rules for India and another for US/UK?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Not to go any deeper into the Ganga/Ganges thing, but the article does indeed say the following: In November 2008, the Ganges, alone among India's rivers, was declared a "National River", facilitating the formation of a Ganga River Basin Authority that would have greater powers to plan, implement and monitor measures aimed at protecting the river.[89]. Secondly, yes, endemic bias is an issue of concern, but vague accusations are just going to raise ire, when instead what would be more productive is an actual analysis of how alleged endemic bias is negatively affecting Wikipedia. The naming convention issue seems like it should be easily resolved on technical merits, and if somehow that can't be sorted out without some sort of bias blocking it, then that leads to a larger discussion. Thirdly, the section title is still inappropriate; even if it were a discussion on endemic bias, it would need a neutral title like "Discussion of alleged endemic bias in India articles", not a clear leading question "is India inferior?!?!?!?" MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
They finally got it, it seems, I am not editing the article, was having trouble with a know all. Of-course my point can be checked from the archives of talk and article pages. If anyone wishes I will dig and provide them.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not doubting there was a dispute, though I would suspect that part of the issue was the difference between "The Ganga is India's national river" and "The Ganga was declared India's national river on X date by Y legislation (footnote)". Nationalism is a very concerning issue, and it's too easy to accuse others of racism/orientalism/bias rather than take a hard look at whether one's personal national feelings are getting in the way of objectivity. Endemic bias is certainly a concern, but such accusations would be far more credible if, say, someone not emotionally involved in India issues were bringing them up. If someone strongly interested in Indian politics alleges bias, motivation is complicated, whereas if a Korean or South African or Chilean editor popped in to say "I think there is too much British/American bias on this topic" that would be far more interesting. Kind of tangential, but I'd like to see more non-Indian editors covering India topics, and more Indian editors taking a neutral and unemotional academic look at, say Bolivia-Chile disputes, the decolonisation of Nigeria, and other such topics where their perspective and detachment would be a valuable addition. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be apt to explain the assumption of non-bias of non-Indian editors more clearly, and standards by which assumptions are made; as also for assuming the bias behavior of Indian editors. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Article on Phensedyl (cough syrup) abuse?

There appears to be a goodly amount of media coverage of abuse of Phensedyl (cough syrup) in South Asia. Rather than just a passing mention in India/Nepal/Bangladesh legal/drug/health articles, might it be best to centralise it to Phensedyl (currenly a redirect to the chemical article Promethazine), or DAB it as Phensedyl abuse or similar? This appears to be one of those topics where it might be easily overlooked academically, but yet still has enough media/NGO coverage to cover its social impact. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this "addiction" unique to South Asia or a just a delayed entrant to South Asia? I would think it's the latter, in which case a general article would be better and perhaps a section on South Asia should suffice. —SpacemanSpiff 17:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I should specify: I think that Phensedyl overall (as a commercial product) may rate an article separate from its purely chemical article, and that this new article could have a section on abuse, which would include its South Asia abuse. We could just put all the South Asia content into Promethazine and then add S. Asia categories to that chemistry article, but that might be distracting. Form a new article for the commercial product based on the chemical Promethazine? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking more into it, a huge portion of gBooks hits for "Phensedyl" cover its abuse, so I think it should be a valid topic itself. Vaguely curious as to whether we're going to get any guff from corporate interests of the maker, but from what I'm seeing on Google it would not be UNDUE in the slightest to go quite into detail on abuse of this cough syrup, particularly noted in the UK and in South Asia. Should probably be able to get a cool pic of the bottle too. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanjay Gandhi Jaivik Udyan

Not speaking Hindi, and having been confused by many of the zoo names that I have been dealing with, I went to the dictionary. Shouldn't this be rendered (in the English WikiPedia) as Sanjay Ghandi Biological Park to be more understandable to English speakers? Donlammers (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Akrura Copyedit

I noticed the above page in the GOCE backlogs and went to work on copy editing. However, the prose is so confusing that I don't know where to begin with it. If a member of this group could give me a hand in understanding what was written, then I would be most grateful. If not, then I will have to try my hardest to go through the article and clean it up. Please drop me a line on my talk page if there is anyone willing to help. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I too tried it. But i dont have enough knowledge of this character. Hence instead of meddling with it i left it alone. Maybe you should try some notable contributors of that article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Algar, Uttara Kannada

I have been informed that I should seek permission before bannering an article to your WikiProject. So, should Algar, Uttara Kannada have a WPINDIA banner? 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Lavanya - help please

Aurel Stein's work on Kalhana refers to a "tribe" that he called the Lavanyas. Although that is a common enough name for a person, I can't find an article about the tribe. Has the name evolved into something else during the last century? They would have been in the Kashmir/Lohar area. - Sitush (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, that was just a translation of Rajatarangini. You could try a search for sources discussing the original book. —SpacemanSpiff 18:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was a translation but with copious discussion/critique etc. I've been using it at Lohara dynasty, Didda, Kalhana and others. All of which will need further sourcing when I get round to it. - Sitush (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Two more dodgy publishers of India-related content

I think it is fairly well known that the output of Gyan Publishers/ISHA Books is very dodgy from a Wikipedia POV (and perhaps, for them, from a legal POV also). Their reprints are often mangled but it is the modern works that present the real issues.

I have long had doubts about Anmol Publishers and MD Publications. Both of these I have now found to have blatantly used content without attribution on at least one instance, albeit from a 1900 source. These have been published as if they were written by the author named on the cover but in fact include huge "copyvios" of Aurel Stein, with the very occasional word changed. So, beware of:

  • Culture and political history of Kashmir, Volume 1 "by" P. N. K. Bamzai, M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd., 1994 ISBN 818588031X, 9788185880310
  • Kashmir: a wailing valley "by" M. L. Gupta, Anmol Publications PVT. LTD., 2001 ISBN 8126109513, 9788126109517

It is quite amusing to see how GBooks thinks that Gupta has been cited all over the place: that is because the sentences it has indexed are ripped off from other, older works!

Maybe these are already known to be "dodgy" for our purposes, but if not then they are now. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thats a pity. I have read some pretty good works by Anmol.--Sodabottle (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen a few that I thought were ok but wasn't actually comparing them with anything else. It might be a blip in their case (although the typos in that particular book are appalling). I think that MD Publications is likely a more serious situation. Both books cover much more than just the Stein content, so they could pop up just about anywhere and who knows what other info in them many have been inappropriately derived. These assemblies of other works worry me and, of course, in extreme cases such as Gyan we know that sometimes they have actually filched info that came from WP in the first instance. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Shri Krishniji

Is Shri Krishniji another name for Krishna ? I have the feeling that the -ji is a belief-oriented suffix. - Sitush (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries - found the answer to my own question. - Sitush (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush and Kurmi

Wrong venue; please follow WP:DR. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I had content disputes with user talk:Sitush. He put a sock investigation against me for my trouble. I expressed my displeasure about it on his talk page. He simply removed my edit calling it a troll. He has forced my hand when I wished to keep it bi-lateral. It is easy to take action against Indian editors. That he could not hang me for socking, is because I guess socking is a technical thing needs machines whom you can trust to be unbiased. I cannot be sure when an issue would be dealt by humans. We have one editor already cooling his heels in the slammer. I have also read that certain admins slaughter hundreds of new Indian editors for nationatialist pov. What is this page going to do about this malise? I'm using Noticeboard for India-related topics as it is very much an India related issue.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What exactly are you looking for here?. If you have issues with Sitush or any other editor, take it to ANI or open an RFC. And dont throw wild allegations of "slaughter hundreds of new Indian editors" around. What is this a sensationalist gossip rag?. If you have concrete proof take it to the relevant forums instead of canvassing here claiming this as an "India" issue. The one who is "cooling his heels in the slammer" is there partly for labeling his fellow Indian editors with racial epithets. --Sodabottle (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Can someone point out who exactly opened up sockpuppet case against who all please.
The user Sitush has acknowledged that he is not familiar with the topics at all, and is a self-declared-neutral-editor, though I do not agree with this self-glorification, for I do not think that American schooling is too neutral. There are elements of anti-Hinduism in it at fewe places. The user Sitush appears to be loathing Hindu cleric class at times too, perhaps( perhaps not) a reflection of the same education which he calls neutral.
Considering that pages like Kurmi are about Hindu Jatis, it is indeed strange that guys who don't know anything about Hinduism are editing the pages. I could give an example of Catholicism where the weight of religion Christianity galore. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Review

I see that review is pending for Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Piyush_Pandey. While it seems to be a reasonably well-written article for someone who is contributing on Wikipedia for the first time, I find it tragic that most reviewers there seem to be working as gatekeepers rather than enablers. It reads far better than most stubs. I believe that we should keenly follow AFCs for articles with India focus and help review/ enrich the same. People who are usually active in AFC or those otherwise interested in Indian articles on Wikipedia may please weigh in. --Gurubrahma (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

United Provinces

There are several India-related articles (e.g. 1891 Census of the United Provinces, Bihar famine of 1873–74) that link to United Provinces, which is a disambig page. I'm trying to disambiguate that link, but the best candidate, United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, didn't come into existence until 1902. So can anyone clarify what these inks are referring to? Colonies Chris (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Until 1902, the region was known as North-Western Provinces and Oudh. The former was a province of British India with a Lt. Governor at the helm; the latter was a Chief Commissionership. In the Bihar famine article, North-Western Provinces is meant; in the other article, I'm not sure. Depends on whether Oudh was included in the census. It likely was, given that it was the third census of British India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
PS. I left the "United Provinces" in—in the famine artcles—because I feared that the average Joe Shmoe could mistake North-Western Provinces for North West Frontier Province which the British annexed much later, and which is now in Pakistan. However, Wikipedia has now matured, so go ahead and change those links. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
PPS Yes, the page should be moved to "1891 Census of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh" (see here for evidence, and here as well.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. A further question related to this: according to United Provinces of Agra and Oudh,
From 1856 to 1902, the region existed as two separate provinces, North-Western Provinces and Oudh.
But according to North-Western Provinces,
In 1856, after the annexation of Oudh, the North Western Provinces became part of the larger province of North Western Provinces and Oudh.
These two statements seem mutually incompatible. One combined province or two separate ones? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Another related question: the article United Province should properly be titled United Provinces, I think, as the plural form appears to be the official name. But this would bring it into conflict with the disambig page that already exists at that location. Would it be acceptable to rename it to something more specific, such as "United Provinces (1937-1947)"? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

In the infobox it exists until 1950, that would mean United Provinces (1937-1950), that is also what is given at United Provinces. Also the box says this was a presidency, but then it is wrong in Category:Provinces of British India. The latter and Category:Presidencies of British India could need a check. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Senior Advocate and notability

Do Senior Advocates in India meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians? I rather think that the position is a "state-wide office" and so would scrape through on these inherent grounds. - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No. a "senior advocate" is just a lawyer. Many of those who practice in the supreme court of india may meet our notability requirements through WP:GNG (because of involvement in high profile cases etc) but the rest are just lawyers.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That is what I was concerned about. A (probable) COI editor has added his own name to a list of notables & created /P K Ravindranatha Menon. The latter article either needs good sources fast or should be deleted on notability grounds. His writings certainly do not qualify him for notability, and the inherent notability of being a Senior Advocate does not exist per your comment. I'll try to source some stuff & PROD if nothing found. Thanks for your help. - Sitush (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation by district

There are ca 638,000 villages and more than 5100 towns, for details see states and territories of India. With 640 districts that leads to more than 1000 villages/towns per district on average. Only 10 districts have ambiguous names within India. So it could help a lot to use the district as the default disambiguator for all the villages if disambiguation is needed.

Would like to hear your feedback at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India)#Disambiguation by district. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

With 43 mio people on average per state, the area defined by the primary dab term is far way off from what is done in other countries. Analysis at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India)#Disambiguation by state or district compared with dab in other countries. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Move Req Tirthankar

Talk:Tirthankar#Requested move -> has not seen any traffic. So please weigh in. Arjuncodename024 08:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

IRC channel for WP:INDIA?

Does WP:INDIA have an IRC channel? WP:MILHIST does, and I think WP:INDIA would benefit from one too. It would provide more fluidity to discussions.  Office of Disinformation  12:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, WP India doesn't have a channel, but WMI (Wikimedia India chapter) does have one. See m:IRC/Channels. I think we should have a separate channel for WP India, in case such a channel does not exist already. Lynch7 13:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I have set up #wikipedia-en-india per the format set down by WP:MILHIST. Feel free to use it as needed. I will join in a few hours.  Office of Disinformation  13:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Lata & Asha's songs

Please refer to the discussions at Talk:Lata Mangeshkar. Please give your views there or here. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


For start, we have begun with Lata's songs. So now you can help here.... User:Animeshkulkarni/List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India)

A discussion here on the naming of Indian populated places (Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)).

OK, has been mentioned, so far up the page I missed it!! (Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)).
Thanks for repost here and for the comment at the NC talk. Below is a result of my recent work on the names. Cheers Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed template, place only a link: Template:Ambiguous names of populated places in India.

There are now 100 WP:SIA pages that list populated places of India having ambiguous names. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Clean up goes on: 150 SIA pages. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Clean up goes on: 200 SIA pages. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Clean up goes on: 258 SIA pages. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Templates for populated places in Karnataka

Tinucherian created templates for populated places (labeled villages/towns) in Karnataka, they can be found at Category:Karnataka district templates. They are quite large and I think should be replaced in the future, maybe on taluk level. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just adding: They are a big help in finding ambiguous place names in Karnataka. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
No, they should not, these are navigation templates and should not have any redlinks whatsoever. If there are no articles for a village they should not be on this template. The problem is that editors who try to add some content do not have the time to keep up with these sort of edits. If you want help strip out all redlinks. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)).
Where does it say that templates cannot contain red links? It was probably a lot of work to create them and you want to delete some of the stuff right in the middle of them because it is red? This is highly destructive. What before is a complete set is then an arbitrary subset. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias by authors from outside India?

With 43 mio people on average per state, the area defined by the primary dab term is far way off from what is done in other countries. Analysis at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (India)#Disambiguation by state or district compared with dab in other countries.

I also have seen that some articles have even been directly created with the taluka as disambiguator, i.e. even below the district. In light of that, I wonder why we cannot drop the states and use at least the districts. UP has 199,581,477 inhabitants, all other countries in the analysis are more precise with their dab terms. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan, again: can you stop using inflammatory language to try to get people to come to your discussions? It's not very civil and rather desperate to post leading questions like "Is India inferior?" and the like; that's not asking for discussion, that's rabble-rousing. You've also posted several new sections about the exact same overall issue on this page. Why not have one section (with a neutral phrase inviting discussion vice "OMG everyone pile into my side of a fight!!!") and then update it with new info or stats as needed, or if the discussion changes pages, etc? Right now it's near to just spamming the page with repeated calls to the exact same issue. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
3 editors (including me), who have participated in those discussions and havent agreed with you are indians. If you keep on insulting people who dont agree with you on the basis of nationality and accuse them of bias, dont expect a productive discussion there. From what i see, the examples you have provided dont warrant a default disambiguation by district level and have said so. You have provided a list of counter examples, which IMO weaken your argument further (disambig by district isnt a panacea as, among cases where disambig is needed even district level disambig isnt enough). Precision doesnt depend on the population or number of villages, it should depend on the repetition of place names and the necessity for disambig. From what you shown, i dont see how default disambig by district is any better than disambig by state. I have even provided you with names of other editors who are experienced in geographical articles and can provide more input. So do not make this issue into some sort of "respect for indians", "we have so many people, they deserve the respect by disambiguating by district". This sort of behaviour is beyond disgusting and puts off editors from contributing to even serious issues like the ones you have bought up. Stop automatically assuming anyone who doesnt agree with you are a)non-indian and/or b) suffering from anti-india bias.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid that there is a small group with this tendency and that appears currently to be very active. They are open about it and their input probably accounts for 50% or more of the comments on this page, including in the collapsed areas. I am on the verge of walking away from the project due to all of the harrassment and accusations of bad faith. They will doubtless cheer if I do but without wanting to blow my own trumpet, it will be the project's loss. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
A blanket statement like "bias by authors from outside India" is not very fair. We should discuss specific cases, and not a supposed general editing trend of non Indian editors. Lynch7 07:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
@Sitush Could you be more clear on "there is a small group with this tendency and that appears currently to be very active. They are open about it and their input probably accounts for 50% or more of the comments on this page, including in the collapsed areas" please.
As far as assumptions about "the harrassment and accusations of bad faith", "doubtless cheer", "project's loss", etc. it seems mutual to me, whatever it is.
@MikeLynch the "more-neutral-than-Indian" types of contradictions have not yet attracted any comments, why I wonder. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thisthat2011. Yogesh K and MangoWong, for starters. But you already knew this. You have contributed to an atmosphere which numerous people have described as being now poisonous. I can do without it, plus the death threats, the harassment, the bad faith and the tendentiousness. There is more to Wikipedia than fighting, although you seem not to realise it and your contribution histories seem to reflect a tendency to talk rather than act (eg: YK has 40% article edits, you have 48% and MangoW has 35% which all seem to me to be on the low side for a non-admin, but what do I know). Just my perception of where things are at. My respect for contributors from India has taken a nose-dive although I try to convince myself that you are a minority. - Sitush (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This disgusting trend of "if you dont agree with me, you are anti-Indian" accusations has to stop. This is wikipedia not a rediff/Times of India comment board where people throw infantile accusations at each other. Editors who have spent thousands of hours creating and maintaining India related content are being attacked by talk page warriors of being "anti-India". This sort of behaviour has to end now.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, these handful of self-appointed defenders of India's honor, are wasting a lot of valuable time of other editors. They wear you down with fluff. I'm glad this issue is being discussed on the talk page so they can be truly seen for what they are. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Could someone link me to discussions where this poisonous atmosphere has been created?  Office of Disinformation  08:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not want to sound presumptuous but you appear probably to be a new user (registered 17 July, although you're very good with formatting, getting involved in CfD, merging etc & so perhaps edited as an IP beforehand). If you are a new user then it might be best to keep out of this because it may rapidly involve wikilawyering etc. However, for an example just cast your eye up this page to what is currently section 6 - "Need some opinions on Talk:Kurmi ..." If you understand the policies, guidelines and conventions of this place, you will understand why that thread is problematic. Apologies again if I sound presumptuous. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Just read various sections in this page, the topic of this section or this talk page. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure about hazy accusations of India-POV/anti-India-POV/nationalist-POV/Anti-nationalist-POV though it is mutual however infantile; which does seem to be present at many places. About talk-page warriors, lets see the kind of POV that goes about on pages in India, for examples, "the title "Mahatma" is also an essential part of the official iconography of Gandhi constructed by India's government", or 'A page name change to "Mahatma Gandhi," could make Wikipedia less credible, as it could be seen as submitting to popular (especially nationalist) sentiment.' at Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Requested_move. I don't think related editors got any warning for such POV, though it will immediately pointed out that anyone saying anything against it is 'Indian/nationalist POV pusher'. Such blatant systemic bias is visible but I wonder why it is unnoticed yet; though learned quickly act when anyone says anything against it terming it 'nationalist POV' as above. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sitush: I'm new, yes, but familiar with policies. I'll read the discussions.  Office of Disinformation  09:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No probs, and again my apologies for presumption. In the ideal world, we all work together. A combination of local knowledge and non-local "disconnection" could achieve wonderful things here, and often has. Right now, all that is being achieved is a meltdown in certain areas due to vexatiousness. I have spent most of the last few weeks engaged in explaining policies etc to people whom I know are intelligent and aware of those policies but are choosing instead to push their agenda in a counter-productive way. It is counter-productive if only in the sense that they are not getting what they want but they are tying up vast amounts of other people's time, which most of those people would rather spend creating and improving the under-represented India-related subject area + encouraging new contributors who have a genuine desire to do the same. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sodabottle: you shut me up when I brought the subject up the last time, forget terminology, forget what someone said to another, some time. How do you see persistant remarks to the effect (not verbatim), plague from India is ruining Wikipedia, caste warriors, pov indian nationalists, facists. Soda a bloke thinks I am omni-present, I called him incompetent, another fellow on the Ezava talk page too called him that, he doesn't seem to understant that we are not socks, his edits are in-comptent. Why is this fellow given such a long rope? This guy even reverted article talk page edits. (2)Soda would you have got away with the things that are said on the Gandhi move, say on the British Empire page? Let us not indulge in wp:OSE. Treat each case on merit is all I say. You joined cause with him on the India talk page, I say you are free to take any side as I am, take it on merit. If you have some issue with me please discuss, the attack on me was unwarrented, on India page and here. There is a lot of talk on meat-sock would you give me a few solid reasons why Mohanstutter Karamwhatnot Gandhi can't be moved to Mahatma Gandhi?? Please Soda you are free to ignore everything and I would not hold it against you, but for every word you put in prepare to back it with a diff. You too have the same previlege of course. New eyes looking at this: For starters see the arguments against the move to Mahatma Gandhi, one fellow there feels that it would be the fall of another colonial bastion, he argues that nationalist freaks are pushing the move. That the move would besmear Wikipedia.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

{ec}} I haven't bothered looking at the Gandhi stuff but if YK has correctly stated that someone has expressed concern about "nationalist freaks" then I can kind of sympathise with that (although freaks is a bit strong). Rightly or wrongly, there is some extreme stuff going on right now that, quite simply, runs counter to how things are done here. If people do not like the policies or guidelines then they need to get those changed, not fiddle around the edges on a few articles. You never know, the wider community may be in agreement but they are never going to see the point if it is confined to 1o or 15 articles. So, prepare a proposal for fundamental change to those policies etc which you have issues with, and post it at the appropriate venue. Which is not here, nor any individual article's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
It is strange indeed, though users like Fowlerx2 should understand that labeling such as like National-POV may reflect labeling as anti-national-POV. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
YK, a) I havent named you here. I made the above comment in direct reply to Bogdan's comment and behaviour. Do not put words in my mouth. Where did i attack you? b) I didnt shut you up earlier. I told you to open an RFC and not to indulge in sensationalism like claiming admins "slaughter hundreds of new Indian editors" without any basis. If you think this is "shutting you up", then i have nothing else to say to you. c) I too have commented on the Gandhi talk page move with a a weak oppose. I dont find anything wrong with the rationales put forward by both sides.
If you find problems with any particular editor's behaviour bring it up in the relevant forum. Instead you are here bringing up an issue that i commented upon two weeks ago. Funny you cant find any instance where i have opposed Fowler's proposals. (here is a hint - look at the indian inventions and discoveries talk page). would you have got away with the things that are said on the Gandhi move, say on the British Empire page. I have commented on various topics during my time here and no one has insulted me using nationalist epithets until Zuggernaut and Bogdan choose to do so. Oh yes, my "fellow indians" got there first.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(1)No Soda I first want to know here whether the fault is mine or not, informal first. (2)It does seem to be an India wide issue, it is not just someone from Maharashtra who seems to find problems, but it seems it is all-India, Northern - Southern - Eastern - Western all directions. There obviously is a huge issue. (3)I brought the old thing up because, you stood up for someone against me, it is like getting at me, quite unprovoked and hurting. (4) Ya Soda, I too called Redtigerxyz lots of names, I am sorry about that, perhaps he understood what I felt like and excused me and didn't make an issue of it. You see sometimes the argument becomes so exasperating that people call names. Which is bad. No excuse. But are you holding life long grudges? Also I am happy that you never had to face trouble like nationalist etc., you could be a sobering voice in this clamour, but please take sides only on merit. There was no need to tag and bite like the other day. It was a shock. (5)What are you going to do about: The Mahatma Gandhi move is a nationalist issue, Mahatma is Indian government hardsell, MKG is a colonial bastion that has to be protected to the last comma? And other non-sense??? Does this nonsense not hurt you as an Indian editor?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)::(1)Ya and I used words like shut up etc for brevity, also that admins are rougher on Indian editors can be proven, I was blocked at a drop of a hat, reason - troll - pov, nationalist etc. On the other hand when another editor (who has used words like indian nationalist) does 3R you see an admin scramble for reasons why not to block him, just one example, another editor used foul language about Hindu deities, the admin just raised his eye-brows at him, for a similar offence a fellow is in the slammer, while the other guy is a bull in a china shop. (2)The words to the effect slaughtering Indian editors by another editor. To my knowledge you are not an administrator, why should this then hurt you? My exact words are I have also read that certain admins slaughter hundreds of new Indian editors for "nationatialist pov", I can provide diffs to back that. You didn't comment about the sock thing though and the rest.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
But there is part of your problem, Yogesh. You are trying to see things "as an Indian editor". You should be trying to see things as an "editor". Disconnect from your environment. If you find this difficult then go edit something that is in fact not connected to your environment. That way, there is no COI. I am not telling you to do this but your situation is a classic outcome of COI. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
See Sodabottle: A block before the ink dried on this page [1], the blocking administrator Boing said Zeebedee's name is mentioned there he shouldn't have blocked imo, he is involved in the dispute. A sock is a machine thing, why circumvent the system before the sock is proved??? Answer this Sodabottle, and what could you do about it please??? If Boing feels it is nonsense he could initiate action, why does he want to sweep things under the carpet??Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If you did your research, Yogesh, instead of jumping up and down with indignation, you would note that (a) the poster linked to a defamatory external site that has been discussed at ANI; and (b) BsZ has referred to matter to SPI for independent checks. What is your problem? - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I brought the old thing up because, you stood up for someone against me, it is like getting at me, quite unprovoked and hurting This is your problem. I have had plenty of discussions with you and Fowler, when i was active in the India talk page. In which i have opposed and supported in you equal measures. The comment i made about the "pigs" was in direct response to your sharp retort. When you start referring to an argument as "wrestling with a pig", people will point that out. I have said similar things to Fowler when he has become irritated and insulting. (dont take my word, go through my contributions. i have been interacting with him for a long time. I even supported some parts of Zuggernaut's original proposal to add famine in the history section in India). You cannot honestly expect to label talk page arguments as "wrestling with pigs" and people not react sharply to it. Did i follow you after and keep at it?. It was a one time reply and i left it as such - this is me dealing with things in a case by case basis. But all you remember is a "you stood against me".
. To my knowledge you are not an administrator, why should this then hurt you?. This is not about me being hurt. This is about you bringing up unrelated stuff in this forum and throwing baseless accusations and indulging in sweeping generalisation. Did i say "i am hurt, so dont bring it up?". If you have diffs go ahead and bring them at ANI or AN. It is the relevant place where admin behaviour is discussed. Not here and not without diffs (i still dont know what prevents you from bringing the issue there, if you have proof).
Now coming to MKG. The first two points a) The Mahatma Gandhi move is a nationalist issue b) Mahatma is Indian government hardsell are IMO legitimate but very marginal arguments. But i dont see anywhere in the page where "MKG is a colonial bastion that has to be protected to the last comma". or anything of that sort. And regarding hurt. Some random guy in the internet says Gandhi is not "Mahatma" and i should be hurt about it? Why? because i am an "Indian". or because Yogesh Khandke expect all Indians to be hurt?. Do we now have uniform rules for how all indians should feel and be hurt about?. Are you now devising rules for other indians?. Are you presuming to think for all of us now. Dont try to straightjacket all of your fellow countrymen into a behavioural code of your own devising. (BTW, the Mahatma has seen worse criticism from Indians - both from the left and right).The problem is you are viewing every issue through a Indian vs non-Indian prism (or emic/etic as you prefer) and expect others to do so and rally to your support because of our nationality. When we are in the same side all is well, but when we end up taking the other side, you take it as "you stood up for someone against me, it is like getting at me" --Sodabottle (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
(1)You have made a lot of hypothetical arguments, which I will ignore. I am happy that you are happy. Let me also stay that way, I never got into your soup? I am happy with what you have said regarding sensibilities as an Indian. Like you said, we have different sensibilities and motivations. I am happy with all that. Even twins argue a lot. So what? Also your Gandhi move part will be remembered by you, whichever way it goes. And no I don't lift people's skirts to check their gender, see Gardner's page where I corrected her two Indian editors comment. Even on the Ganga move I had opposed looking at the nationality of the voters. I have always said there are only competent editors and incompetent editors, the fellows are incompetent. (2)One friend is in the gutter for wrestling with our friend, the wrestle comment was for him, why could someone make common cause with that, check the diffs there wasn't a word between the two of us, I don't even remember any hot arguments we had, why would I call discussing with you wrestling with a pig. (3)I don't want to force you to answer the other questions, but sometimes silence speaks louder than words.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
the wrestle comment was for him, why could someone make common cause with that, check the diffs there wasn't a word between the two of us, I don't even remember any hot arguments we had, why would I call discussing with you wrestling with a pig. When you start labelling anyone opposing you as a "pig", anyone else can and will reply. Did i imply you called me a pig?. You were calling Fowler names and i interrupted sharply there. I remember doing the same thing when Fowler was arguing with CarTick. (Have i followed you into all your arguments - No, Have i followed Fowler into arguments - No. I comment where i see fit, be it fowler or you or any other editor i am replying to). But all you remember is me taking "common cause" with fowler on this one pig issue. This us vs them mentality is what preventing you from seeing things objectively here and defending obvious trolls like drbose7--Sodabottle (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
"A block before the ink dried on this page" are you really sticking up for an obvious troll like drbose7?. You are damaging your credibility by standing up for a troll/SPA who peddles an offwiki attack site that says sitush got paid 400$ an hour for editing wikipedia?. Do we stick up for sock masters, trolls and vandals because they are "one of our own"?. Did you even look into this or the relevant archive. IMO BsZ made the correct decision - i would have done the same in his place. Dont believe me?. Go ahead, bring this up in ANI, you will see what other admins adn editors think of this.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I too was once blocked with those same words troll. Another time a sock investigation was brought against me. Zeebedee should have explained in detail on the fellows talk page and then blocked him. Then a person like me would have known. Incompetence. But you won't say anything about that. Isn't it as bad as a troll? Like I said there are only two types, competent and incompetent. I am not standing up for anybody but myself, I WONDER whom you are standing up for, ya that is all brother Sodabottle. Because I never said a word about you. The block was a demo of the statement I shared, slaughter of Injuns, mind you it isn't my baby, all you can hang me for is gossip. Did you see the tag under the blog, it says Why wikipedia is unreliable, which hurts. Did I peddle??? I brought it to the notice of founder of Wikipedia and to the CEO of Wikipedia, is that peddling? I immediately informed Zeebedee that I had pasted the link there. No dear it isn't peddling. In the meanwhile Zeebedee says he has redacted don't know what that means will check it out.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not "demo of slaughter". This is not incompetence. This is exactly how an admin would deal with a troll peddling an attack site. Attack sites aren't new, SPA trolls arent new. And this particular one had seen a ANI discussion very recently. If you are so concerned about "slaughter of the injuns", go ahead, bring this or any other block to the ANI. Instead of wondering about whom i am standing up for, why dont you present your evidence at ANI?. Did i say you were peddling. I said drbose7 was peddling and you sticking up for him. I will say this finally - if you are think you are correct, go ahead an report BsZ at ANI (instead of going on and on about "slaughter of injuns" and giving off wiki attack sites more visibility.)--Sodabottle (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sodabottle :(1)My bad on peddler, you are right, you didn't say I was peddling. (2) Brother I will go for AN/I, I will jump into a well, since you were so free with kind advice to me, what about a little wisdom to the fellows? Of course it is your life. (3)How do you assume that DKBose wasn't a newbie who serendipitously found his way here? Because he sang a different tune? I told you fellows have been called trolls and blocked for a fortnight, on a whim. Did you see the images that come up when you search troll, I used a standard English phrase wrestle with a pig, you went oink oink on that, you are not playing fair, but it is your life and you are its master. God bless you.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Folks, this really does seem to be getting rather over-heated and emotional. Should anyone ever see someone blocked and not understand why, then the first thing to do is go ask the admin who did the block - I will always respond to a polite request to explain any of my admin actions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Brother I will go for AN/I, I will jump into a well Of course you woudlnt, because you dont have a shred of proof to back up your wild and baseless accusations and if you repeat this there, it will boomerang on you. You will only post here hoping to get a few fellow indian editors to support your cause, by appealing to the "home team". But when challenged to repeat the charges at AN or AN/I you will backtrack. Your reluctance confirms that you are just blustering here.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If I ever see any of the money that I am allegedly been paid then I'll pass it on to Yogesh & he can donate it to a charity of his choice. But since I will not see it, that won't be happening. Why, Yogesh, did you feel it necessary to post on the pages of Jimbo and Sue Gardner when it has already been dealt with at ANI? - Sitush (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
As for Gandhi, Yogesh Khandke is shedding crocodile tears, for he himself is on record on Wikipedia very publicly opposing the title, "Mahatma." I can easily find the explicit diffs for these posts. In fact his scruples about "Mahatma," didn't allow him to enter the fray until very late (19 July 2011) and hypocritically vote for "Mahatma Gandhi." I believe his only reason for reason for doing so was spite against me. Consider also his reply to my post on this user talk page (by "pariah," he means Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose page he assiduously maintains and whom I had called a "pariah"). However, his posts with the blog link—to a likely miffed Wikipedians blog—on Sue Gardner's talk page is a new low. If he continues in this fashion, the community should explore a topic ban for Yogesh Khandke for disruptiveness in the manner they did for Zuggernaut, and perhaps for Thisthat2011 as well while they're at it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Going by the discussions, it seems like, whatever one does, he is victimised. And a discussion grows from three lines to multiple pages at the drop of a hat. I am tired of discussions ballooning with comments being stated, restated, and re-restated. And at the end of it, all we get is heated heads, a long long discussion page, and sarcastic comments on other threads. This thread is a good example of why an Indian editor would not choose to edit. Lynch7 13:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
How about actually banning Fowler&fowler for giving unsubstantiated nonsense against Mahatma Gandhi for some time. Looks a very valid reason for throwing muck during a move at someone who is indeed a Mahatma, and whose picture is present in US Senate office of the president of the United States of America. Banning is not an alternate to present some sources before putting muck out like that. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This is probably the exact sort of emotion which should be avoided to make edits neutral; is Gandhi actually a Mahatma, probably yes, but it is immaterial in the context of the Requested Move. Lynch7 13:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the move. I was talking about how muck was thrown on the Mahatma and people looked the other way and are now ignoring it again. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias - place names - section break

@MV - you suggested include the word "bias" [2]. @Soda - thanks for saying that three people are from India. I don't know who they are, you are one - ok. For the record, "anti-Indian" within this thread is your words. I posed a question and it got answered a little bit. The bias maybe does not come from outside. We have now clear out, that you, from Tamil Nadu have no problem with " , Tamil Nadu" as the default. But you write "it should depend on the repetition of place names and the necessity for disambig" - well, if disambiguation is needed for places in India it is mostly because they are ambiguous within India. This is different to the Anglo-sphere countries Canada, US, UK, NZ, Australia. Due to my initiative it was already agreed that ", India" does not help a lot and that we would use at least the state level. The next thing I observed is that place names if they conflict most often conflict within states. So the thing is that ", statename" is of no big help either. You simply say it is not - well, this is not very constructive. You also say "I have even provided you with names of other editors who are experienced in geographical articles and can provide more input." - But they did not. And I think they did not spend so much time on cities, towns and villages as I did the last days. And it was not them that created the 204 SIA pages collected at Category:Set indices on populated places in India. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The first use of "anti-India" came from you in this discussion- here. You started going down the anti-india/pro-india road. You posed a question and it got answered a bit. You didnt like it and you posted again here with a title, "Bias by authors from outside India?". How do you think this looks like after you have been asked not to use terms like "anti-india"/"pro-india" while initiating discussions? MV specifically told you in the diff above "vague accusations are just going to raise ire", which exactly happened here. If you disagree with my opinion, say it in the talk page, dont come here and post again with a title "Bias by authors from outside India?". As you state, you have no idea, where editors are from and when an editor disagrees with you it is not bias - it is just a difference of opinion. Automatically assuming people who disagree with you a) are from outside india or b) biased is not the way to behave in wikipedia.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Bogdan Nagachop you mean that India articles aren't handled properly, which this noticeboard is about. Eg. Land acquisition 2011 (the like), eg. Kurmi, Ganga, India, Vithoba, Khandoba. If that is what you mean I agree with you.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Your menu of articles is getting ever longer, Yogesh, and you appear not to be getting what you desire at many of them. Are you suffering from indigestion? Perhaps there is a legitimate reason why your POV is not being accepted, and that reason is consensus. Before you start, I am well aware of systemic bias, but I have already given you a pointer regarding what you need to do, and that is not to drone on here yet again. Draw up some proposals and put them to the entire community, since consensus etc are community-wide policies. If you object to Fowler or Soda or Boing or me (add to this list, as appropriate) then take each or all of those people to ANI. I wish you well. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

@YK I don't know about Kurmi and Ganges. @All Currently I am talking about disambiguation. I had no other explanation than that people may come from outside India. The thing is that people who actually created articles sometimes used the taluka. The "anti" thing was solved and was between me and rgpk - this is done and was gone. @Soda, you bring it back. Using "Bias" is simply one assumption, I didn't say there is one, I marked it as a question. If asking questions regarding "bias" is not allowed in your world, then yours is different to mine. It's not about only that I didn't like something, but I also provided more data. You ignored the data so far. Maybe this is a bias because you are from Tamil Nadu or have not much knowledge about place names in India - I don't know. Maybe in Tamil Nadu there are less naming conflicts. What is bad with the word "bias"? But back to the issue at hand, I want to improve the naming of the articles on geography of India. Here are facts:

Ok Bogdan, lets drop this here. The word "bias" has a pretty bad rep in wikipedia - so my request to you is please dont use it in generic terms in the future. I admit, my experience with TN place names is what is guiding my responses to the discussion and it is certainly not sufficient to extropolate to whole of india. (its the reason why i just commented in the discussion instead of voting). I will try to get people more knowledgeable than me in geographical issues, involved in this discussion. I do hope we evolve a uniform disambig standard. All the best with your work.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Great, thank you. I am currently writing at User talk:Dr. Blofeld. Hope we find a good solution. We also need to define what to do if a name is ambiguous within a district. With clear rules and enforcing them one can easier find duplicate articles. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Ya I now get it, so you changed Pen, India to Pen, Maharshtra. Why ambiguate unless there are multiple places. (1)If a name is unique, there should be nothing tagging it. (2)If there are two places of the same name internationally then the country's name should be used to disambiguate, and so on??? I am asking.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the geography party :-). 1) If the name is unique then there will be no tagging - that is the current system and it is the proposed district system. So we agree. 2) One could also ask why using the country name, why not "X, Asia" if it is unique within Asia? Or maybe Southern hemisphere if it is unique there "Córdoba, Southern hemisphere". And then someone comes around and says: There is another one in the south! And people have to go to hundreds of articles and to change the references because it is not clear anymore why is meant by "Córdoba, Southern hemisphere". At the same time those in the Northern hemisphere have already been called "Córdoba, Spain" or "Córdoba, Veracruz". If one chooses to walk on different levels a lot of errors can happen: People create "X, Gujarat" because they think it is the only in Gujarat. Another one that knows there is ambiguity creates "X, Rajkot". A third one creates "X (Morbi)" which refers to the same as the one before. Since Indian authors that don't know all names and locations of all Indian villages, don't know whether "X, Gujarat" could potentially be a mistake or be ambiguous they would not correct it if they see it in other articles. On the contrary if it would be the agreement to never use the state, everyone seeing X, Gujarat in some article could have a look and make the link more precise and maybe unambiguous. We would vastly improve the reliability of the references. This Template:Settlements in Bagalkot district is currently linking to Korti (Sudan!). Shall I change the link to "X, India", "X, Karnataka" or "X, Bagalkot"? Maybe the first one changes to India, then later someone changes to Karnataka and then someone finds ambiguity and changes to Bagalkot. And every time links of related articles need to be disambiguated. And now look at the French or the UK/Irish system: They use the department or the county right from the start in case the term is not unique. UK never uses "X, United Kingdom", in general they also do not use "X, England". This is defined at WP NC UK. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogdan Nagachop, I am all questions. A real green thumb on this subject. Well you moved Pen, India to Pen, Maharashtra, see Khopoli, doesn't have a suffix, as it seems to be unique. If we turn the whole thing 180 degrees. We can do town, taluka, but the problem is that many a times the taluka name and the town name is the same, some times the district name and the town name is also the same. How about postal code, looks ackward, but that is precise Pen (402107)???Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Great you like it. Currently I would not try to use taluka, since I have not seen any complete listing yet. For districts there is one and the names for 630 of the 640 are unique, so with converting to districts we do not cause many extra problems, it is mostly a straight forward process. Maybe the district headquarters if they have the same name as the district can go on using the state, that would mean at maximum 640 would use the state name for dab. But the rest can use mostly the district name. I created two new pages: Sub-districts of India and Permanent Location Code Number (PLCN). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone above suggested I should contact an editor who, as that someone claimed, knows more about geographic topics. (Not exactly the wording but something like that.) I did contact that person. There is bias. To say that a county like West Sussex having 781,600 inhabitants and 1,991 km2 is equivalent to the average Indian state having 43,221,071 inhabitants (factor 55) and 117,402 km2 (factor 60) and explicitly not to the average Indian district having 1,890,922 inhabitants (factor 2.4) 5,136 km2 (factor 2.6) /is/ bias as far as I understand. Give me a better term if you have one. 2.5 West Sussex would make up a district. So this county is not even half of what a district is and of cause it is by no means equivalent in power to the average Indian state.

So what are we going to do, I simply do not understand why articles on Indian geography shall use a more complicated system than the UK, Ireland and France. The article quality is going to suffer from this. The district system is a well established one, districts exists in all Indian states. Even with districts the precision is less than with the UK counties. So one could also look whether to use tehsils/taluks/talukas/mandals or equivalent. But this is less unique and I am not aware how many of these units are named ambiguously itself. Please anyone opposing the district system for disambiguation explain why India shall have a more complicated setup. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan (and again my comments about keeping this in one section and not using inflammatory language remain), I agree that it can be read several ways, but Assuming Good Faith here it is my impression that Blofeld is not saying "West Sussex is a more important place than an Indian district", he is pointing out that administratively "county" in England is the immediate echelon below "country", and not a sub-sub echelon, so in terms of administrative tiers, "county" in England is equivalent to "state" in India. I don't at all believe he's saying "a small number of British people in a county are more important that a larger number of Indian people in a district." By all means, you can let him know that you're concerned about his phrasing and want to make sure that he isn't giving a value judgement here, but I would feel comfortable betting he's speaking of what levels of organisation each falls into. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
MV is correct in his interpretation. County is the next regional/admin level down from country in the UK (& Ireland, though I'm not 100% sure of the situation in France). I am not sure why there is yet more ranting about bias but it is starting to look like someone might have some civility issues. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Civility issues because I point out the bias? Ever thought about the fact that England is a constituent country of the United Kingdom? And you tell me the county(level 3 in UK) is the same tier as a state (level 2 in India)? And ever heard about the European Union? In some regards the UK itself is like a state of the Republic of India. And are we talking about disambiguation are government levels? This IS bias. I myself would never say the states of India are equivalent to the counties. And for the record, disambiguation in the UK is done by ceremonial county. @MV, this has nothing at all to do with good or bad faith. I don't say Blofeld has bad faith. But he is just wrong with his statement. In terms of population, of territory and even the tiers you read into his statement - it's wrong. @Sitush, you may like to read Regions of France. Please stay with the facts. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, because you keep using that word without an awful lot of support from what I can see. Saying that you are AGF but using the word "bias" does have the appearance of being a contradiction. I said next "regional/admin level": some counties are admin districts, but others are more awkward (eg: Greater Manchester County or Bath & Avon) and for this reason it probably makes sense to use the ceremonial counties, which applied throughout England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and are even now referred to by many in preference to "GMC" or "B&A" etc. You are clutching even more at straws when you refer to the EU. I am well aware of the ceremonial county situation: one has to draw a line somewhere in time & the same would apply to India: it has areas whose name or boundaries have changed over time, so you will have to pick a point. Frankly, I don't care less how it is done as long as it is consistent: I hope that you have a bot ready to run if you change things because you are likely to need it. As all 800,000+ villages of India come on line over the next few years time, WMF is going to need even more donations to expand/support its hardware, and you'll need a bot even then to keep on top of it all! - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah! It might make it easier if I point out that a letter sent from abroad to, say, an address in Reading, Berkshire will get there without any issue if after the word "Berkshire" (the county) it says "England"/"UK"/"GB": there is no other Berkshire and Berkshire is the level immediately below the top tier for the British Isles. However, if you omitted the "Berkshire" then you might have a problem, depending on whether or not you used a postcode/zipcode. On the other hand, there are places that share the same name within counties, Lincolnshire being absolutely chock-full of them, & so you then need to start saying "X, near to Y, Lincolnshire" etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanations. I really do not think bias (cognitive bias) and AGF are related. WP:BIAS does not make a relation. I think it is just lag of awareness, it is nothing that is done consciously on purpose. Yes, if all villages go online they would make up a considerable portions of articles in en-WP ;-). And it will be hard to control them for accuracy. I have seen village codes in Census India, I assume it would be good to have that in every village's infobox. Regarding the Reading, Berkshire example, something similar would apply to a lot of places in India, if one uses the district for Indian locations like one uses the ceremonial county for England locations. I give an example where it fails at the end. Regarding drawing a line in time, this is difficult for India, district boundaries keep changing, but the same is true on a lower rate for the states. Regarding what local people may use, here is one observation: I have seen that articles on Indian villages have been created with the taluka as dab, without any ambiguous article in WP yet. And here the announced example: 200 places share the name Dharampur, India. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would venture to guess that everyone is totally fine with "here are many ambiguous place names which need addressing." We're just concerned about any implications that India is being treated as "inferior", that there's some concious or unconcious diminishing of India by how its articles are being filed. By "lag of awareness", what do you mean exactly? Lack of awareness for how many similar/same Indian place-names need to be DAB'ed? Or some general lack of awareness of India? I maybe need to go look at the actual discussions more, but in all honesty I'm baffled as to how issues of systemic bias and discrimination could be plausibly interfering with a geo-DAB discussion. It's not like anyone wants people to have a harder time filing India articles. My suggestion: I would really avoid the "Germany uses X system, is India less important than Germany?!?!?!" and instead use angles like "Germany has some really clear DABs using X system, I think that would work great for India too, how about we use that?" MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Lack of awareness how big India is, lack of awareness how many places have the same name and lack of awareness how much trouble this causes in editing. I agree, it is a nice approach to say "Country A has a clear system, I think that would work for India too". I think we are now four or five editors talking about it. Just think about the potential: 600 000 villages. Whole WP has 3 700 000 articles. Census India 2011 will soon give new data for all these entities. We really need a good roadmap. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, I would argue that stats are your friend. Your lists of towns sharing the same name are quite illuminating, so if you can stick to things like that and avoid raising hackles by impling people are calling India inferior, your path should be easier. If you seriously believe there is some orientalist bias keeping us from filing India articles properly, that would be quite a huge allegation requiring extensive examples, and before you would get anywhere near that point I'd imagine you would need quite a few WPINDIA and NPOVN posts on "Hey guys, I'm concerned that people might be discounting Indian issues due to.... and here are some examples... what do people think?" rather than leap to "I have uncovered a nest of dark and evil bias conspiring against a subcontinent." Any systemic biases aren't going to be fixed overnight, and certainly aren't going to be fixed by drawing daggers, so I would focus on the very dry nitty-gritty of "we have a country that needs a lot of disambigs, how to go about it?" MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You would make a good PR officer ;-). It might be helpful for the plan to convince you. The idea is that it would be good for the articles on Indian geography and all articles having references to such articles, to use an article titling system for place names that results in fewer ambiguous names. "Ambiguous names" includes all villages of India, because we do not know what village article might be created next by some editor. It is desired that the creation of new village articles does not involve moving of existing articles due to the fact that they resided under ambiguous names. Additionally "fewer ambiguous names" refers to the fact that completely new villages can be created as is mentioned in circulars related to Census India 2011, so this is a real world case. In these cases ambiguity in article titles cannot be avoided completely, but the probability can be reduced with little cost, by using the district or sub-district level as disambiguator in those cases where disambiguation is needed anyway. Little cost means, that an often unwanted disambiguation tag is needed anyway, and just the choice of it is made in such a way as to reduce the likelihood of future ambiguity. That means there is no mandatory disambiguation tag in cases where there is no known same named locality. As of now, I would only recommend to use at least the district for disambiguation, since the names for 630 of the 640 districts are unique within in India. This would be similar to the system for England that uses ceremonial counties. Exceptions would be made to locations that are named like the district, which is similar to Argentine province capitals and Mexican state capitals. Since there still is a lot of ambiguity on the district level, it may be even better to use the sub-district level, but I couldn't find any complete list for the sub-districts of India and therefore don't know how many names are ambiguous there. Using the sub-district level would be similar to the system that is used for the articles in the Philippines, which use the municipalities. Also, for some existing articles it might be unknown in what sub-district they are located. What else can I do to advance with this idea? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Around" categories

I wish to bring your notice to the various "around" categories created for Hindu temples. Some of them are:

Now, should we let these ambiguous templates remain here or should we tag them for deletion. Now, X from Chennai might feel that Kumbakonam is somewhere "around" Thanjavur, while Y from Bangalore might feel that Tiruchirappalli is somewhere "around" Thanjavur and Z from Delhi might have the notion that Thanjavur is situated somewhere "around" Chennai. I feel that these categories could very well be removed, instead, temples could be classified on basis of the districts in which they are situated.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 07:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've created one for Hindu temples in Thanjavur district. Your opinions solicited.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service

Agree with you, it is currently too vague. Lynch7 07:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Ravi, you can do a speedy rename (C2) from Category:Temples around XYZ to Category:Temples in XYZ district (if the same, or abc district if different). That will be simpler as you don't have to repopulate new categories and delete old ones. Might have to remove a couple here and there, but it's an easier process to track. —SpacemanSpiff 07:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Will we have a long listing of temples in a certain district? I mean won't temples in a certain state be sufficient? A category for 10-20 items is bit unnecesaary. For South Indian districts you might get enough numbers. But then when you look in an article of a temple in Maharashtra or MP & dont find any districtwise categories at all, it looks odd. Hence... wont statewise listing be sufficient? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It depends. See Category:Hindu temples in India, from that I can see that the Kerala category ought to be split soon. Also, within Maharashtra, without looking at the individual pages but just looking at the category list (and there could be more) creating a subcat of Category:Hindu temples in Mumbai seems reasonable. We don't need to wait for 10+ articles, if there are a few significant temples, it's best to split them off to a subcat under the tree and add more as they are created. The utility value of a category is lost when you have too many entries within. —SpacemanSpiff 10:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Support removing "around" categories as too vague. My only hesitation would be: is there any legitimate organisational relationship between these? That is, is Madurai some kind of ecclesiastical seat and those temples "around Madurai" are part of its jurisdiction? Even if that is the case, such would need to be documented and better phrased by whatever the equivalent of "parish" would be in this context. Failing a category scheme which reflects a formal temple organisational system, I'd say by-district, and even if there is a formal parish scheme, there should also be a parallel by-district tree anyway to address them geographically. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, by district please for geographic organization. Side note: people were so strongly opposing using ", DistrictName" if disambiguation is needed anyway, I now wonder what is up with Kalyanasundaresar Temple, Nallur, Mahalingeswarar Temple, Thiruvidaimarudur, Veetrirundha Perumal Temple, Veppathur none of these have any content at the plain name. I would vote for dropping the district name in these cases. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've created temple articles like that for disambiguation purposes. I guess there are plenty of notable Mahalingeswara Temples, Perumal Temples, etc., in India. Therefore for identification purposes, such sort of naming is needed.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 04:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, those are all town names not district names.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 04:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tributes

Are tributes allowed in wikipedia pages? for example U. Srinivas Mallya

-djds4rce

You can mention tributes made by others, but you cannot give tributes of your own.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 12:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
That is fine, if he has statues as in this case, or streets named after him or if he appears on a postage stamp etc. etc. the section is sometimes called Honours or Legacy. Refs are always nice, though (Crusoe8181 (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)).
The article seems to be edited now, initially it had a tribute section which had experts from various news papers. (djds4rce djds4rce) —Preceding undated comment added 09:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Athani (Kerala) - which district?

The first case was just an IP changing the info incorrectly, just see the history. Second you could check the district website. Third I've moved the page back to where you moved it to and left a note for the user who's been moving it. —SpacemanSpiff 21:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and WP:BIAS

Started talk at Talk:Hyderabad,_India#Hyderabad.2C_Andhra_Pradesh_and_WP:BIAS. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • You see at that page: "most people reading wont know what Andhra Pradesh is". This is given as reason why Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh shall be placed at Hyderabad, India. But people now what Rhode Island in Warren, Rhode Island is??? Is it an island? Where is it? Sounds English, is it in Australia? Part of the United Kingdom? Republic of Ireland? South Africa? Why can Hyderabad not get a more prices location statement. And that way readers that did not know "wut Andhra Pradesh is" could learn, it is an area around Hyderabad. Kind of circular, suppressing the string Andhra Pradesh and then to observe that some people don't know what it is. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What can I do to perform better?

What can I do to perform better in the interest of WP India?

Whenever errors were pointed out I tried to correct them and to change my behavior. The recent things I simply do not understand. I acted in good faith and followed consensus.

What else can I do?

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

From the sounds of the new AN/I thread, it sounds like you've done anything but follow consensus; in fact, a comment was quoted regarding how you blatantly said you are not required to follow consensus. I recommend you head over there and discuss the issue there. CycloneGU (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It sounds so, but I have presented facts, that I followed consensus and it is actually SpacemanSpiff that is moving articles against consensus. Sometimes things are different if you look closer. He did act against consensus. Yes, I think no one needs to follow WP consensus, you always can leave the project. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Ruling Kurmi Clans, Category:Ruling Hindu clans proposed for deletion/renaming

Link: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_27#NEW_NOMINATIONS. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Any non-OR way to categorise "rediscovered" Rajputs?

I've run across several articles, with Mahyavanshi being a good example, on Indian groups that were for a period not at all considered to be Rajput, and then sometime during the Raj did some research (I'm trying to be NPOV here and not say "research"), found out that they were actually Rajput, and agitated politically for such with varying degrees of success. I would argue that this trend of Rajput re-discovery, like Kshatriya agitation, Sanskritisation overall, etc. is quite fascinating and notable, but is there any way we can actually have a category to contain such groups? Failing that, is there a good term for "Rajput rediscovery" that we can do a basic article on, and in that article list such groups? I also don't know if the people covering Rajput topics are annoyed that all these claimant groups are simply placed in Category:Rajputs currently. Any thoughts on how to best organise this material to reflect the above? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not a good idea at all. Such amusement would not be of any worth on Wikipedia. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe at first the category could be cleaned up. Category:Rajputs contains things such as clans, a battle, a surname article, individual person articles ... At least Mahyavanshi should be moved into the clans category? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Good call Bogdan; Rajput issues in general need some cleanup, and some cat sorting would help that. @ TT2011: I don't understand your point; how is it an "amusement" to attempt to differentiate between historical Rajput castes and re-discovered ones? It seems indicative of the complexities and fluidity of caste history. Please actually bring a talking point rather than just an unexplained opinion, or you'll simply be ignored. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier:

"while varna was generally accepted as the basis for identity, on the whole little agreement prevailed with respect to the place of the individual and the jati within a varna hierarchy. Srinivas, describing social relations in the mid-twentieth century, regarded such a “lack of clarity in the hierarchy” as “one of the most striking features of the caste system,” adding that “it is this ambiguity which makes it possible for a caste to rise in the hierarchy.”[30] Such ambiguity only becomes a striking feature, however, when observers expect to see the opposite, that is, a complete congruity between theory (varna) and practice (jati). Such expectations were increasingly palpable in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when India became for nascent (imperial) anthropology a “laboratory of mankind,” wherein scientific methods of observation (anthropometry among them) were expected to produce clear and straightforward sociological (and racial) patterns that conformed to varna-derived theories."

..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there something like Rajputism? What would be the top category? Because to have Rajputs and inside Rajput people and Rajput clans looks weird to me. Since I assume a Rajput to be a person. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Rajput people" is the cat for individual persons, "Rajput clans" is for groups/tribes. Admittedly its not explicit without context, but if you look at similar cats (for example Category:Pashtuns) you'll see the same thing. There's not any objection against having "category for individual Rajputs" and "category for broad group of Rajputs", no? Overall, are you feeling good about the cleanu of Rajput I did (sub-cat'ed about 100 articles) and the several new subcategories (culture, history, titles, etc)? I think this is a step in the right direction, though Category:Rajput clans is going to take a lot of cleanup, but that will require having a clear methodology for what goes into what subcats, how deep to file, etc.
@TT2011, yes, seen you post that quote before, and it raises good points. However, that should not be an excuse to remove varna from articles, and should positively not be an excuse to say "let's remove Shudra and keep Kshatriya" as so many folks do. That quote should just be more proof that these are complicated issues which deserve exploration in caste articles. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
@MV, There was consensus on this board a couple of years back to not categorize people by castes, i.e. no XXX caste people categories. That consensus was subsequently used to delete a few such categories that existed. —SpacemanSpiff 20:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but Category:Rajput people is still there and has been since late 2009. If WPINDIA has a consensus, so be it, but my concern is that lacking such a cat, the freshly-cleaned Category:Rajput is going to have dozens and dozens of bio articles dumped into it. Is there any alternative scheme to replace the deleted cats, like Category:People in the history of Rajasthan? I realise "People in the history of Foo" is a bit unwieldy, but it seems the best way to prevent, say, Category:History of India from becoming 90% biographies. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Category:Rajasthani people exists, likewise similar cats exist for other regions. The consensus was only against the caste-people intersection. If you are looking at historical people, then they could be filed under relevant titular categories (I believe there are Kings/rulers cats and so on). —SpacemanSpiff 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@MV if you subcate'd 100 articles that's great. No, I explicitly like cats for individuals and those for groups. Only the naming is little confusing since to me mostly Rajputs = Rajput people. Maybe "Individual Rajputs"? All in all I have not much interest in that area, just saw it on the NB and wanted to give some feedback. No idea why not having them in subcats. Hoppla! Now I look at Category:Rajputs - this is real clean now. Much more inviting to read! Thumbs up! Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem, also did the same today for Category:Brahmins, which had about 80 cats before, almost all of which belonged in Category:Brahmin communities. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
MatthewVanitas, I personally feel that the categories Brahmins and Brahmin communities are not needed at all. Such categories, shall, surely be used for POV-pushing and propaganda. For example, there are some communities which some don't considered "Brahmin" by all, Vishwakarma Brahmins, for example. And then, we never use varna-based categorization in Wikipedia.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 07:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You raise some interesting points, and I am actually not fond of Category:Kshatriya or Category:Shudra as those two are pretty complicated issues. For Brahmins, however, all things being relative, there seems to be a lot more clarity on who is, or at least claims to be with some success, Brahmin. So far as folks who claim to be but aren't universally accepted as such, that's pretty much the same problem as I address with the Rajputs in this section. So far as never using varna cats on Wikipedia, I was informed yesterday that there was some consensus at one point not to file people by jati (no Category:Swarankar people for bios), and I'm fine extending that to varnas so as to now have cats for individual biographies of people of specific varnas/jatis. But I do think that Brahmin is a clearer case than the other varnas, and that the nuances of status debates don't outweigh the benefit of grouping these indidividual communities together vice spreading them all back into Category:Indian castes. Overall, I'm making some attempt to, where possible, sub-categories Category:Indian castes with new cats such as Category:Ahir and Category:Dhangar, but I'm totally open to debate on those too, since these "organisational trees" of caste are quite convoluted. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

List articles: hospitals and schools

There are many such lists that read like a directory and contain few blue links. I don't know what to do with them. Suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleting them would be a nice thing. I just came to know from this list that Tamil Nadu has got only 20-30 schools hahahaha :D. Jokes apart,especially poor ones, we need to distinguish schools & hospitals & not only certain ones keeping in view all NPOV policies & all. All schools are graded i guess & then if we have that data, we can display only a certain grade. Similarly with hospitals, maybe specialist hospitals or government hospitals or based on their capacities (if we get the official numbers). Not sure how we will get it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
If they're redlinked and uncited then delete, per WP:V and WP:NLIST. - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm not sure about hospitals -- we don't treat them like secondary schools do we? i.e. we don't consider them to be inherently notable per AfD outcomes? As far as schools go, it's not necessarily a bad thing to have them red/unlinked, but some sort of clean up would be good. See List of schools in Chennai, I think it's an OK format for such lists and if we could transition schools to that format, we are at least sure of verifiability (to know what system the school falls under). But given the number of schools, IMO we need to break down the lists to either district or municipality and treat the higher level ones as an index. —SpacemanSpiff 07:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Even a school is not inherently notable if its existence cannot be verified. We went through this with 800+ Indian village articles recently, all of which were nuked due to lack of V. - Sitush (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Which is why I specifically mentioned verifiability as a consideration above. All I'm saying is that a redlink/unlinked entry on the list can still be verified so it's not bad; but there is the problem that unverified (as opposed to unverifiable) entries do get back on to the list (see list above), but that's the case with everything. —SpacemanSpiff 07:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


Sitush: I think WP:NLIST is for people. Do you mean WP:NOTDIR?
I want certain consensus before acting. I'm slowly preparing a list here that will include Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and India list articles for educational and medical organizations.
My position is that this is an encyclopedia and not the Yellow Pages. We don't know if a school or clinic is a tiny hole in the wall, or even exists. Lists with black and red links everywhere encourage others to simply add to the directory. If the articles contain only bluelinks, it will encourage others to create the article in order for it to appear on the list, and not simply add the name to advertise a school that may be defunct in a year.
But, I've had a couple of objections to this sort of pruning. Here's one. The guy makes a point. But check the before and after. It was a right mess. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @SpacemanSpiff. Yes, but someone has to note/remember/tag every redlink for verification, otherwise they stay there for ever + the list grows with new entries. Easier to strip the list down and then maintain it on a strict bluelink or citation basis.
@AnnaF - d'oh. Yes, NOTDIR. Been doing too many lists of notable people recently ;) - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Like Sitush says, if I prune these lists now, they can be maintained indefinitely. If not, they will, over the years, grow into monsters containing plenty of defunct or renamed organizations. Factchecking black and redlinks for a single list would take hours. There are probably close to a hundred of these lists. We must ask ourselves "What reliable information can I actually glean from the black and red links?" I think we should nip them in the bud. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I posted at Wikiproject Pakistan a week ago. No response. I won't bother at the other countries mentioned. This sort of pruning is per policy, and if consensus is formed here, I will proceed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Best way to avoid such crowding would be to clearly state in the intro of what the list exactly is of, as is NOT stated here. List of schools in India. Going by that intro, we should also include music and dance schools. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't work in my experience. Eg; List of Ezhavas gets messed about with several times a week despite a note at the top of the article. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not questioning your right to prune the lists, all I'm saying is that especially with these educational institution lists there are loads of notables listed as black/redlinks and keeping them as redlinks will help in article creation. e.g. From the Hyderabad India list (linked to on the list you provided), Centers & Institutes section:
I haven't gone further down on that list, but of the six I went through there's one problematic and I expect that this pattern will follow with the rest of the listing too. Again, if someone is taking the trouble to clean up these lists when no one else does then they need to be given some leeway but I'm not sure simply culling down the list solves the problem, especially with higher level educational institutions. Note that I'm offering this opinion entirely about lists of educational institutions, not lists of people, hospitals etc. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Well... lists are important, especially of important things. But a certain specific criteria should be made for these. & that should be uniform for all states, major cities, districts or whichever way we decide on. For example, there is a List of Marathi people as well as List of people from Maharashtra which we are discussing to merge to form only one; preferably a geo-location oriented. Now this particular category might be different from the schools & hospitals that we were discussing; but what i wanna say is that one rule should be followed for all. If there are lists as per cities, all metros should have one such list. If by districts, all disctricts (small or big) should have one list. Uniformity in India portal should be maintined. I guess thats the issue with naming cities too. (I dont wanna enter in that as i cant enter in it at this stage. Do many brawls to go through!) This is also with temples. - Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Brawls? We do not get brawls on India-related articles. Ahem. I have raised the general issue for hospitals at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#List_of_hospitals. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Although WP:NOTDIR sounds right, it doesn't actually forbid such lists. But, WP:V does, and it has teeth. I am leaning toward boldly pruning these lists down to bluelinks. If someone wants to restore content, then it would probably only be redlinks, and on the grounds that they "could plausibly" become articles. Then, the onus will be on them to dig up info on that redlink to show that the institution exists and may be notable enough.

SpacemanSpiff makes the good point that many blacklinks are actually blue, but are unlinked. I would be happy, as a precaution, to test the list in a sandbox by adding temporary links to all items to see which come up blue.

I would like to know if anyone intends on challenging the pruning of these lists done in this way? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:V only requires that information be verifiable not verified. Yes, we can removed unverified claims, but I'm not sure that the existence of a hospital really meets the "statements that may be challenged" rule for immediate removal. But I do know a way around it, so to speak: get consensus at the article talk page for specific inclusion criteria. Per WP:LSC (note, this isn't explicit there...I thought it was, but maybe that's some other policy page I'm not immediately finding), just as with any other article, the editors of a stand-alone list can define the "scope" of the article, which, for a list, is basically the inclusion criteria. So, all we have to do is to start a discussion on the article talk page, and gain consensus that this list will only cover notable hospitals: i.e., those that are important enough to have their own wikipages (or which are part of a chain which has its own wikipage). On that page, we can decide whether or not to make an exception for hospitals that can be verified by a reliable source or not. For example, if you look at the lead for List of paradoxes, it explicitly states that all entries on the list must have their own WP article. Now, I personally don't think that belongs in the page itself (I would put it in a hidden comment), the point is that editors there decided quite a while ago to limit the list to such items. We can do exactly the same thing; or, we can make different criteria (like, must be verified by a website, or must verified in an official document like a national regulator, or whatever). Furthermore, I think it would help if we more clearly distinguished between "hospital" and "clinic" and "eye center" and whatever, because hospital is not a generic term meaning any provider of medical services. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


"...I'm not sure that the existence of a hospital really meets the "statements that may be challenged" rule for immediate removal..."
WP:V says "...anything challenged or likely to be challenged...". I'm challenging it on the grounds that I don't think it can be verified.
"...WP:V only requires that information be verifiable not verified...."
Right. "Verifiable" means that it can be verified. Okay. If they want to restore the item, they have to verify it.
The way to get around it has big problems:
  • It is labour intensive.
  • It would likely end up solving only a handful of the dozens of faulty articles.
  • I've posted at some of these before. Responses are rare, and sustained discussions involving even more than one person, that arrive a consensus would be rare. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Again, my position in a nutshell:
  • Black and redlinks provide no useful information because the amount of fiction cannot be determined.
  • This problem will grow worse and must be addressed at some point.
  • Pruning will make the lists maintainable and useful.
  • The lists are not fit to remain in a credible encyclopedia per policy and common sense. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to mull it over for a while. Other views are more than welcome. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India)

FYI Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India) - Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Need comments at these discussions

Hi,

Need comments for ongoing discussion [{Talk:Nair#Lede_section | here]]. Thanks. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Also need comments on another discussion here. Thanks. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 16:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

How to spell bulbul tarang in Hindi and Urdu?

Bulbul tarang

The article bulbul tarang has no local-language spellings in its lede; does anyone know how to spell this in Hindi and Urdu? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Phonetically: "बुलबुल तरंग"  Office of Disinformation  17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Appreciated, but I have the same problem with your version as I had with my phonetic guess at Urdu (I'm a Persian speaker): neither one brings up a resassuringly large number of ghits for the instrument in question on GoogleImages. Yours does get the instrument as its first hit, but no other pics of that same item. I would expect that if we had the spelling right we'd get pages and pages of people selling, discussing, etc. the instrument, and GI would be full of various pictures of them. I don't know if my methodology just isn't a workable way to verify the spellings, or if we're both off somehow. Ideally, I'd like to find someone who is familiar with reading about the instrument and knows exactly how it's spelled. If nobody here is 100% sure, I can go to a specifically South Asian music forum and ask the musicians there. Thanks for the stab though, I tried the same for Urdu. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

MV, Office of disinformation has the correct Hindi or Devnagari script spelling. Having said that, my father played the instrument in his childhood ( 1930s/40), however, he used the Japanese name, however, my cousin who played it in 1960s and 70s called in bulbul tarang. My father thought,, the instruments were identical. hope this helps.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As a non-Indian, maybe I'm missing the joke here? Are you saying there's some official site where I can find the spellings? Can you link me to it, or just copy-paste the spellings here? So far as the Japanese name, I take it you mean Taishōgoto? Cool, interesting to know it still used its imported name for a while. Thanks for any help finding these Urdu and Hindi names! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

बुलबुल तरंग. This is the only spelling you can have in Dev nagari script used for writing Hindi, Marathi , Sanskrit and Nepali languages. I could not find any official site for the spellings, however check the following link. [3]. In Marathi and Hindi, Bulbul stands for nightingale and Tarang for harmony or waveJonathansammy (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC). Check these out [4] [5] Jonathansammy (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop

Banned editor, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

) SpacemanSpiff brought up the following at my talk:

"Please stop" your page moves citing WP:NCINDIA. Most people have opposed your version of things and now moving articles randomly citing an unaccepted proposal as guideline is not on. Please establish consensus first and then do what consensus dictates. —SpacemanSpiff 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I moved article from "X, something district" to "X, something", that was opposed nowhere. Also my citation are not randomly. You did not engage in the discussion, please cite opposition. Also I did disambiguate titles. I was /not/ moving "X, state" to "X, district" in cases where "X, state" is not ambiguous. So, what is the problem? Do you want to hold even these little improvement? Have you seen how much I contributed by creating the SIA pages? The new sub-districts of India overview? What are you doing in that respet apart from opposing. What is the problem with the work I am doing. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I was about to fix this: Attoor (Kanya Kumari). But well, I will stop now. Please describe your problem in more detail. And hey, I won't do what so called "consensus" dictates. This is voluntary work done by me. If the "consensus" is to do something I would not like to support, I would just leave. Thank you for listening Mr. Dictator. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't see how "most people have opposed" "my" "version of things". It were only two that showed up and opposed using the district as minimum. But they dropped out of the discussion afterwards. And one complete outsider opposed, but he seems to have a lack of awareness of the issue, and equates UK ceremonial counties with Indian states. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
No knowledge of the detail, but Wikipedia is a community and relies on consensus. Put simply, if you cannot deal with that basis then leaving may well be the solution. I hope that it does not come to that, however. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
WP is also voluntary, and I don't like that a user comes and says I have to do what is dictated by a specific consensus. Anyway, maybe SpacemanSpiff can provide details of what moves were done against consensus. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you don't like that you need consensus when you want your proposals to be accepted as guidelines then you'll need to create another voluntary encyclopedia, guidelines here will have to be accepted by the community. What you did now is to move articles from "xyz, abc district" to "xyz, abc" where abc is a big town. You have now introduced ambiguity in hitherto clean titles by removing the "district" from them because now the title can be confused for either a part of a city/town or part of district. Kurnool, Nizamabad etc are not small towns and the fact that a sub-region can be either a neighbourhood of the city or a village/town in the district matters a lot. This is what happens if you keep on going with these page moves without taking any feedback into account. First it was Hyderabad, Rameswaram etc, now this. —SpacemanSpiff 15:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
You are putting things in my mouth that I did not say. I didn't say I don't like that I need consensus. Also I like feedback, Rameswaram maybe was a mistake. Why Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh is the only Indian city to use ", India" and furthermore this name beeing ambiguous I still do not understand. For the removal of the "district" part I agree with you. I will stop moving "xyz, abc district" to "xyz, abc". But I have to notice that this is the first time someone opposed to this and brought up facts. Crusoe8181 agreed with not using "...district" and also this is what was done in many or most places anyway. I will stop this, but additionally I would like to see some real world examples where this is a problem. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not putting words in your mouth, you said "WP is also voluntary, and I don't like that a user comes and says I have to do what is dictated by a specific consensus", there isn't really any two ways about that. And in my first post to you, I requested that you wait for feedback before implementing your changes, but no, instead of actually waiting for feedback you came here alleging that everyone is biased against India and just indulged in personal attacks. I have just told you how it becomes a problem with Kurnool etc where when someone sees a title they can not say if it's a city neighbourhood or a village in a district. —SpacemanSpiff 16:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have to do what "consensus" dictates. WP is voluntary. And for Kurnool, I meant, is there actually any naming conflict? Is there any neighbourhood that is named like a village in Kurnool district? Other article titles that use the plain name do not tell either whether they are a neighbourhood, a village, a town etc. One wouldn't even know it is about a place at all. And what would happen if a neighbourhood is disambiguated by mandal - you wouldn't know whether it is a village in that mandal. But I repeat, I agree to hold on with removing "district". There is a lot of other things that can be done before that. As for not waiting for feedback, I asked for feedback, and only when I saw that people opposed a more clear cut system I said some things that I as of today would not like to repeat. This is gone. And please: Thank you for pointing this district-removal thing out to me. I am happy to learn. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sitush "No knowledge of the detail, but Wikipedia is a community and relies on consensus. Put simply, if you cannot deal with that basis then leaving may well be the solution. I hope that it does not come to that, however." - Why do you say such things to me. I enforced consensus by moving Hyderabad, India back to Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. It is SpacemanSpiff who moved to a name that had no "official" agreement. He is the one randomly moving single articles. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

On going accusations by SpacemanSpiff

On my talk: "Page moves" ... This is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop moving pages incorrecfly claiming consensus or under the cover of a guideline that doesn't exist. —SpacemanSpiff 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you refer to? The last time you didn'T provide details but left me in the dark, after asking you, you said it was about "Abc, def district" -> "Abc, def", which actually was agreed on. But nevertheless I stopped doing these moves. This time, what are you talking about??? Please if you accuse me of having done something wrong, then tell where and what!!! After the last talk about that:
  1. where did I incorrectly claim consensus
  2. where did I refer to a guideline that doesn't exist? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
You have to stop running here crying fowl every time something you don't like happens, this is getting quite tiresome and disruptive. You have been told multiple times, specifically about Hyderabad, India, yet you moved it claiming consensus (again), and you move citing WP:NCINDIA and you plaster that page with the {{guideline}} tag when looking at the talk page there really is no acceptance of it as a guideline or any such thing. If you really can not work with other people and must have your way at all cost and find feedback abhorrent and hold the opinion "I don't have to do what "consensus" dictates.", then you really need to stop volunteering to do such things. —SpacemanSpiff 10:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
You are putting words in my mouth, this is tiresome. I did not cry foul. I just assumed your vague accusations were related to WP India and so I posted it here so that other people see what accusations you bring up and maybe can mediate.
  1. "You have been told multiple times" - What have I been told multiple times?
  2. "specifically about Hyderabad, India" - Give me the multiple diffs please!!
  3. "yet you moved it claiming consensus" - actually I provided the diff for that consensus, so it is up to you why that does not hold!!!
  4. "(again)" - where did I claim consensus "again"?
  5. "and you move citing WP:NCINDIA" - where did I do that since the last talk on that NB? Please provide diff!!!
  6. "you plaster that page with the {{guideline}} tag when looking at the talk page there really is no acceptance of it as a guideline" - Sorry, there was no opposition either. I only documented what the current usage is. The conventional usage. And this thing is called Naming convention (India) isn't it? And you reverted my anyway, WP:BRD, and I left that. So what is the ongoing problem here?
  7. "If you really can not work with other people" - what is that? What are you talking? I am working with other people. Seems you don't like some of my work, but that does not mean I cannot work with other people.
  8. "and must have your way at all cost" - What do you mean by all cost?
  9. "find feedback abhorrent" - You mean my one of these: Also I like feedback OR Thank you for pointing this district-removal thing out to me. I am happy to learn. OR Thanks a lot! ?
  10. "and hold the opinion "I don't have to do what "consensus" dictates.", then you really need to stop volunteering to do such things." - which such things? You want me to stop to work on Wikipedia, because you disagreed with some actions??? Who are you that you think you can dictate what happens here? I think you are not the owner of Wikipedia, are you? As I understand, this is a community afford. I tell you again that I regard WP as voluntary, and I never have to work on it. I don't know what is so hard to understand with that? If consensus dictates to put red banners in all pages, I would rather leave than to do what consensus dictates. You understand? I don't have to do what consensus dictates. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Given that you yourself have asked about Hyderabad multiple times in response to statements, there's no reason for me to explain anything any further, as such that page is no guideline and the talk page is proof of that at this point. Your moves are becoming disruptive and you'll need to stop until you establish consensus, simple as that. And yes, you don't have to work on it, but when you do, you have to follow rules and guidelines, this is not a free for all and if you can not respect the need for consensus, this place is not for you. My last response to you on this matter. I've had enough with your accusations and attacks on this page and elsewhere. —SpacemanSpiff 11:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Again vague accusations, which moves? You have not replied to the 10 question above. So what kind of discussion is that? Do you see that you are attacking my contributions vaguely? What can I learn for my editing from vague accusations? What is this Hyderabad thing? There was consensus to not use the country level for India. You are ignoring that. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Started talk at Talk:Hyderabad,_India#Hyderabad.2C_Andhra_Pradesh_and_WP:BIAS. No need for drama, shouting and vague accusations. Simply stick to the facts. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

===Accusations by Crusoe8181===Doctored talk And we can stop arguing and get on with our work; the recent move of Brest, France requires 2083 (repeat, two thousand and eighty-three) links to be corrected- You understand? I don't have to do what consensus dictates is a lovely attitude (I always consider I am bound by consensus) but the idea of leaving just these 2083 links to someone else to sort out (when consensus is that we tidy up after moves) is not particularly helpful to the project. I would rather leave than to do what consensus dictates. Well, what is keeping you? Perhaps, when there is consensus to suggest you go away that would presumably encourage you to stay, and cost us more time and inconvenience. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)).

I made the article name conforming to WP:MOS [6] I do not see on Wikipedia:MOVE that there is consensus that one has to change all links. And why do they need to be corrected? There is redirect. What else are redirects for? And if someone really wants a change then I wonder are there no bots? And for the other topic: to be bound by consensus is different from having to do what consensus dictates. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

::I DID NOT PUT MY EDIT UNDER THE HEADING IT HAS BEEN GIVEN - PLEASE DIG VERY DEEP AND FIND THE MOST MINIMAL COURTESY YOU CAN MUSTER AND MOVE MY BLOODY COMMENTS BACK TO WHERE I PUT THEM!!!!!!!!!!!! (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)). rather be editing, wasted a bit more time fixing (Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)).

If you do less errors like at on 01:57, 7 May 2010 Crusoe8181 "moved Banga, Punjab (India) to Banga, Punjab: sufficient dab" when Banga, Punjab is not sufficient - you would have even more time. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
And if you don't create ambiguous names like at "08:45, 25 April 2011 Crusoe8181 (talk | contribs) moved Bogaram, Ranga Reddy district to Bogaram ‎ (dab not needed)" then articles of WP India would need less work for being properly named and linked.
You complained about
with me citing a naming convention, when you did 9 days ago
without citing any naming convention. Do you really think my move on Brest, enforcing the naming convention, was that bad? Or did you more come here because of other reasons. What is the real reason? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Pau has had all the linking corrected, I didn't think move of Brest was so bad, just didn't think the 2000+ links would be fixed any time soon. There is only one Wikipedia article on a place called Bogaram so dab not needed unless an article on another created. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)).
Thanks for your reply. I didn't think that any links via a redirect would cause a problem and would be resolved over time. For Bogaram, I think with 600 000 potential villages, who knows which ones is created next, another approach should be applied in the future. If something is at "X, district or taluk" it should be avoided to move it temporarily to "X" to have it moved back to "X, district or taluk" later and then to have to disambiguate incoming links. When a plain redirect as with Brest is of concern, than a link to a dab page is of more I guess. The tool at http://censusindia.gov.in/PopulationFinder/Population_Finder.aspx can help a little bit to check for ambiguous names, but due to different spellings in other sources this does not detect all possible conflicts. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am leaving.

My plan was to greatly improve the quality of the articles related to Indian geography. But if people bring me to WP:ANI and tell false things about me, allegations that I acted against consensus, allegations that I accuse everybody of being biased... I never did these things. I started creating WP:SIA pages, so far I only got 260, the plan was to get to 1000 in the next month. This would have massively helped to avoid ambiguity in links. SpacemanSpiff and Crusoe8181 did win. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your hard work and the contributions you have made to the project. However, it is necessary that you understand that the functioning of Wikipedia is firmly based on consensus. It is essential that you learn to collaborate and work with long-time contributors like User:SpacemanSpiff. Also, while I do agree that there are, indeed, some individuals in Wikipedia who are biased, accusing each and every Wikipedian who disputes with you of bias is a violation of WP:AGF and does not look good. People like User:Dr. Blofeld and User:SpacemanSpiff have made extraordinary contributions to Wikiproject India and even created a few good articles.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 04:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogdan, You have put in a great amount of work within a short period of time. But you let your enthusiasm let you get ahead of the usual process. Wikipedia works by consensus building, it is sometimes slow, frustrating and doesnt go the way we want it to go. In your case multiple people, for some reason or another did not see things as you see (you might have been correct for all i know and we might have been wrong). But you went about convincing us the wrong way right from the start. The pro/anti india comments, accusations of bias, not waiting till the consensus was established etc was pretty bad. You have all the markings of a great contributor if you have the patience to get accustomed to how wiki works. There is no need to leave in a huff, i request you to stick around, slow down your pace and start again. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • You both miss that there was consensus. SpacemanSpiff is shouting all over the place that there was not, and now even you seem to believe that. But here is the permalink : rgpk, Crusoe8181 and me agreeing. No opposition there at all. Later, after discussion on this NB, I got a real green thumb even for district dab by User Yogesh Khandke. I got a brownie for the SIA pages. The SIA pages use ", India" thus any article on a specific place using ", India" is not good for the SIA project. The only user opposing dropping country level dab and to use at least state level is SpacemanSpiff. He is the one that acts against consensus when moving Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh to Hyderabad, India and moving Banga, Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar to the ambiguous name Banga, India and deleting the SIA article that I had created there.
  • @ Soda, the pro/anti-India thing was solved. rgpk made a nice comment, bringing me to light. I cannot change my past darkness.
  • @ Enforcer "accusing each and every Wikipedian who disputes with you of bias is a violation of WP:AGF" - I have not done that. Everyone can see in the history of my actions, that there were disputes were I did not. When, I did assume bias, I did that in some very specific situations, where I perceived one. That bias exists is acknowledge by WP:BIAS. And I still think there is some, e.g. "Andhra Pradesh" cannot be used in a dab tag because avg reader would know what that is as User:Nikkul said. But at the same time Rhode Island can be used, I guess the average reader wouldn't know either what that is. An island? BTW, it's not.
  • "It is essential that you learn to collaborate and work with long-time contributors like User:SpacemanSpiff." - And wouldn't it be essential that he learns to not act against consensus? I am not asking him to do what consensus dictates as he did with me [7], i.e. I am not asking him to remove ", India" as was agreed by WP India (the consensus dictates), because I think WP is voluntary and he can do other things. But I ask that in the future he does not move articles in the opposite direction as with Banga and Hyderabad.
  • Looking forward: What is your position on the Banga thing, would you appreciate that I open a move request there? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
THis is exactly the problem of your misinterpretations. Two people agreed with you on the general idea, and then I objected (which you conveniently ignore when you claim consensus) and in the specific example of Hyderabad, there are also objections on the article talk page. That is NOT consensus. And I've been continuously saying, take these to WP:RM to move and not move them unilaterally and that's another thing you refuse to listen to. This is plain ridiculous. And your allegations of bias are there for all to see in every discussion you open, so if you don't mean that people are biased, then don't say it. —SpacemanSpiff 13:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • 4:1 - is majority. I know that majority is not consensus, but in WP the word is used with the meaning that a majority was behind an idea. What is your definition of consensus then?
  • "And your allegations of bias are there for all to see in every discussion you open" - I don't see it here: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] - Either there is some variation in sight between us or in our definition of every. What is your definition of every? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for again misrepresenting facts once again: It was 3-1 and a continuing discussion, not 4-1 and closed; and it was in general terms, not discussing any specifics of a change to policy and implementing immediately on existing titels. Next, yes, you don't accuse anyone of bias on Russian topics, but it's there for all to see on this board, on Talk:Hyderabad, India etc. So, I'm guessing that you aren't leaving then and that it was just more hyperbole? I'm done responding to you. —SpacemanSpiff 14:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there can be 99 people saying "yes" to something here and 1 saying "no" ... and the one person can have things their way. You need to appreciate that consensus on Wikipedia is not a vote. Nobody votes on this project, anywhere in day-to-day stuff. For something to happen it not only needs generally to be favoured but also to comply with policies, guidelines, conventions etc & it is because of this that the "majority" (as you call it) do not always get their way. There are other issues involved also, which makes the entire situation far, far more complex than you think it is. One of the key issues is "are they still talking"? If discussion is ongoing and valid points are being raised then it should usually be allowed to continue until those points are resolved to the satisfaction of everyone.
For what it is worth, I am not too happy with what you were trying to do either. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
@Sitush: SpacemanSpiff has another defintion than you, since he told me that I should do what consensus dictates. That means, even if I have another opinion and it is not to my satisfaction, then there would be something like a consensus. Or do you exclude me from "everyone"? Can you say where "X, <some region but not country>", something done by Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States is against any guideline if it is done for places located in India?
@SpacemanSpiff: rgpk + Crusoe8181 + Bogdan + Yogesh = 4. How would you count? "you don't accuse anyone of bias on Russian topics, but it's there for all to see on this board, on Talk:Hyderabad, India etc." - I don't see it "in every discussion (I) open" even if every is reduce to mean India-related: [14] [15] [16] [17] Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Re-read what I said, You have completely misunderstood it. You do not get your own way here and you have been told this time and again, including at ANI. If you cannot cope with that then go, and stay gone; if you can adapt then I'll be really pleased because you have a lot to offer. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You said "Actually, there can be 99 people saying "yes" to something here and 1 saying "no" ... and the one person can have things their way." in reply to a case where I showed that I enforced the 4:1 majority opinion. You actually seem to say if I am the one that has the minority opinion then I shall leave, but if SpacemanSpiff has the minority opinion and acts against WP:RM decisions and deletes SIA pages without discussion then this is fine and if I am trying to enforce the majority opinion I shall leave. Summary: If I have an opinion that is contrary to that of SpacemanSpiff I shall leave, when he has a view contrary to everyone else he can have "his own way". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Bogdan Nagachop, I hope you don't mind a few thoughts from me. Firstly, I agree it would be great to get some sort of agreed guidelines for place naming and disambiguation for India - as you and others point out, even the number of villages is astronomical compared to just about any other country, and naming conventions used in much smaller countries may well be completely unworkable for India. And I think it would be good to get it decided sooner rather than later - it would be a real pain to rack up a few thousand articles about Indian places (which I sincerely hope we will do), and then discover people have been using a whole multitude of different standards. But the problem is the way you went about it. This is a topic of significant magnitude, and we should not be treating it as an emergency that needs to be solved immediately. Something like this needs a proper consensus, and a proper consensus would potentially involve something like several months of discussion, involving as many of our Wikipedia community as we can get. It really is not a job for a quick proposal, and it will not be decided by just 5 people - we need to get it right, rather than get it done urgently. What I'd envisage is some lengthy discussions with various alternatives explored, and then sometime later perhaps a Community !vote (which is not just a straight vote) to decide the way to go - and we'd look for input from people working in various fields, including Manual of Style and Disambiguation. And then, possibly work on the formulation of a new consensus guideline - and all of that before we change or move a single article. We should absolute not go changing everything as soon as one proposal has a small handful of people in agreement. Now, if you can work within this collegial environment, and you can accept the "slow and steady" way we make important decisions here, building as large a consensus of the best quality we can rather than the fastest we can, I sincerely hope you will stay with us and contribute your valuable insights and your undoubted enthusiasm -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for this statement. It was interesting for me to read. We will see whether it will take several months, I would favor not, since already now there are several villages that I discovered that had two articles, one I found had even three. The NC was listed on this very NB and the talk stopped, so I don't know how to get more people involved. Also on NCGN the talk that I started did stop. It seems now that more people are interested, I am happy about that. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
      • (ec)(1) No Bogdan Nagachop don't leave, there are 3 million articles on Wikpedia and I am sure, there will be enough articles for you to contribute without stressing yourself. I have read comments above which made me wonder whether you are some disease best kept away, which is a pity. Such an attitude was the reason for my bringing the blog to the notice of the founder. Every one should remember that he has promised to look at the issue, it is only a matter of months. (2)I agree with your comments on consensus and your statements in defence of your position. Bogdan Nagachop, every policy is twisted, Gandhi move had a 33-7 favourable vote, but there the pro-move argument was found weaker than the anti-move argument, in the Tirthankar case it was a 1-6 vote in favour of the move, there the page was moved without so much of a by your leave. Consensus as you rightly pointed aint dancing to the tune of the band. Stay put and happy editing, no matter what the ghost busters say. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks Yogesh Khandke. Maybe those saying false things about me did only win a battle (me now stopping to work on the articles of Indian populated places) but they will not win the war (me stopping my work on wiping out inconsistency in India article naming). But I really feel unhappy if SpacemanSpiff can have his minority opinion enforced against the majority and people like Sitush say I shall leave if I am in the minority opinion but at the same time Sitush his saying that other people can have the minority opinion enforced even if it is 99:1. I wish you good luck with contacting the founder, maybe you can enlight him about what is going on here. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
      • (ec) Actually, a couple of us recently came across three articles about the same Indian village - written by the same person ;-) So yes, I certainly do recognise that problem. I am a bit late coming to this, and I am very busy (both in my day job and in other Wikipedia areas), but it's an area I'd like to try to help with - so as soon as I have a little bit of time, I'll look up the discussions and add my thoughts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Bogdan Nagachop, I think your starting the discussion on naming places in India is a very useful thing. We need to get some consensus on this and sooner is probably better than later. But, I do think you're going about it the wrong way. Comparing it to the guidelines in place for the US as a target to achieve is itself a bad idea (there is no reason why Indian place names have to follow the same logic as the US), but then accusing editors of being anti-Indian or declaring that there is a bias against India in wikipedia is a turn-off. Most people will just assume you're one of the many agenda driven editors who haunt this place. Your core idea, that Indian places should be disambiguated by state rather than India unless there are reasons otherwise, is a good one and worth getting consensus on. So don't give up, just focus on the reasons why it is a good one and go slow. --rgpk (comment) 17:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Appreciating your comment, I like to thank you again for your pro/anti statement. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • (ec) Having looked back on a lot of these discussions, I think the whole "bias" thing was really just down to miscommunication, and I don't think Bogdan Nagachop was intending to accuse anyone of deliberate anti-India bias. It is a fact that there is systemic bias at Wikipedia - that comes simply from the majority of editors being from the US and the UK, and our guidelines will inevitably be shaped according to what we American and British editors know and understand. So I'm hoping we can put this behind us and work together more harmoniously - we most definitely do need as many good editors from India as we can get (after all, India has the largest English-speaking population in the world, and has very high education standards, so there has to be enormous potential for new contributors there). And as we go along and get to know each other's ways better, we'll surely improve our mutual communication -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The article systemic bias says that bias can be countered by awareness. And maybe one day WP editors may be aware that the statement "most people reading wont know what Andhra Pradesh" also may apply to Rhode Island as in Warren, Rhode Island, and that this fact alone is not a reason to rename an article from an unambiguous Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh to ambiguous Hyderabad, India. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, United Kingdom or the United States, use the name of the state, province, territory, region, county or department instead of the country name, but for Hyderabad this is denied with the reasoning "most people reading wont know what Andhra Pradesh" - maybe it is not bias, but it is denying to an article about a place in India something what other countries can have without problem. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bombings in Mumbai - title discussion

Readers here may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks#Requesting Move 2. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Place name clean up - articles using X (village)

Inside Category:Villages in India when scanning two levels below, there are 48 articles using "X (village)". I only checked the first three with http://censusindia.gov.in/PopulationFinder/Population_Finder.aspx and all are ambiguous.

What do SpacemanSpiff and his crew think of how to fix this any time soon? Do SpacemanSpiff and his crew think that I should really file all these by WP:RM and bother the people over there with such stuff, especially admins who have really things to do that are of more importance - in my opinion? I also do not see why this would be against any policy, if I would disambiguate them, but last time when I moved a page SpacemanSpiff got angry and brought me up to ANI and some people here seem to support this.

I find it really strange, why moves that I do in accordance with WP policies are singled out, while others are free to follow WP policies and SpacemanSpiff even is allowed to violate policies. - update does not matter. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  1. Bahara (village)
  2. Bala (village)
  3. Barauli (village)
  4. Bharal (village)
  5. Bhoo (village)
  6. Bija (village)
  7. Bindu (village)
  8. Burhanpur (village)
  9. Changanassery (village)
  10. Chenkal (village)
  11. Chittur (village)
  12. Gaon (village) - not an article about a village
  13. Hanle (village)
  14. Harra (village)
  15. Hogenakkal (village)
  16. Irinjalakuda (village)
  17. Kannamangalam (village)
  18. Karikkode (village)
  19. Karimkunnam (village)
  20. Ked (village)
  21. Keezhattingal (village)
  22. Khanapur (village)
  23. Kishunpur (village)
  24. Kollayil (village)
  25. Kottukal (village)
  26. Kotwa (village)
  27. Kuri (village)
  28. Lusa (village)
  29. Mahi (village)
  30. Manjoor (village)
  31. Manki (village)
  32. Meenachil (village)
  33. Mohur (village)
  34. Muvattupuzha (village)
  35. Pullur (village)
  36. Puthur (village)
  37. Rajabazar (village)
  38. Rajpur (village)
  39. Shivdaspur (village)
  40. Vadakkekara (village)
  41. Vatul (village)
  42. Veloor (village)

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think that SpacemanSpiff is "violating policies" & getting away with it then take him to WP:ANI. Otherwise, hold your peace. As far as your list goes:
  • you have started yet another thread on a similar subject;
  • you have been told that nothing has to be fixed "any time soon" and nor is it likely that stuff will be. There is a process and you need to follow it. - Sitush (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not interested in WP ANI, I am just astonished that one user can get away with violations while I am brought up at ANI even without any violation. you have been told that nothing has to be fixed "any time soon" - what does it matter what some random people say randomly? And why do these random people tell me I have to follow process (which process did I not follow and where did that happen?), while when others fix things immediately these same random people are not telling these others to follow process? In summary, why treat my fixes different to those of others? Bogdan Nagachop (talk)
Well, if you are not interested in resolving the issue you have with SpacemanSpiff using the means available then I think that you should hold your peace, as said above. Don't even mention the issue because your attitude could attract accusations of tendentiousness unless you are prepared to see it through at the venue which is appropriate for your concerns. As for your latter point, well, that just goes to confirm what others have suggested: you appear to have no interest in working here in a collaborative manner. That is unfortunate, but so be it. Perhaps the reason why you are being told of something and others are not has something to do with your attitude and the way in which you keep pushing the issue with numerous threads here. However, I have not followed the in-depth discussion and can only credit Spaceman etc with AGF based on my past dealings with him. If you want to bring the matter up for review then, yet again, it is probably an issue for ANI. You are painting yourself into a corner, it seems. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
So SpacemanSpiff's edits get AGF, while mine not? How can you determine "attitude" when I fix an article name, how can you determine attitude if someone else fixes an article name, and with exactly which moves did I not follow which process that I should have? You did not answer: "why treat my fixes different to those of others?" Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
No, I am AGF'ing on you also. Like I said, I have not followed the discussion in detail. I am merely pointing out the options available to you and noting that your responses are effectively shooting yourself in your foot. If you have a problem with Spaceman's applications of policy then take it to ANI, and if you are not prepared to do that then stop accusing him because you clearly do not have the courage of your convictions. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The thing is that I came here to improve the naming of articles related to Indian geography. People are accusing me of doing something the wrong way, but, especially with you I miss what of my name fixes you think was "out of process"? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan, you have some really good points, as you often do, but again you're compromising yourself by getting caught in the personal. I would respectfully submit you consider US President Teddy Roosevelt's adage "speak softly and carry a big stick". If you argue about conflict, there will be more conflict. If you are keeping a level head, communicating smoothly (speaking softly), and feel there's honestly misbehaviour, take a very neutrally worded and dispassionate argument to ANI (your "big stick"). Otherwise, I suggest you play your strong suits with the very good analysis you're providing. I am not closely tracking the debate, but your concerns about such comments as "nobody knows where Andhra Pradesh is" are quite valid. Unlike much of what is accused of "endemic bias" there, saying that Rhode Island is better known than AP might indeed be Western bias. I urge you to keep editing in general since editors of your calibre are a great addition, but please do temper this (particularly if you continue with the geography issue) with the awareness that any endemic bias must be addressed with great dispassion, clear documentation, and unemotional logic, and honestly is unlikely to be fixed on India issues until it is clear that non-Indians likewise recognise the endemic bias. I appreciate your work, but this is going to be a slow process which needs finesse, and the cleaner it's run the easier it will be in the long run. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, if you can, but I need help. I cannot go one with the geography clean-up alone. I made a dispassionate, neutrally worded NC proposal: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India), but some that I have not seen on stuff related with Indian geography before, now vote for userfying the WP:PROPOSAL. How can we get out of the issues we had if there is no written down WP:NCINDIA?. Related to ANI, I did bring one of his out-of process actions there, but some random editor decided to mark the issue as closed [18]. But I don't care so much, the more important thing is that I would like to go on with the clean-up and that everybody has an equal standing here, and not because SpacemanSpiff is an admin he can do what he wants even if it is against majority. Please help that we can go forward with WP:NCINDIA, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India). Then maybe a minimal consensus can be turned into a running guideline and we can concentrate on the issues and try to solve them. Let's go forward. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. It has been explained before that Spaceman cannot do anything he chooses without potential consequences. If you have a problem with his edits then you know what to do. The cleanup does not appear to have consensus despite your belief, and there is an ongoing discussion. Your general principle - get a convention in place - is sound, but your understanding of how this happens is weak. Numerous people have tried to explain this to you. Perhaps re-read the many threads above which you started and to which people responded. Take on board what people are saying about the process and leave the personalities out of it. As at least one person has said, this is going to take months rather than days. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Bogdan, both Spiff and I are supporting keeping NCINDIA, with the caveat that it's a work in progress, so you clearly have support there. So far as uninvolved editors not taking your side: look upon it not as an insult, but as a challenge: how can you modify/clarify your argument so as to get neutral editors to support your side of the discussion? Again, with the state of disarray of Indian geo articles, DABing isn't the single most urgent need, so it's a good area to have a solid, consensus-based, long term solution even if it's slowly chipping at it for a few months. Take it slow, maybe ask a few related WProjects (WPASIA? WP Geography?) to come take a look. I know you have concerns about endemic bias, but make sure you don't "read into" people's statements beyond the clear biases, don't edit with "a chip on your shoulder", etc. On the AfD, someone brought up an interesting point about relatively recent and imported geo-names vice milleniae-old names from a variety of languages, so that's an interesting discussion point, takes into account India's distinct attributes, and gives you something solid to incorporate or oppose.
Long/short as long as folks keep cool heads and open communication, this will be a slow but ultimately profitable process. Again, WP India issues (like many other issues) will not be fixed in one day, and though perhaps inconvenient the DABing issue is not rendering the articles inaccessible, so let's proceed harmoniously which will be easier and quicker in the big picture. "Slow is smooth... and smooth is fast." MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
@MV, in my latest comment I missed that you did vote on the deletion page. As for cleaning in one day: The 4:1 agreed upon cleaning could be done in one day and I almost did. Only Banga and Hyderabad have been reverted. The above village list I could do in 2 hours. There will still be issues, but if one person can stop that these small issues are solved, and get the time spend on each to be more than 10-fold, the whole clean-up will take much longer. Currently we didn't even look on spelling, not talking about the actual content. In one month time I might not be able to help with clean-up, because I may have other things to do. Currently I have time, and I think my clean-up did not invent any new naming formats, but is doing an elimination of minority schemes and of the country dab as was 4:1 agreed in this project. When I applied dab by district for some articles this is not my invention, but it is something that could be found before. I have been at WP NCGN but except for you no one did comment there. I am happy with the MfD close, seems like very reasonable closing statement. Except it may look as if NCINDIA was tagged as proposal during the MfD, but that it was not, it was almost all the lifetime staying there as a proposal. OK, I will move on and try to bring it to guideline status. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

|}

Clan Infoboxes

There needs to be some organization for clan infoboxes, especially for Rajput infoboxes, which are a mess of css and generally inconsistent in appearance. Now I'm not sure this should just be a Rajput thing (at least one clan I encountered had in it's title Jat, Gujar and Rajput and I'd hate to leave any of those out) or even an India particular thing (since some clans are in both India and Pakistan). Maybe an infobox template for South Asian Clan with a field of ethnic groups. I want to make sure I don't step on any toes before trying to run with this idea as I think this sort of infobox could apply to a number of articles. Does anyone object? (On a semi-related topic, I've seen in a lot of Rajput clan infoboxs the field "Vansh" - I cannot find anywhere a definition or article on that term. I'm not sure it needs an article, but at least for my own sanity, does anyone know what that term means?) Jztinfinity (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Look up the page a bit and then discuss at the infobox template which is linked therein. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Or just go to Template_talk:Infobox_caste directly. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Sitush that it's best you join our overall Template discussion and see how we can standardise Rajput infoboxes to those. But in answer to your specific question, as I understand it vansh refers to the various legendary genealogies: Yaduvanshi (descended from Yadu), Suryavanshi, Agnivansha, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Mamata Banerjee Oath of Office

I have listed Mamata Banerjee's Oath of Office for promotion as a featured sound. Please list you Support/Oppose votes here. Regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Football articles

Have a look at this [19]. The Indian football clubs are being vandalized like anything. It comes under the scope of WikiProject India. I thought to leave a message here so that some one who know about the team might have a look at that. I could not revert it myself because the informations are so misleading that I dont know which edit is correct. However I've reverted this (Kingfisher East Bengal FC), still not sure whether it is correct. Have a look at this too [20] this is quite insane. Shriram (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the article for which you provide the diff, massive chunks of it are copyvios, a lot is trivia, there are numerous redundant statements, a lot of POV and weasel, some uncited bold statements, misuse of honorifics, a complete failure to understand WP:MOSHEAD ... and so on. If this is typical of Indian football club articles then the India project needs to get the things cleared up, pronto. Vandalism is the least of our worries. I have made a start. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Shriram (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Varna discussion south India

I am voting in favor of removal of "Varna" content from the related castes Reddy, Kamma, Kapu, velama articles. The reasons why I have come to this conclusion is the following:
1. This was forced upon us in this article to add "Shudras". I am disputing why it should be there. We have never CLAIMED Kshatriya status in the lede. We are not subscribing to the Kshatriya varna and never claimed "dvija" status.
Please look at the following links, and as you know in south india the varna concept is forced upon and is a contentious issue.
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7RW6MrAiJ-0C&pg=PA176&dq=reddi+kshatriyas&hl=en&ei=OB0rTpHGDM_qrQeOkvixDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=6&ved=0CEkQ6wEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=reddi%20kshatriyas&f=false
http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=GhQrTu_ZOcnhrAfsg4iyDQ&ct=book-thumbnail&id=nG3aAAAAMAAJ&dq=reddys+in+south+indian+caste+system&q=reddys#search_anchor
http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=lRgtTr75C8rorQfd7qz2Dw&ct=book-thumbnail&id=AOU9AAAAIAAJ&dq=reddy+sat-sudra&q=wily#search_anchor
Page 93 in this link - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aX-ZAEit4fgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Caste+and+democratic+politics+in+India+By+Ghanshyam+Shah&hl=en&ei=ngATTuq8OpDNrQeSg7CIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=reddys%20kshatriyas&f=false
It says - The Reddys, Nairs and Marathas were never backward. They are the Kshatriyas , Vaisyas of the north with the difference that religion did not sanctify these castes.meaning in the Aryan Brahmanical varna they are listed as upper shudras. But that was never accepted by Reddys.
There are accounts of "wily" Aryan Brahmins who just waltzed in and saw these prosperous and dominant castes and started to demean them by craftily creating a section called upper shudras. I am not disputing that in the Brahmanical system, reddys, kammas are upper shudras, i am just saying that "Varna" issues are contentious and highly debatable topic. So it is unfair to put up something so contentious up there especially when we are not claiming that we are Kshatriyas or brahmins or dvijas. The intention is that we just do not want to enter the GREY area and the highly contentious topic of Varna Foodie 377 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I love your arguments and sources but come to a very different conclusion: it is precisely because these issues are complex and gray that we need to cover them. And not cover them with 3-4 words in an infobox (I'm coming to agree with Sitush that infoboxes are not only unhelpful but damaging here, see WP:Disinfoboxes), but cover them in the body of the article with a good summary of just how complex they are. You note varna was "forced" on South India, and I agree that appears to be the case, but that's even more reason to discuss the forced-ness, not just handwave it away as "forced" and thus somehow not significant. It may well be the case that much of South India will have to start any caste/varna mention with "it's complicated..." and follow up further down the page, as I did on Kayastha, but I think this controversy, rather than showing we should "leave it be" shows that these are "open wounds" or significant modern notability that need to be described. Though the goal of Wikipedia is not to Right Great Wrongs, I would submit for anyone concerned that people will be hurt by dredging up varna issues: people are already being hurt by the follow-on effects of varna issues, and being open about complex varna history is one way to keep this issues transparent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok what are your proposals? Because its just inane to just edit-war. How do you think we can better achieve a fair and balanced take on Varna in these articles.Foodie 377 (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


Instead of copypasting the whole discussion here, just post a link to the relevant talk page. This is going to duplicate discussion here and there--Sodabottle (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

SB, maybe instead we can delete the above bits on the other Talk pages and just keep it all here? I think we've both said some good overall things above, no point in leaving them out there and cutting them here rather than vice-versa. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
ok. my concern was duplication, if the people involved have agreed to continue their discussion here, i see no problem with the copy paste.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
(ec) My proposals: 1) That glib "classifications" not be used in the infoboxes: neither varna, nor occupational titles. I'm not aware of any good centralised/non-contentious means of classifying communities other than OBC/SC-ST/Forward; I'm not adamantly against using those in infoboxes, but not supporting it, and I would vaguely support just ditching infoboxes in castes entirely. 2) That, where appropriate, there be a "Social role" or "Varna controversy" or "Caste politics" section in such articles where we discuss just what you mention above. For example, say the Fooian caste filled a warrior-type role in Kerala, and wily Brahmins declared them Shudras in order to disarm them, and then under the Brits the group sued for Kshatriya status on the basis of military service, and then in the modern day are Forward and receive no social assistance. Those would be outstanding details to include that would cut right to the heart of the complexities and fluidities in Indian society, and also head off POV-pusher attempts to add unsupportable fluff. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think infoboxes are a good tool as they give you a good snapshot. I would keep them although the info in them can be altered. And yes I agree definetely there should be a "varna status" or "caste politics" section wherever appropriate. I think I can understand your proposals. I will work on Reddy article and pilot this potential new format there. Then we can go from there. So until then I will self revert the article to previous state.Foodie 377 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure Sitush will be along in a bit to give his piece on how infoboxes aren't value-added for caste articles, so I won't steal his thunder. I'll look forward to seeing your tweak at Reddy (you've done great work there). Are you thinking to put OBC/SC-ST/Forward classifications in the infobox, or have no classification at all? Personally, rather than infoboxes I'd be fine with just one good historical photo/sketch of a typical traditional member, the name in English and their traditional languages, and that's pretty much it. Wait, actually a little map with dots where they were historically found would be awesome, though I don't know how feasible. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I got here, at a snail's pace :( I will comment at the template talk page, since that is where a discussion about infoboxes is most likely to be relevant. As MatthewVanitas infers, I have a real problem with this particular 'box and would gladly see it banished entirely. However, even a pruning of it would be better than nothing. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, on the specific point of varna the template could work if people used the thing as it was designed. There are separate fields for "varna", "classification" and "disputed varna". As an example, in the case of Kurmi, these fields could be filled with Shudra, Kshatriya and OBC, respectively. Don't go rushing there to do it, though. There has been a long-winded discussion on the talk page that resulted in the entire concept of using those fields being rejected on the grounds of them merely being a magnet for dispute & impossible to do justice to in the space available in the box. This would be my argument at Template_talk:Infobox_caste, when I get round to it. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I have now posted my utterly compelling argument at the template talk page. Well, it is utterly compelling to me, at any rate, but doubtless others will think differently. That is the place for this discussion henceforth. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To caveat: by "this discussion" you mean specifically the infobox portion thereof, yes? That's fine by me, we can cover template chat at the template page. There is still the larger issue of varna classification in the body of the article, and I think Foodie and I are on the same page there, so good positive steps. Again, I think in a lot of cases varna is worth mentioning somewhere in the lede, even if it is just "it's complicated (see below)", and goodness knows plenty of articles love to jam "Kshatriya" into the first sentence. It'll take some tweaking to get words that make all parties happy, but I hope we can agree that varna is: 1) complicated and changing 2) of great interest to readers and with echoing effects even in the modern day 3) sensitive and should be addressed with precision but without censorship or waffling. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Foodie 377. I too am having problems with the word "S*****". Some time ago, there was a proposal to use the word "Dalit" instead of "S*****". Do you think you are OK with it? I understand that it is the word which is supposed to be acceptable in North India and there would seem to be no distaste for that word there.-MangoWong (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Where was that proposal? I hope that you are not referring to something that I said because it most certainly was not a proposal. If you think that it was then you have misread it. Furthermore, we cannot call a community "dalit" without reliable sources to verify that. It is not a synonym. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I have added new section 'Varna status' in the body of the Reddyarticle. Foodie 377 (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
MW, you seem fixated on this "let's compromise and say Dalit instead of Shudra" issue. Is this some joke on your part, or attempt to trick people into agreeing with you so you can turn around and show it as a facetious suggestion? "Dalit" and "Shudra" are not at all the same thing, so I'm having a hard time thinking of some legitimate reason you could be suggesting this. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Telugu help

I'm trying to expand and reference the article List of trade unions in the Singareni coal fields. I'm working on a draft at User:Soman/temp. However, I'm having problems encountering full election results, especially from 1998, 2001 and 2007 (and has any election been held 2011?). Could any Telugu-speaking editor check if there are news reports in Telugu on the election results? Also, to check if SGKS and Singareni Workers Union are one and the same? (I posted a query at WP:RDL) --Soman (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed moves

I have proposed the renaming of a number of Tamil Nadu districts here- minor orthographic changes, but we would need to agree (Crusoe8181 (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)).

Audio for Mamata Banerjee

Someone has asked me for an audio file for the Hindi pronunciation of Mamata Banerjee's name. I'm not able to make such a file - would anyone here be willing to make one? (A file for the Bengali pronunciation would be useful too, but it's specifically the Hindi pronunciation that I've been asked for.) --Zundark (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Titodutta (talk · contribs) might be able to help, if I remember correctly he's uploaded a couple of ogg files for Bengali names. I'm not sure what you mean by Hindi pronunciation, it's a Bengali name -- both first and last names are uniquely Bengali, while the first has a Hindi variant, the latter doesn't. —SpacemanSpiff 12:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually Banerjee isn't very Bangla, it is an English corruption, bangla prefers Bandopadhya and is written বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়. Mamta can be pronounced मोमता / ममता, audio file will depend on whether the speaker is speaking Bangla or Hindi or English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I mean either, but I've pointed the user to this page, and he can ask Titodutta if he wants to. Thanks for your help. --Zundark (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you can upload the Hindi pronunciation of Mamata Banerjee, however the pronunciation of Hindi in that article is incorrect, i guess someone has to correct it. "(Hindi) [mɔːmoːt̪ʰaː bɛːnaːrjiː]", "(Bengali) [mɔːmoːt̪ʰaː bɛːnaːrjiː]" or "(English) /mɑːmtæ ˈbɒnɛə/.--Kkm010* ۩ ۞ 04:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Please respond.--Kkm010* ۩ ۞ 05:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I cannot provide the pronounciations in IPA, but I believe the phonetic pronounciations are:
English: Mum-taa Banner-jee
Hindi:Mum-a-taa Bun-err-jee
Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, I think we can upload the Hindi pron, what you think which one should be uploaded the Hindi or Bengali pron. I know that you can't upload, but other editors can therefore we can request them to upload the original and correct pron.--Kkm010* ۩ ۞ 13:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Please someone respond and try to upload the pronunciation.--Kkm010* ۩ ۞ 13:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Victor Banerjee is scripted as (Hindi: विक्टर बैनर्जीِ). This is a better one than (ममता बनर्जी). -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sreelakshmi Suresh (2nd nomination)

Please provide your feedback on the aforementioned AfD as its getting highly controversial by days. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

LISTS!!!

I hope the discussions on whatever that was above are over. (or at least have lost interest & enthu.) I would hence like to bring to your notice some new things.

& so on.... People can be differentiated based on geographical living (even birth-place; thats dispute too) or the ancestry they belong to (even mother-tongue; thats dispute too) or other various things. As all these differentiations are valid, merger of these pages is not possible. (Especially with Punjabi & Bengali where the scope definitely goes beyond geo-borders.) But i dont think that we should have articles of these listings. They are always untidy, debating, redlinked, no-linked, fan-sites and what not. Wouldnt categories be sufficient for this cause of differentiation??? §Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Now how do i make this controversial so that people reply? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Aurangabad Naher water system second opinion

Trying to copyedit the above page, but the list in the "Naher-E-Ambari" section has been written poorly enough to make me wonder if its in the right place (or if it should even be included). I personally believe that it should be removed, but I would really appreciate a member with a good grasp of English spelling and grammar to look over it and give me a second opinion so I can finish copyediting it. Many thanks. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tried cleaning it. But..aaahh!!! dint understand a thing in that Naher-E-Ambari section. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove it. If anyone has any objections, they can address them either at my talk page or the talk page of the article in question. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

1950 state - Punjab or East Punjab

I found this template:

and there an entry called "Punjab" is included. The article "East Punjab" gives the impression there was a state called East Punjab. What was the first name and when did it change? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan, I have updated the East Punjab page to answer your question and I have also corrected the link in that template from "Punjab" to "East Punjab". Moonraker (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Follow up question at Talk:East Punjab (state). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Place name clean up - move approval requests

Due to recent opposition to me cleaning up the naming in accordance with established consensus, User:SpacemanSpiff reporting me to ANI for doing so, and several other people telling me I am doing something the wrong way, I am now filing moves individually.

Inside Category:Villages in India when scanning two levels below, there are only three articles that use two commas, all the other 10000+ articles use at most one. RM's placed at:

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Inside Category:Villages in India when scanning two levels below, all of the 1000+ articles that use a dab tag attached via comma use the basic place name, when not considering type indicators like taluk or district, capitalized. RM placed at:

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Inside Category:Villages in India when scanning two levels below, I only found "Rajastan" once. This string redirects to Rajasthan, so it might be a variant name. 33 other articles use the variant Rajasthan. RM filed at

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No evidence found that Koonur is located in several "Nalgonda districts". RM filed at:

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No evidence found that anything like "Nalgonda dsitrict" exists while the cat says it is in Nalgonda district. RM filed at:

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

These seven move requests have all been fulfilled. What would have cost me 1-2 min, did cost me more than 15 min. And the admins that performed them and closed the requests probably needed another 5min. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Need comments on Hindu Jatis on discussion going on Talk:Kurmi#Source_for_Shudra Shudra source.

Views about how Wikipedia standards on Reliable Sources are enforced on pages related to Hinduism/Hindu Jatis are also welcome, for it appears to me that these are enforced on Hindu Jatis tightly for to consider reliable sources only, not otherwise.

As also, from my side, I would like to point out how admins have missed it completely, perhaps since last 3/4 months, that these are about Hindu Jatis and are treating the subject as a kind where all standards must be enforced and anyone who insists otherwise is to be treated strictly as per usual Wikipedia norms. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time inside a week that you have called here for input on that thread at Kurmi. At least on the first occasion you worded it fairly neutrally. The above is not. The problem relates entirely to your inability to understand the WP:Five Pillars. Your opinion counts for nothing in an article, and neither does mine. It is all about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTCENSORED etc, as you have been told time and again. Furthermore, as you have also been told time and again, if you do not like this then the correct venue is not that talk page or this talk page but rather WP:DR. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't be tendentious in avoiding to answer why RS is demanded strictly on pages of Hindu Jatis. You yourself has said that WP:Five Pillars are not strictly enforced on topics related religion, but your behavior is different on Hindu vanra.
You, MV and admins have demanded all the standards, and more, on these pages. If you do not like this talk page, don't come complaining. Drop the bone and move on. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I will add this one to the ANI report. Classic! - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I have got it wrong: you ran here about Nair and Thomas, not Kurmi. It is a few weeks since you wasted everyone's time here with your Kurmi POV. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Just drop the bone, dude. Let others respond, too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I've taken the entire issue to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F. This is a general notification: the AN notice refers to a couple of threads on this page & it will take me forever to work out each individual who should be notified. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Or you could have let people give comments on this discussion here.

I guess the comments about whether RS criteria should be strictly enforced for Hindu Jatis page, including legends, referring Puranas, etc. could be commented here or there then. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. You really can be obtuse sometimes. The issue at AN is your general behaviour. If someone wants to respond to your query at the start of this thread then, of course, this is the place to do it, not AN. Why you said what you did at AN is beyond me: I didn't take this thread there, I merely mentioned it. BTW, do you know what "drop the bone" and "tendentious" mean? Your first usages of it in this thread makes me suspect that you do not. No big deal, except using words and phrases about editors when you do not understand those words/phrases can cause problems. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
whether RS criteria should be strictly enforced for Hindu Jatis page - Why would RS criteria not be enforced on jatis? Again, nobody is attempting to remove mentions of the Puranas from articles; what we are removing is WP:OR which attempts to draw on the Puranas. If you have an RS which says "according to the Puranas the Fooian caste used to be kings", that's great, cite it to the RS. Instead, we've got editors saying "Hey, I looked in the Puranas and there's a Phooian caste who was kings, and that's spelled really close to Fooian, so we can assume they're the same thing, so I'm adding kings to the article and citing Chapter 8 Verse 5 of the Puranas." The former is fine, the latter is WP:OR. Would you not agree? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The other problem with these ancient texts is that they are nowadays considered to be very poor as historical documents. Although they may have a place in an article connected directly to Hinduism to explain a myth/legend/belief etc, they should not be relied on for any other India-related articles (except for articles about the texts themselves, of course). The only exception I can see to this is if it is explicitly pointed out that they are unreliable for time, place, names etc & that many (perhaps all) of them were written in extreme systems of patronage ... and if we mention all this then one has to question why we're using them at all. I have corrected similar failings in the past with regard to, say, Megasthenes: he has been quite badly misrepresented on at least a few India-related articles because people have not taken the time properly to evaluate what the guy said. (Some of his placenaming is equally suspect, for example). - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I have read someone recently who claims that Kalhana's 12th C work is the only ancient text from India that can be relied upon for anything much. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You all are judging what others have done, which is not job of editors on Wikipedia. You have gone at length to justify why to avoid legends/beliefs which is somehow not mentioned as job of editors on Wikipedia. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to me or MatthewVanitas? What exactly is your point? It is extremely cryptic. If you are referring to me then I can provide you with quotes for the unreliability etc if you want, but it has generally been accepted as being the case on articles I have worked on. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop personal attacks like "It is a few weeks since you wasted everyone's time here with your Kurmi POV."???. It is nothing more than disgusting to me. He did not waste my time. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, TT has been banned from editing India-related articles for three weeks. But if they helped you out then that's great, for you. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


varņa means class. There are 4 classes, brāhmaņa, kśatriya, vaiśya and śūdra. One makes a choice ("vŗņoti"), based on one's aptitude (guņa) and work (karma), as to which class (varņa) one would belong to. I don't know what śūdra means, but it is said that [everyone] is born a śūdra by birth (janmanā jāyate śūdrah) and becomes a twice-born (dvija) [brāhmaņa, kśatriya or vaiśya] by culture (samskāra) [education and training] (samskārāt dvija ucyate). To the best of my knowledge the Shāstras do not talk about jāti per se. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Invite to WikiConference India 2011

- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiConference India 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi, Noticeboard for India-related topics, The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011.
Official website Facebook event 100 day long WikiOutreach Scholarship form

As you are part of WP:IND community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience.Thank you for your contributions.

We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011

Rajasthan map required

I have been trying to find a suitable map that shows Rajasthan/Rajputana in relation to the Mughal and Maratha territories around the time of James Tod. Even better would be a free use version of Tod's own map of central India. Can't find anything that suits - suggestions welcome. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added maps here and here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I did not realise that they were your uploads but had seen them previously. One of those would suffice but I was hoping to find something a bit more specific, especially since Tod's map of "Central India" was finalised in 1815 or thereabouts & so is well out of copyright. I have seen a version of Tod's map in a GBooks view but cannot screenshot the thing because the viewport limits how much of it is available. If nothing else turns up then one of those which you linked to will be better than nothing at all. - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Odisha map

While on maps, if anyone can move the Commons file pushpin map File:Orissa locator map.svg to File:Odisha locator map.svg this should now allow the state to be named Odisha in infobox and a pushpin map to appear (I've done the rest, I think, see Hinjilicut et al, just not sure how to copy the map) (Crusoe8181 (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).

Difference between Mannadiyar‎ and Mannadiar in Kerala?

At the article Mannadiar, a new-reg came in, blanked the article and put in a new one (content appears to be summarised, poorly, from some kind of anthro source) about a clan in the Palakkad area. The other editor restored the article, and the article has a blurb mentioning "not the same as the Palakkad Mannadiyar clan". I can't quite tell if these are really two different groups which have a very similar name, the same group and the fighting is just a content fork or what.

If anyone has a better grasp on Kerala social groups, input here would be cool. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mannadiar - [21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.236.65 (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo for misri (anyone got sugar cakes in their kitchen?)

The article misri (apparently cakes of sugar crystals) has no pic; does anyone here have this stuff just sitting on their kitchen table at the moment, and can upload a pic? Just seems an easy thing to find a pic for amongst the Indian editors. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I always though that Misri was just crystalline sugar in larger size. But the page added some mystery now. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Dabba kali

This NYT article mentions "Dabba Kali" - A children's game in India. It says that there are few sources about it, but many people play it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/media/a-push-to-redefine-knowledge-at-wikipedia.html?_r=1&ref=noamcohen

So, would anyone have any idea on what sources out there talk about it? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Lagori is same as "Dabba kali" and it is known also by the name "seven stones". Here is a source [22]. I believe there are phd thesis that cover this game in Tamil Nadu, but i am not sure.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

History of Indian cuisine

An user moved this page without any discussion. I think this move is unfair. They should have left this page as such. They should create a new page for the region if they feel the need. ThanksShyamsunder (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ever since they moved the page I have am not able to find Indian food in my city. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.48.10 (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I thought I would inform Indian Wikipedians about this candidate at Featured pictures since this is in the scope of WikiProject India. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Last names and verifiability

Is it reasonable to assume that possession of a last name, such as Menon or Pillai, is sufficient to establish that person to be a Nair per WP:V? What about when the last names are even Nair or Nayar? I am a bit reluctant to make this sort assumption but other people may differ. The same issue applies, obviously, to numerous other communities. I am aware that there have been surveys showing that, for example, 72% of respondents would not countenance marriage outside their own community but that still leaves 28% who were presumably ok about it or at least had no strong opinion on the matter. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bump. This issue potentially affects dozens of lists of allegedly notable people across the various Indian castes/communities. I feel that it really does need some sort of community input, especially since in many cases the people concerned are still alive and therefore it is at least potentially a WP:BLP violation. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Healthcare in India

Please see here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So called " Dominion of " India

The following is an extract from the Indian Independence Act 1947:

[Section]1.-(i) As from the fifteenth day of August, ninteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.

The following are a sample (sample only) of the many treaties during the period that India was a Dominion. In none is India described as the "Dominion of India":

There is no dispute but that India was indeed a Dominion between 1947 and 1949. However, it is abundantly clear that both its common name and its official name was never the "Dominion of India" although that term was used sometimes. Accordingly the article called "Dominion of India" should be moved to something more appropriate e.g. "India (Dominion)" and the article revised accordingly. I want to raise this here so as to (i) reach consensus as to the facts; (ii) agree where the article should be moved. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Indian state between 1947 and 1950 has been refereed to as "Dominion of India" in many official documents and in secondary sources. Check the jammu and kashmir Instrument of Accession, it clearly uses the term ""dominion of india". Other instruments of accessions signed by various princely states also use the term (they declare they are acceding to "dominion of india"). Here is a UN document from the 47-50 period which uses "dominion of india". The indian Constituent Assembly called itself the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India. So i dont think a move is necessary. The current title is fine--Sodabottle (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The current indian constitution itself refers to the predecessor state as "Dominion of India" in multiple places. (check out Article 370's text)--Sodabottle (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Sodabottle, Taking each of your statements in turn:
  • "The Indian state between 1947 and 1950 has been refereed to as "Dominion of India" in many official documents". No one has denied that. But I deny that it was ever the common name. That is critical. Also, very clearly, the term "Dominion of India" was not used in many, many official documents - far more - e.g. the fundamental source (the Indian Independence Act) and all Treaties lodged with the United Nations.
  • Re. the "Instrument of Accession of Jamu and Kashmir" which you point to - read the very first lines - The expressly state that from 15 August 1947, there would be a new dominion to be known as "India" (not "Dominion of India") quoting the wording of the Indian Independence Act itself. The fact that the term Dominon of India is also used does not take from the fact that the Instrument itself sets out expressly how the Indian Independence Act itself determined how the new Dominion would be named.
  • The fact that the Constitution includes reference to "Dominion of India" does not add one bit to whether or not that term was the common name (it clearly was not the official name - as per the Indian Independence Act) during the short era of the Indian Dominion.
  • In summary - (1) You have not disputed that "India" (not "Dominion of India") was the official name of the Dominion; and (2) You have not shown that "Dominion of India" was the common name used for the country during the short period that it was a Dominion. Given the article is wrongly located because (1) it suggests (wrongly) that Dominion of India was the common name for the country at the time; and (2) the information on the article itself suggests that "Dominion of India" was the official name of the Dominion which it wasn't. I would welcome the views of other editors too. NelsonSudan (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The notion tha the use of the term "Dominion of India" in the present date constitution in some way reflects that the common or official name of the Indian dominion went by that name is further undermined by this exchange in the Indian parliament:

Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, is it very necessary to say "the Government of the Dominion of India ?" Is it not enough to say "the Government of India?" Mr. President : There is a confusion. The Government of India means. also the Government of India under the new Constitution, but the Government of the Dominion of India means the Government which was in power before the commencement of the Constitution. I think it is to avoid that confusion that this amendment is brought in. - Source [23]

Its very clear that the use of the term in the Constitution was intended merely as a convenience to avoid confusion between the "old dominion" India and the new India....NelsonSudan (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Which WP policies say it is required to not use a name that was used in official documents but in itself was not official? Which WP policies say it is required to not use a name that was a commonly used name in official documents and that was especially used to distinguish it from another object (India), but maybe was not a WP:COMMON name in the past? Regarding the example "India (Dominion)", WP:MoS would require "India (dominion)". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re. 1 - "Which WP policies say it is required to not use a name that was used in official documents but in itself was not official?" There is no such requirement. The requirement is that the common name be used. The common name was "India", not Dominion of India.
Re. 2 - "Which WP policies say it is required to not use a name that was a commonly used name in official documents and that was especially used to distinguish it from another object (India), but maybe was not a WP:COMMON name in the past?" This is more or less the same question as 1; the requirement is that we use THE common name. THE common name was "India", not "Dominion of India".
Regarding - "India (Dominion)", WP:MoS would require "India (dominion)" - Either sounds fine to me; if you think the latter is preferable, that's fine by me.
Separately, more light on the origins of the use of the term "Dominion of India" in the present day Constitution is again apparent from the foollowing (it does not add much beyond what I have quoted already above but thought I would add it in for completeness):

"Article 270

Mr. President: Then we go to article 270.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:

"That in article 270, the words 'the Dominion of' be deleted."

The word 'Dominion' is applicable to India as it is constituted today. In the new set-up of things which is being drawn by this Consititution the word 'Dominion' or the idea of any Dominion would be repugnant to our Constitution. That is why I have sought the deletion of this. If the deletion is accepted the passage will run thus namely "the Government of India" and not" the Government of the Dominion of India".

(Amendment No. 2976 was not moved.)

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That with reference to amendments Nos. 2975 and 2976 of the List of Amendments, in article 270, for the words 'assets and liabilities' the words 'assests, liabilities and obligations' be substituted."

Now, as regards the amendment moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, may I say that he has evidently forgotten that we are using the words "Government of India" to indicate the Government that will come into existence under the new Constitution, while the "Government of the Dominion of India" is a term which is being used to indicate the Government at the present moment? Consequently, if his amendment is accepted is accepted it would mean that the Government of India is succeeding to the liabilities, obligations and assests of the Government of India. It would make absurd reading. Therefore the words as they are there are very appropriate and ought to be retained."

Thanks. NelsonSudan (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The Indian government referred to the "Dominion of India" as the "Union of India" during the period 1947 to 50. In fact, the page use to be at Union of India, but it was moved to Dominion of India a few years ago. On the whole, "Dominion of India" is a less POV title. The reason for this is that in 1947, the "Union of India" was a reference to the Federal Union envisaged by the British Cabinet Mission of 1946, which would have included both Pakistan and Hindustan, and was Britain's last attempt to keep India united. By calling its part of undivided India, the Union of India, the Congress kept alive the POV that the partition was not a division of undivided India, but rather a secession of Pakistan from the Union, and also that if Pakistan didn't pan out, it could return to the Union. You can read about it, for example, in Bose and Jalal's Modern South Asia. So, I guess, I wouldn't change the current page name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, the book does seem interesting, but I don't think this was needed here. Someone would put forth a counter point and will take the discussion further away from subject. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my questions above and the reply by Nelson, I like to ask this: Is there a WP policy requiring using a past common name? I.e. can't we choose a common name as of today? What is the common name of "India (dominion)" today? I think there is some freedom in the titles applied. "India (dominion)" is not something one would use in speech, but Dominion of India is and it is also documented that this was used in the past. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fowler&fowler - Honestly speaking, it sounded like you knew what you were talking about which is good.....But, here we are concerned with much simpler questions. As I read it the questions are (1) what was the common name of the Indian dominion - was it "Dominion of India" (as the current article would have the reader believe) or was it "Union of India" or was it simply "India" (as I believe was the case). We simply have to determined on that front what was the common name of the country at that time?; (2) we also need to agree on what was the official name of the dominion. So far, I think every one has agreed that "Dominion of India" was not its official name.............Rather it was simply "India". Fowler&fowler - Do you take any view on these specific rather narrow questions?
Re. "can't we choose a common name as of today" (User Bogdan Nagachop) - It is a fair question....and I am open to the views of others.........But, I do not disagree with this approach...............Ultimately, it would leave a very misleading article. It would give the reader the impression that "Dominion of India" was the common and/or official name of the dominion at that time...........when it was neither! That to me is fundamental. Accuracy and quality of information....not mere convenience (i.e. ease of distinguishing present day India from its dominion predecessor...). The basic WP rules are on determining what is the Common Name....Well, it was certainly "India" during the period...But of course, today, when is that India referred to....Most often, I suspect, in the context of distinguishing it from present day India....But I think "India (dominion)" does just that without the negatives of misleading the reader as to basic facts....like the common name and official name of the dominion in question. NelsonSudan (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The topics on India related articles are treated with utmost care, as can be seen here No consensus that Bharat is English name of India, RFC on the same. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I am glad that "[t]he topics on India related articles are treated with utmost care". Do you have any view on my proposal that the "Dominion of India" article be moved to "India (dominion)"? All views (and reasonings welcome). NelsonSudan (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
For me, the choice is between Union of India, Indian Union, and Dominion of India, all three of which are names which were used for the dominion at the time and which are still used for it. Both Union of India and Dominion of India have been used for the name of the WP article, although Fowler&fowler is wrong on the history of the name (please see Talk:Dominion of India for the name changes in 2008 and 2011). The present Indian constitution still refers to the sovereign country as the "Union of India", I think in defining certain legal jurisdictions, so I am inclined to avoid that name. I see no harm in the present title. I agree that it was not widely used as the name of India, which was mostly called just "India", but the same is true of all of the other Wikipedia page names covering different periods. For purposes of disambiguation, Dominion of India seems to work well. Moonraker (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Re Moonraker - "For me, the choice is between Union of India, Indian Union, and Dominion of India, all three of which are names which were used for the dominion at the time and which are still used for it." Wasn't "India" both the most common name and the only official name? Why do you not even consider it as the appropriate name?
Re "I see no harm in the present title. - I agree that it was not widely used as the name of India," So you agree it was not the Common Name? And you agree it was not the official name....So do you not think it is pretty misleading to have the article titled that way? I really don't know how you can be happy with it as a name for the article.
Re "For purposes of disambiguation, Dominion of India seems to work well...." If its just about Disambiguation...why not use the titled suggestd above..."Inida (dominion)"? The only reason you have given for keeping the present article name is Disambiguation....ignoring the fact it was not the common name or the official name....Rather odd, I'd say..Sorry, Am a bit disappointed with the level of reasoning here. NelsonSudan (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, "India" was the most common name, but it was not the "only official name", as the word "India" has had so many meanings. All kinds of official documents, just like Wikipedia today, needed to disambiguate between the different meanings of "India", which is how "Indian Union", "Union of India" and "Dominion of India" came into being. With regard to "India (dominion)", it seems very unlikely that it was ever used as a name. If there is no objection to using the word "dominion" in the page name, then it's merely a question of word order, and to me a name which was and is used is preferable to one which (so far as I know) never was. Moonraker (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Re. "Yes, indeed, "India" was the most common name, but it was not the "only official name"" I have provided a source, the Indian Independence Act to show that "India" was THE (i.e. only) official name). Please could you provide a source for your claim there was somehow more than one official legal name? That seems the very least you could do. Mere use of different terms to describe a country is not enough.........I want you to point out a law saying that the official name of the country was "Dominion of India" or anything other than "India". Separately, no one is suggesting "India (dominion)" was the name used....Obviously the word in brackets is clearly used as a DAB reference...disambiguation....disambiguating it from the India article (which is about the present day Indian state). Just look at Georgia (country) and Georgia (state) as examples. Does any one seriously suggest the word in brackets is being suggested as a formal part of the name? Of course not. NelsonSudan (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting so little input I feel like the only interested editor. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the correct disambiguator is already in use. Clearly, we can't just use India, even if it was the sole official name. Since Dominion of India is clearly already in use as a disambiguator by reliable sources, I don't see why we shouldn't use it as well. --rgpk (comment) 10:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a pretty stupid post in my opinion given that what is proposed is "India (dominion)". The disambiguator is "(dominion)"...just like "Georgia (country)" and a million other articles on WP. Any one with more thoughtful input? NelsonSudan (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the official name of India 1947-1950 was indeed the "Dominion of India"

here's a Treaty of Friendship between India and Switzerland, dated 14th August 1948: http://www.indiaswitzerland.in/jubilee/index.php?link_id=98&parent_id=87&type=general, or to give it it's full title: "TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND ESTABLISHMENT BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND AND OF THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, ON BEHALF OF THE DOMINION OF INDIA, AND THE SWISS CONFEDERATION"

-the term 'Dominion of India' is used extensively: "on behalf of the Dominion of India", Article 1:"There shall be perpetual peace and unalterable friendship between the Dominion of India and Switzerland." Final protocol: "...between His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, on behalf of the Dominion of India", "may in future accede to the Dominion of India", "which secure in the Dominion of India", "preferences which the Dominion of India accords"JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

-also lookee here: http://www.archontology.org/nations/india/01_polity.php -HOWEVER I do agree however that the 'dominion' articles for Pakistan (which was NOT called the 'Dominion of Pakistan' except in very occasional; sporadic official use) and also Ceylon (whose official name was 'Island of Ceylon', not 'Dominion of Ceylon') should be moved.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have removed the banner from the article page linking to this discussion. (1) Move requests need to go through process at WP:RM, not a discussion on the project page, (2) the initiator is blocked as a sock, (3) even ignoring the other two issues, there isn't any support for the proposal. This doesn't preclude anyone interested from opening a proper move request on the article talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 11:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu village bot

We have a new user User:Jenakarthik running a bot to create Tamil Nadu village articles. See [24]. The user has been advised to get bot approval. I would like to get this to attention of the India project members. The reference that is given for the demographics, Voiceofbharat.org sounds dubious to me. Thoughts? Kattunaval is an example. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

1) I see he has already asked for bot approval in the relevant page. (Jenakarthik is a trusted user in Tamil Wikipedia and he does good work there. So i believe he wont do anything bad here). 2) The Voice of Bharat site seems to get its data from the 2001 census site. I cross checked for four different village articles and it matches the census data. Probably we can advice Karthik to use the census site directly instead of using voiceofbharat.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
VoiceofBharat appears to be right, but it's not an RS, so he would be better off running this off the Census site. I don't know how he's running the bot, but there are some other issues we've had with bot creation of these articles before -- multiple articles on the same village etc (by the same bot in at least one case), so I'll comment on the BRFA page. BTW, Ganeshk -- As we have both your and Tinu's bots for this purpose, is there a need for another one? —SpacemanSpiff 05:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Sodabottle, Thanks for the info. He just needs to get familiar with the bot approval process here.
SpacemanSpiff, I currently do not have the bandwidth to run a village bot. I am not sure Tinu is acitvely creating these either. So if others pitch in, that's great. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
A request for bot approval is now open. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sher Bahadur Singh

I created an article about Sher Bahadur Singh, a member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. It might be worthwhile for someone or a bot to create stubs for all the current and past members of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council, since they are automatically notable as members of a state legislature, in both the Hindi and English Wikipedias. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that lists all of them that could at least verify their names, political affiliations, and times in office? We would need that minimum amount of (verified) information in order to make a sub-stub. A bot, or bot-like edits (like script-assisted article creation) would require approval at WP:BAG. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The official Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly site at http://uplegisassembly.gov.in is mostly in Hindi, but has some English text. This list (15th LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PARTYWISE MEMBERS LIST ACCORDING TO DATED 13th MAY, 2011) from the official site is in Hindi. I could not find an English-language list on the Legislative Assembly's site. Perhaps the website of an English-language newspaper in Uttar Pradesh might have information on members of the state's legislature.
As for the other states, the information ought to be available on each state legislature's website. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nazeer Akbarabadi

Please check the signature of Nazeer Akbarabadi in his biographical article - it is just a print of the name and not signature. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Kolkata to Calcutta move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kolkata#Requesting_move.2C_again. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Zuggernaut (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying; though I believe Omer123hussain is operating in good faith, he must be informed clearly I guess. Lynch7 13:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Two Requested moves

I kindly request editors to comment on two similar, but very distinct RMs here and here. Do note that the situations in both the requests are quite different, and bears resemblance to the recent RM on Gandhi. Lynch7 14:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

make it four. Not only those: Talk:Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi#reqmovetag and Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#reqmovetag. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Adopt-an-article

Can we put up Adopt-an-Article as WP:POST in WP:IND --naveenpf (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I support this idea since WP:POST has high visibility. All we need to do is contact the editors. --Jovian Eye storm 11:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasa shastra

This article (Rasa shastra) is in desperate need of some help from somebody whose understanding of the source material and access to sources is better than mine. Some earlier versions in the history had rather promotional souding supernatural and medical claims, and these drew attention. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Map of India, the WikiIndia meet, etc

The map of India that Wikipedia shows is illegal in India. Wiki-India will be held in Mumbai which is in India, and where Indian laws hold jurisdiction. What will be done so that laws are not broken? The outreach programme etc also mentions books, cds, and other offline material. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  • The relevant act for reference The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961, Act No 23 of 1961, section 1.2.2: Questioning the territorial integrity or frontiers of India in a manner prejudicial to the interests of safety and security of India (1)Whoever by words either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation or otherwise, questions the territorial integrity or frontiers of India in a manner which is , or is likely to be, prejudicial to the interests of the safety or security of India, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.(1.2)Whoever publishes a map of India, which is not in conformity with the maps of India as published by the Survey of India, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may be extended to six months, or with fine, or with both.[25]
The map etc is not hosted in India but in the US. Why should this be a problem? Plenty of authors in India use the shudra word even though, allegedly, it is illegal so I really doubt that anyone is going to kick up a fuss about a map or two. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not a simple matter of fussing about a map or two. This is a matter of Sovereign India and it's map. All it may take to get a great fuss is to file a Public Interest Litigation in any Indian court. Both the Shudra stuff and Indian map has the potential to land people behind bars. I hope it don't get into any issues as I have used the word to answer a few questions. One more thing, to file a PIL it takes just 6£ or 10$. That's it. Propagating a wrong map of India by an Indian amounts to treason. So I hope anyone with knowledge of Indian laws can pitch in. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Which people? It must be awful living in such a censored state. - Sitush (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Nameisnotimportant, I strongly recommend that you do not imply that any actions taken on Wikipedia may result in criminal charges, as that is very close to being a legal threat, which is strictly prohibited by WP:NLT. I know, you don't mean that you are personally threatening, but time and time again it has been held on WP:ANI that even if one is not personally threatening legal action, implying that others may do so has the same chilling effect, and is thus also not allowed.
Again, though, following up with what Sitush said, Wikipedia is not in any way bound by Indian laws, or German laws, or the laws of any country or state other than those of Florida, USA (since that's where our servers are located). Now, it may well be that editors who live in India who make edits that are in violation of Indian laws may be subject to prosecution, but that is up to India nationals to be aware of and take into account. Personally, I edit from Japan, which means that any edit I make is subject only to the laws of Japan. So, yes, an editor in India should be sure that they comply with all local laws--Wikipedia would never recommend otherwise. But its no different than the fact that editors outside of the UK can legally report on things covered by UK super-injunctions, even though UK editors might (possibly) face legal difficulty for doing so. This is a common misunderstanding on the internet--just because what I say may be illegal in your country doesn't mean that I am actually in any legal danger for doing so from my country.
As a side note, I feel like this conversation is somehow in the middle of something else; was there some prior discussion about a map somewhere that I missed? I mean, I would imagine that the issue involves Kashmir, but I'm just curious what exactly is the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwryxian, see Q1 on Talk:India/FAQ. The issue in question relates to depiction of disputed territories on the map that is used as the base map for all the maps in use here. For example, commons:File:India-locator-map-blank.svg. See this commons template for additional information. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
That is useful general info, Ganeshk. Thanks for taking the time to illustrate it. I was aware that Kashmir was not the only territorial dispute but did not realise that there were quite so many. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I figured it had to do with disputed territories in some way or another. Well, if editors who live in India are worried that edits they undertake may be illegal, they are advised to consult a lawyer in their jurisdiction, and edit accordingly. However, the issue should not be raised on Wikipedia any further, because doing so has a chilling effect prevented by WP:NLT. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, but since Yogesh Khandke was able to provide an excerpt from the relevant law for depiction of disputed territories etc, can anyone do the same for the shudra issue? I ask not specifically from a legal angle but rather because I struggle to reconcile the claims regarding it with what appears to be happening on the ground, eg: umpteen publishers based in India that use the word. Is it one of those murky areas of law that has so many sub-clauses etc that they give barrack-room lawyers a field day? There is at least one regular contributor to India-related articles/talk pages who prefers not to type the word in full, perhaps out of some sort of fear of prosecution. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea spaceman. as long as we wikipedians restrict our activities to online editing of a website hosted in florida I doubt anybody would notice. when you have meetings , especially if you are planning to distribute any stuff offline the line between what is acceptable gets murkier. Mumbai is home base of the likes of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. To assume that what is considered acceptable in different countries should follow WP policy on WP:NOTCENSORED is not prudent. hopefully Sodabottle/Ganeshk can shed some light if this has been discussed or something has already been done. I ask this as I might be in India that time and may be able to attend but obviously would not want to break any local laws.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
To clarify -- I'm not commenting on the content, the point raised by Planemad and Sodabottle in that discussion was that Indian editors who use those maps could be held liable and that was what I presume was being asked of the counsel. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff, I am not involved in the chapter. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Ganeshk, I was thinking of Sundar and for whatever reason I wrote your name! —SpacemanSpiff 06:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanx for the clarification spaceman. yes that is exactly the same concern I have. Indian editors or people temporarily under Indian jurisdiction - could they be held liable on the map issue ?? I am sure if we ask the legal counsel of wikipedia they would say that all editors are expected to respect local laws they are subject to. It would really help if this was clarified for the benefit of all attendees. could we request someone with more expertise to comment here ?--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A small clarification - I am not involved with the chapter. Some months back i raised the issue in the WM India public mailing list. There was talk of getting legal advice but i dont know what happened after that.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the Wikimedia Chapter in India has to do with this or even can do with this. We are very clear that we have no control over the contents of Wikipedia/Commons and it would be appropriate to direct queries on this to the Foundation. Reference. Gkjohn (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

are you suggesting that we show that link to the cops if they come knocking at the meeting.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess he suggests cops cannot knock the door of the Chapter.The problem is if Chapter entertains this today, then there will be gazzilion letter pad parties / caste organizations will take legal route to modify /taking onver content control and its not best. I agree morally Chapter has to stand by for rights of community, but till it gets enough money to hire legal advisors and strength to fight cases, it must take no control on content stand. Srikanth (Logic) 16:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that would be a disaster considering the myriad conflicts on those issues. my concerns were specifically about the upcoming meeting where real people are going to be there at a well publicized venue[26] not just anonymous editors. I also wonder if this issue has been raised in the past and we could get some guidance by looking at what was done there. certainly India is not the only country with censorship and nationalistic laws.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikireader41, let me reiterate what Qwyrxian was saying. Your comment is a borderline legal threat. This page is not the right venue for the guidance that you are looking for. The people watching this page are not qualified to provide answers to legal issues. Please contact the Wikimedia foundation for answers. — Ganeshk (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
@GaneshK. Thanx for your answer. It was not my intention to make any legal threats and like I said I myself would like to attend the meeting without any fear or apprehension. I do appreciate your guidance regarding contacting wikimedia since I agree it does not seem anybody else has much to say on the issue. Cheers.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That this real and important problem has been brought up is in itself a good thing. Ideally it should have been addressed by now but it is difficult to see whether the Wikipedia community of editors is capable of addressing this and other similar issues. The reason for this is well known - the Wikipedia community is hardly a cross-section of the society. It is mainly made up of urban elite who are closer to their teenage years than to middle age or even the 30s and 40s. At the same time it is unlikely that external organisations or institutions like the ones pointed out above are going to take up the issue right now. As Wikipedia attracts more of the same type of editors, things may become worse before they improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.30.21 (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to as User:Mdennis (WMF), a.k.a. User:Moonriddengirl who is the Community Liason--that is, her job (she's an actual, temporary employee of WMF) is to discuss issues with the Foundation that the community raises. I'll point her here and then see if this is something she can discuss with them at some point in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
good idea Qwyrxian. specific issue I would like addressed is what mechanisms if any has WMF put in place to protect, support and encourage contributors who by their editing according to wp policies of WP:NPOV & WP:NOTCENSORED may run afoul of local laws in their jurisdiction. Again I would be interested in this in context of the upcoming meeting in Mumbai where real people identify themselves as wikipedia contributors. are we going to be given the generic advice to consult our own lawyers or does WMF have a stand on this issue ? Thanx.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
A few queries:
  1. Where can we find the agenda for this event?
  2. Will the issue of systemic bias as documented in NOV FAQ be addressed?
  3. Will the foundation announce initiatives or assign dollars to help minimize the causes that lead to systemic bias as listed in the essay on WP:systemic bias (as opposed to awarding "scholarships" for editors so they can travel internationally? Zuggernaut (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A follow-up to the original concern about potential legal liability for people going to the Indian meet-up): Community liason MDennis checked with the Foundation, and, unfortunately, they have no helpful information. You can see their actual reply at User Talk:Mdennis (WMF)#Question regarding India from some Chapter members. Sorry that that doesn't can't give you all any more piece of mind. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I've missed this discussion. I have issues of the American magazine The National Geographic Magazine with me. In maps published by the journal, Kashmir is, indeed, shown as a disputed region. But in issues which have been sold in India, the maps have a seal stating that "the boundaries of India as depicted in the map are not accurate".-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 05:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
If this link helps you people, you are welcome!
http://india.gov.in/outerwin.php?id=http://www.censusindiamaps.net/IndiaCensus_Gif_Ver/jammukashmir.htm
-Animeshkulkarni (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Even this link here shows areas of few districts as ZERO -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_46&oldid=1243927413"