Lubbock, Texas

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Do you need the Indic name(s) of something or somebody? Post a request for it.
Click here to add a new section

FAR listing

Kargil War has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

WP:Indian Roads and Transport

In lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads , I propose to start WP:Indian Roads and Transport, a workgroup of WP:INDIA. Thoughts ? Any one interested ?
This will be a common workgroup for Indian roads, highways, transport, railways , transportation in India etc -- Tinu Cherian - 07:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a need, especially since that roads infobox sucks because it is sooo US-centric. I also propose splitting them up. Since I've been rating articles recently, I propose some more workgroups:

1. Transport (buses, railways (root level), autos etc)
2. Roads (covers all roads, lanes, highways -- separate infobox needed)
3. Railways (Indian railways, local suburban railways)
4. Media
5. Law (cases, laws, courts etc.)
6. Government (this will be on government departments and functioning as opposed to politics)
7. Companies (deals with organizations)
8. finance (deals with financial aspects: budget, commerce, economy, banking etc.)
9. education
10. military

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I like the idea of breaking roads away from transport in general. That way, other important roads like Janpath, Rajpath, Willingdon Crescent, Anna Salai etc, which are sort of transport independent since they are historic, will all come under the project. We could, like the US version, break roads into national, state highways, local roads, and historic roads (down the, er, road, of course). --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 16:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the sound of the proposal but why not just WP:Indian Transport to begin with? Once this grows then it would be sensible to create further task forces such as roads or railways The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with merging roads and transport, but railways definitely needs to be fleshed out. The scope of railways covers ~8,000 railways stations alone. In addition, I am interested in using Wikipedia:Route diagram template for key routes. It's worth an investigation how to apply it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the size of India even a project on Indian railways is massive one in scope so I'm all for it, providing there are enough editors to sustain it in the long term. Good luck with that The Bald One ^{White cat} 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the proposal of roads and transport (and railways) being a separate taskforce - I don't think the remainder in Nichalp's list necessarily belongs in that category/workgroup. My view anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the state workgroups, spliting of other areas will have a serious problem,which is finding enough people of sustaining it. Even for the new state specific workgroups which we started recently, we havent been able to find enough active editors to work on them yet inspite of the huge popularity of WP in India.Think of this , I agree Roads and Railways are bigger topics by itself. How many articles do you think will come under Transport in India alone ( excluding Roads and Railways ) ? 50 ? 100 ? Not more... Therefore I am for Roads and Transport together, hopefully railways also in. IMO we can start with WP:Indian Roads and Transport ( which includes Railways , Rapid Transit and Metro Rails ). If it grows substantially in future and could gather enough interest , I dont see a problem splitting them ... I dont have stanch opinions on this.Thoughts ? -- Tinu Cherian -

My bad, I think my earlier note is too confusing. I meant to say that I want roads/transport/railways as one workgroup, separate from the others on media, finance etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not really splitting rather, parallel coexistence. Powai Lake can be tagged under both geography and mumbai. From my observation, the Indian noticeboard has been active since 2005, but there are very few regular active editors. Some of out best users have been lost to inactivity, and others have not signed up to WP India. Also by having task forces, it would be easier to determine the priority of select articles. For example, K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra might be a low priority India article, but a top priority law article. So, waiting for a quorum to start a taskforce would might actually be counter productive. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What about ?

1. Transport + Roads + Railways ( The reason I see is that they are all under Transport in India )
2. Media and Communications
3. Government and Law ( minus Politics)
4. Companies (deals with organizations)
5. finance (deals with financial aspects: budget, commerce, economy, banking etc.)
6. education ( schools, colleges , universities)
7. military ( we already have this)

-- Tinu Cherian - 08:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Folks, What about ?

1. Roads + Transport
2. Railways
3. Media and Communications
4. Government and Law ( minus Politics)
5. Companies (deals with organizations)
6. finance (deals with financial aspects: budget, commerce, economy, banking etc.)
7. education ( schools, colleges , universities)

-- Tinu Cherian - 08:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

On the main page for wrong reasons

There's wayyy too much bad news on the main page regarding India these days. I hope everyone's near and dear ones are fine. — Lost^(talk) 15:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, Lost. Yes indeed , it seems that we are going throug bad times. Hope we will have some good news to post soon :-). --Deepak D'Souza 04:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Labh Singh

Hello Indian Wikipedians.

If you see my last edit I replaced the names Khalistan with India. This is because there's no country called "Khalistan" and Punjab stated there are today in India. Although many Sikhs fought for "Khalistan" there's no such thing as a land called that, or there has never been. Moreover the flag next to it is an Indian flag. These people will just revert my edits and I'm new here. Can you please help? There's misinformation in Wikipedia. Any unfamiliar reader would think where's Khalistan. It's only a conceptualized state. Please look into it. Thx. 218.111.28.100 (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this into notice. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Call for Bigg Boss (Season 2)

Hi there. I would like to call for attention of all interested parties towards the article for Bigg Boss (Season 2) show, which is essentially an Indian remake of the international Big Brother (UK) format of reality shows. The article has been put into some shape and size (cf here) recently. However, in interest of quality content it could surely use some help from experienced editors and/or regular followers of the show. The wiki entry on the previous season Bigg Boss (Season 1) doesn't seem to help much, and surely doesn't set a benchmark, rather the vice versa may be true.

The article has been identified to be part of Big Brother WikiProject where it has been rated as High-importance on its assessment scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.225.17 (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement - Hindustan Ambassador

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:IMGP0134.JPG, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we do have several free replacements. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox template issue

I noticed that on Talk:Anant_Pai the template's "An appropriate infobox needs to be added to this article, or the current infobox needs to be updated. Please refer to the list of India-related infoboxes for further information." tag does not "nest" itself with the rest of the infobox. This may need to be fixed. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Indo-Islamic world relations

Based on the various "Indo-other states relations" pages, I was wondering if anyone thought having an article India's relations with the Muslim world would be a good idea? I wrote a paper in school once about this. We can easily cover the Arab World, Central Asia and South East Asia. Then sub-saharan Africa can come up, and perhaps Albania/Bosnia at some point too.

As for the title what would be more appropriate "Indo-Islamic world realtions" or "Indo-Muslim world realtions"? Or perhaps "Relations between India and the Islamic world," or something to that effect? Lihaas (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this already discussed? I think Indo-Muslim world relations is a poor choice of a title. We don't have Indo-Christian (Armenia, Vatican) or Indo-Judaism (Israel), so why Indo-Islamic? Instead, Indo-OIC might be more objective. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly it was and I think Lihas want's someone to take up the job. I personally feel nothing wrong in the title as the term "Islamic world" is widely used across the globe and even by U.S. govt. But like my previous comment - the title is very generic and would need some focus on Indian stand. India has different views when it comes to troubled states like Pakistan and Bangladesh but friendly relations with Iran and Egypt to almost blank relations with central asian states. Also, though muslims are in minority here, India has vast muslim population which qualifies it as strong muslim population state on global scale. Thus, the article in itself will have no tasty meat to chew. Instead, concentrate on adding articles under the series of Foreign relations of India. Some major articles are missing like Indo-French relations, Indo-Japanese relations, Indo-Italian relations, Indo-German relations, etc... User:Vishnava has done some great job in adding to the series. I recently wrote this. I believe, such articles need more efforts. --gppande «talk» 19:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the scope of the article. How does one cover such a topic? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena, VHP - militant parties?

Hi all, there is an edit war regarding Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena and Vishva Hindu Parishad. I believe, they are not declared militant parties. There are some users continuously reverting them and declaring as militant parties. I need a third opinion on it. Could you please say your words? Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 13:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel that you are taking the meaning of the term "militant" a bit too extremely. A militant organization could be an organization like LTTE or JKLF. It could also be used for a political party or organization whose cadres do things which a typical political party would not do such as routinely using strong-arm tactics or army-like rituals(such as RSS). This does not mean the Shiv Sena can be equated with the JKLF. But yes in my opinion the tag "militant" is justified, going by the nature of these organizations. --Deepak D'Souza 13:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about calling them 'militant', but radical surely fits. However, how does it matter what we think? If a news source calls it militant, keep that as a view of news source with citation, rather than keeping it as a view of WP. --GDibyendu (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I will duplicate what I said on the Talk page, the word 'militant' is being used on the article in the sense of aggressiveness in speech and actions by the group members. Their actions fit the definition of militant, and there are sources for this too. Its not meant to present them as blood-thirsty terrorists. Just aggressive. Maybe is there a milder word we can use instead of militant? --Abhishek ^Talk 14:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In such circumstances, it would be best not to use such terms to describe them. Our job as editors isn't to interpret the philosophy of organizations, but rather to state facts. Please refer to WP:MORALIZE – it's a really quick read and I think it would help sort out issues on the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:militant stands for either (a) aggressive and combative or (b) fighting, warlike, belligerent. Hence it will be difficult to deny that these organizations are Militant, if we take the first meaning - they have been very aggressive in recent past and caused trouble to communities / society in their area. But popularly Militant has been associated with terrorists and hence the view (or even worry) of some individuals that these organizations are not militant. VasuVR (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We have to trust on Reliable sources. As added in the article citations by BBC, NY Times and CNN, the organizations are well known as Hindu militant groups as their aggressive behaviors and recent attack on Christian minorities in many parts of India . Therefore, the term shall remain perfect in the articles. --Googlean ^Results 14:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Radical right-wing" would be more appropriate. CNN etc may be reliable, but do have biases. Best to cite the sources inline (ie "according to..") who call them militant. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just restore this version and end the discussion. Thank You. 59.95.112.145 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AreJay pointed to WP:MORALIZE which says we should not be add such terms to articles. The facts should point to the type of organization. Examples given in that article - we need not begin article on Hitler with Hitler was a bad man. Opening statement of these organizations should not have the word militant. VasuVR (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with other that 'militant' should not be overdramatized. However, in the case of the Bajrang Dal article, i don't see the absolute need to have it in the opening sentence. Having it mentioned in the lead is ok by me. If the term is removed altogether, with what should it be replaced? 'Communal'? --Soman (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The word militant is not derogatory in itself. If reliable sources use it, then it should continue to be used here. Imc (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Militant is the most-NPOV word, however it should not be in the first sentence of the article. It is certainly not perceived as a terrorist group by any majority of people in India, and judging by the tacit support among many Hindus, not especially radical either. Militant describes the fact they are unafraid of using violence to achieve their goals.Pectore^talk 22:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from CNN & BBC (accused of biased versions) who used the term militant, it is also being used by many Indian Reliable sources, such as Outlook, Times of India, and Economic Times, etc. Interestingly, I see this term in CPIM, Hinduunity and such 'own' websites. Take a look at any search engine, we will find further wide range of such reliable results. --Googlean ^Results 02:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pectore and Nichalp. We should not use the term "Militant" in the first sentence or in introduction. We can use it by stating, like according to xyz source etc. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 10:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Please pay attention to Reliable sources. According to the definition of militant, if an individual or party engaged in aggressive physical or verbal combat, they are called militant group. In this case, these parties are involved in many violence and communal/religious attacks in India. The recent attacks in Orissa, Karnataka and other South Indian states further underline their aggressive role as militant. Therefore, it is not a big issue or cause for much dispute in this case to use it in the intro itself which gives a clear image about them. --Googlean ^Results 02:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I see two proponents of the "militant" termiology who have engaged in sockpuppetry. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

in this discussion? or any other related articles? I would like to comment that some users create legitimate uses of alternative accounts per Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT. --Googlean ^Results 04:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, but in the reverting, yes. And in previous religious disputes too. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a long back history & the user was blocked for that. After the block expired, there was no such involvement/co-edits by other/id ips in any of these articles. As a check user, you can see it. --Googlean ^Results 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Akbar the Great

This article really needs the attention of someone who undertands Mughal history well. The tone of the article has changed tremendously over the past year. There is a concerted attmept being made to put forth the view that Akbar was a religious fanatic whereas what we have learnt in shcools is that he was very tolearnt. Could someone please take a look. --Deepak D'Souza 10:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Census data required for districts of Madras Presidency for the period 1911-1941

Hullo friends, I am working with Madras Presidency article. I was able to obtain census data and details of export, import, etc. for the period 1871-1901 from The Imperial Gazetteer of India of the year 1908. But, I don't have the data for the period 1911-1941. I need your help in this matter.If you do have district-wise census details for the Madras Presidency please add them to the table here.Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 14:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Indian place article moves

User:Fundamental_metric_tensor is moving Indian place articles from "Place_name" to "Place_name,Indian state" format. Is it advisable to move them to this format unless there are more than one place with the same name ? I couldnt find a related guideline at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic) . Comments ? -- Tinu Cherian - 11:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely wrong. States should be mentioned only incase of same names. Places should be stand alone in all general cases. Should be informed immediately. Kensplanet (talk) 11:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Left a note on Fundamental metric tensor's talk page. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) has some pointers. I wonder why FMT went ahead with such a monumental change without discussion. I know there is an old discussion somewhere about the use of Indian settlements, but am not willing to search any archives for the moment. We only use the city, state convention for dabs eg Bilaspur. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this discussion : Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#India Nichal refering to ? -- Tinu Cherian - 15:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am very sorry about this. I just lost it, I guess. I have undone most of what I did and I will undo the others ASAP. I will make up for this with some good wikipedia work. Again, I am sorry. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem buddy, this is how we learn things :) . Do contribute to india related articles -- Tinu Cherian - 07:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Caste-lists and notability

Friends,I observed that most of the caste-lists in Wikipedia are made of POV. Most of the names in such lists don't abide by Wikipedia:Notability.

Hence, I propose that only names of individuals who have Wikipedia articles be listed. I found an implementation of this thing in List of Parsis and found it to be good. I've implemented it in List of Iyers and to some extent in List of Iyengars. I am waiting for your nod before implementing it in other articles. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 17:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Earlier had a similar view. Later, found that including links encourages others to contribute. If someone is notable, but we dont have access to necessary information, by adding them to list including a non-existing page link, it encourages someone who happens by the page, to start the article. So, suggest that you think about it before you plunge in removing such names / links. I believe there is a Wikipedia policy page that suggests that you leave them there for the same purpose, but am not able to locate the topic now.

One other view is that with computers and internet lot of information is available of current people, but not so with bigger achievers of yester years. This skewed availability of information is already reflected in the content ratio of Wikipedia articles. VasuVR (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, we would rather comment out the individuals who don't articles of their own. What do you say? :-)

Most lists contain lot of caste-propaganda. I found some lists filled with names of civil servants. I am not sure if individuals satisfy notability just because they are of the Indian Civil Service. We need to know what achievements have these individuals made which sets them apart from the rest. Simply listing them as 'Businessman' or 'ICS' isn't going to solve matters. If we create red links for these individuals and do research upon them to establish notability or wait for someone else to try and establish notability, then maintenance is going to be difficult with so many red links around-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How does one define the notability of a caste? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, does one presume that the notable person self-identifies with the caste (or do we presume that caste identification is fixed at birth and you can't get rid of it)? This whole list by caste when the notable individual has no known association with the caste leaves me with a not so good feeling. (I say, get rid of the list or only add people who have explicitly self-identified themselves with the caste in question.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)

I also share this view. And BTW, I really wish that people had not created an article for each Rajput clan etc. --GDibyendu (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that ravichandar's solution is good. Also we should source every article if possible on the list, on the list so that it is made notable and sourced.Pectore^talk 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Coimbatore

Someone has moved it to SRKV, which seems to be name of a college in Coimbatore. Can someone please undo it? Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Basawon Singh (Sinha)

59.92.191.254 (talk · contribs) has raised the issue of copyvio on Basawon Singh.[1] Could someone who is more knowledgeable than me about the topic (and the sources in question) look into this serious claim? Apparently, User:KickahaOta created the article for an anonymous user in July 2006,[2], but the copyvio in question may have been introduced by 202.78.167.30 (talk · contribs)[3] in November. It's possible that reverting the additions of 202.78.167.30 may solve the problem, but I'm not sure. Thanks for any help you folks can offer. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)