Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 49

Hi, Wikipedia is so large and complex, WikiProject India is one, that there are many forgotten dusty corners. This is one of those. Though sitush did not get a satisfactory resolution at Cfd, the explanation there was educative to me as it will be for most Wikipedians. It is a point to be noted that Wikipedia articles with comments can be a fertile place for examining and rectifying cleanup issues & for improvement hints. AshLin (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Should this facility continue to exist? Imho this should exist unless a broader Rfc/Cfd etc decides to delete all these comments across the board. AshLin (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would personally prefer talk pages to be used rather than comments, but comment pages automatically single themselves out from the rest of the 90K articles and become an easier method of finding such articles. Perhaps there is a use there? What do other editors think? AshLin (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I was intending to raise this issue again here, having got precisely nowhere at CfD & run out of patience with someone there. I'd bin it or, failing that, would appreciate advice regarding what to do with pages such as Talk:Barnwal/Comments. Among the problems of the current system is inconsistency: some people will use the comment system and the vast majority will not (ok that is my guess, but we have ca. 90k articles and < 1k using the category). - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable place for this discussion, but if editors do want to consider a change to the project's assessment process, shouldn't Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India/Assessment be notified? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Since everyone listed at the page you link to also frequents this page, and since this is by far the higher profile page, here is just fine. Spreading the crap around is exactly what we need to avoid. Conversations here can be chaotic enough without them devolving to multiple pages. Put a notice there and you will have some people responding there, and they'll most likely be drive-bys. Sometimes

WP:IAR applies, and this is one of those times. - Sitush (talk

) 07:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

All ye film buffs (and others as well), do have a look at my merger proposal here: Talk:Filmfare Award for Best Film. Lynch7 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There had been few edits like 1, 2, 3 which were about removal of referenced content and addition of unsourced material after which arun nadar123 was blocked due to legal threats. Now this recent edit is almost similar to which were caused by arun nadar123. I believe he is a sockpuppeter of

I need urgent attention on the following articles.

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  ) - currently nominated for speedy deletion. Exists as an attack page.
• WP:BLP
  . I have removed the controversial content for now.
• Laxman Savadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - same as above
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  ) - same as above.

I am investigating this further, request help. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think CSD is valid. Much of the material is well sourced and verifiable. Might need some slight rewording, but content is OK otherwise. Title of "Porngate" is probably inadequate; needs to be more specific. Lynch7 07:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• The reason why I have used the CSD {{
  Porngate", which is simply ridiculous, since the Indian media seems to have gotten into the habit of sensationalizing events and adding -gate prefixes without even evaluating their significance. Feel free to move the page to a more appropriate title, but keep Wikipedia:Notability (events) in perspective. — Nearly Headless Nick {C}
  07:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't have much ideas; yes, the current title is certainly not good. All I can think of is some long, inelegant title like "2012 Karnataka assembly porn scandal". Lynch7 07:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is a violation of

WP:NOTNEWS and is completely inappropriate as an encyclopedic article. Apparently three politicians watched "sleazy clippings" and resigned yesterday. The article might be created in three months if any secondary source at that time shows the topic is notable. Johnuniq (talk

) 07:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably; probably not. It might have some lasting effects. I don't feel too strongly about it though, and the same info might as well be included in the articles of the three ministers. Lynch7 07:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

All of India's newspapers refer to the event as "Porngate", including India's newspaper of record The Times. There is discussion about this on

talk:Porngate. I propose that any issues be discussed on that talkpage. Blue Rasberry (talk)

17:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Xwas (talk · contribs · email)

I have gone through the recent edits made by the single-purpose account on numerous articles. Though Xwas does include citations to the insertions they make into the articles, however, their edits are characterized by distinct POVpushing, which place more emphasis on the surrounding controversies rather than the whole aspect of things. This is categorically against what is advised in

• Raheja Mindspace (
  WP:UNDUE
  )
• Sabitha Indra Reddy (
  WP:BLP
  )
• Emaar Properties (
  WP:PRIMARY
  )
• Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corridor, APIIC (2) (
  WP:UNDUE
  )
• P Chidambaram (
  WP:NEWSORG
  )

This account only exists to add sections on controversies to articles, and is likely a sockpuppet of another established user. I would like to get more opinion here before we can consider a sockpuppet investigation. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• An SPA if I ever saw one. Lynch7 09:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to NPOV comment

Thanks for highlighting and alerting what you see as a NPOV issue.

• My last edit to the Palemar article was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Krishna_Palemar&oldid=475730172 . The text that I added was the following: "Resignation after watching Pornography in Karnataka Assembly: In Feb 2012, Palemar was asked to resign after a television video grab showed him and two other cabinet colleagues, Laxman Savadi and C C Patil, watching pornographic clips on their mobile phones in a session of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly [4].". I did not add the "porngate" page and checked if that tag was included in
  List_of_scandals_with_"-gate"_suffix
  .
• In the reportage on illegal mining in Karnataka and Belekeri port scam http://www.google.co.in/search?q=palemar+belekeri, the involvement of Palemar as a minister of ports, was relevant to a biographical picture. The specific text was "Involvement in the Belekeri Port Scam: Belekeri port scam relates to the illegal shipment and export of iron ore mined without authorization or payment of state royalties in Karnataka from Belekeri Port. Justice N. Santosh Hegde who authored the key reports on the illegal mining in Karnataka, had resigned from the Lokayukta position on 23 June 2010 after Deputy Conservator of Forests R Gokul, who had exposed the Belekeri iron-ore exports, was suspended by order of erstwhile ports and environment minister, J. Krishna Palemar [1] [2] [3]."

The facts presented in these sentences are objective and from widely reported news articles. By removing entire sections, which are relevant to the biographical sketch of a public figure, you are violating "Achieving neutrality: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.... " in the

I do not know every part of this issue, but I found out about Xwas when I was going to his talk page to thank him for starting coverage of three politicians involved in a widely-covered scandal -

C C Patil. In addition to only adding info about the scandal he added biographical information unrelated to the scandal, used good sourcing, and wikified the articles. Blue Rasberry (talk)

14:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on

Talk:Porngate. I disagree with Rasberry's characterization of Xwas's edits as NPOV. — Nearly Headless Nick {C}

08:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the link to the wikileaks1 cable that is mentioned in the article, can someone help expanding the section, Thanks-

Ratnakar Kulkarni —Preceding undated

comment added 19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC).

Permanent link to the

(moved from talk page of AshLin) Hi AshLin, I am really, really sorry about the lack of notification at

WT:INB or some other venue? I will leave it to you because, honestly, this entire concept of general sanctions etc is new to me, although obviously I have known for a long time that such things exist in subject areas in which I have no involvement. - Sitush (talk

) 01:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious from the proceedings that the not informing of INB was a lapse and it has been acknowledged as such by users. The discussion on discretionary sanctions by a number of users was done in good faith and the decision arrived at in logical consequence. It would have been far better if the stakeholders were informed. That apart, imho the result would have been the same - discretionary sanctions would have been arrived at and my own voice would have been in support of it. As such, undoing/redoing the issue would serve no useful purpose. As such, I have on my personal behalf accepted the sanctions by assuming good faith. As far as I am concerned the issue is closed. The good outcome is all users concerned have become more aware of the need to follow Wikipedia principles in spirit. AshLin (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate! Guide to WikiProjects Directory of WikiProjects

WikiProject Ravidassia

This article is within the scope of the Ravidassia WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Ravidassia Religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. You may sign up for the project on the Participants list. . I am starting WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like help from people who are interested. I am working on a Portal for the topic here.

McKinseies (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone capable of cleaning up

There is an RFC on a topic under this WikiProject: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Indians_in_Afghanistan. Those interested may participate. Please ensure that your viewpoints are well-thought out and in the best interests of all concerned especially WP. AshLin (talk) 04:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is wise to note here the outcome of a discussion at

You know, I thought we needed such a notice, too, but I checked WP:WikiProject Slovenia and WP:WikiProject Ireland (two random projects that I know cover articles under sanctions), and neither one has such a notice on their project page. So I guess no such notice is needed. However, it is acceptable to tag the talk pages of relevant articles...obviously I don't think we should tag all of them, because a quick estimate looks like there are over a thousand...but we could start with the ones we already know are a problem. Let me find a suitable tag, then I'll add one to Talk:Nair and Talk:Kshatriya (the first 2 that spring to mind), and others can add them as they see fit. And then when other pages have problems, add the tag at that point, and gently warn new editors. For those that haven't worked with sanctions before, we must always warn a user about the sanctions first before attempting to enforce any sort of block or ban against them, since the whole sanction system is different than normal editing and not widely known. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot envisage that it does any harm to make a general note. Salvio giuliano has created a template, although I am unsure whether this needs to be moved into template space cf user space. According to the Anthropological Survey of India, there are > 4000 such communities and I rather suspect that we cover well over half of those. - Sitush (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

That template seems perfect. I'll ask xyr if xe is ready to move it into template space. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to add a bit at the top of the edit box for the article pages? Something akin to the pink-ish notice regarding protection? We get a lot of IP contributors etc and my experience is that they probably do not take a look at the talk pages. Sure, they will be informed, per your comment above, prior to any imposition of sanction conditions but perhaps an edit box notice might inform at least a few of these contributors? This is an entire new area for me, so please excuse my ignorance. - Sitush (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You are referring to page notices. It is possible. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest adding a note on talk pages of caste articles that the sanctions are in place. I can't imagine how else the editors of those articles will be aware of it. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As Sitush mentioned, I have prepared two different templates: the former, {{subst:Uw-castewarning}}, is meant to warn an editor who has already violated Wikipedia's policies that the community has authorised the use of discretionary sanctions on anybody behaving disruptively; the latter, {{Castewarningtalk}}, is meant for article's talk pages. Should Template:Castewarningtalk prove ineffective, it's also possible to create an edit notice (but only admins can create and edit them). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Name of this Article should not be just Basic Structure, as just the words basic structure are not in any way related to the Basic Structure Doctrine followed in respect to constitution of India. I also tried to discuss this on the article's talk page and Wikiproject: Indian Politics, but I didn't get any answer. Alok Bansal (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What should be the name of the article, according to you? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be "Basic structure doctrine". Should that clash with another topic, it should be "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)". AshLin (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the "basic structure doctrine" pertains to a universal concept. In fact, the

Constitution of Germany is called "Basic Law" which is amendable only with a supermajority, by its very nature. So I support using Basic structure doctrine and I encourage Alok to write the article from an international perspective. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C}

10:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Basic structure by itself doesn't convey the meaning, it should be changed to Basic structure doctrine. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving the article is simple enough but, reading it, I'm not sure whether this is an established doctrine or mere original research. The one reference provided does not make it clear whether the writer is using the term to expound a theory or whether the term is an established one. References to law articles would be helpful. --regentspark (comment) 16:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd vote for "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)" because this pertains specifically to the Indian Constitution. Gkjohn (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify on the matter whether the Article in question is an established doctrine or an original research, I would like to mention that this theory is mentioned in many famous books on Constitution of India. For example: Basu, Durga Das (2009). Introduction to the Constitution of India, Kashyap, Subhash C (2008). Our Constitution. Alok Bansal (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I recommend it moves as of now to "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)". Further internationalisation & associated name change can be done later. AshLin (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's a valid concept. Thanks (Alokagrawal8) for the clarification. Basic structure doctrine should be good enough since there are no other contenders for that title but AshLin's suggestion is ok too. --regentspark (comment) 19:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

However, in both the books and the reference cited in the article, the term used is Basic Feature and not Basic Structure. Alok Bansal (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If my memory serves me correct (from law school), there are myriad number of academic works available on Constitutional law that refer to "basic structure" and "basic feature" interchangeably. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am moving the article to "Basic structure doctrine (Constitution of India)". I am also redirecting the "Basic feature doctrine (Constitution of India)" as these terms are used interchangably. Alok Bansal (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Have project seen this chill to editing of caste and political party articles?[1] A template and link was just put on the Caste system in India article.[2]

These community sanctions apply not only to caste articles (many of which have almost no factual information in them and appear to be made up), but to political parties also, as if Western political parties have no direct attachment, or a remote attachment, to their tribal roots....

South Asian articles suffer from issues of ownership, but not more so than popular kiddie culture articles on en.wiki. To me, the biggest problem with South Asian articles is the lack of editors. Get 3 editors in on a discussion about a caste and two of them will come to some sort of agreement, not in support of the POV editor.

I am concerned these sanctions will keep even more editors away from improving these articles. An administrator will see an edit, a POV pusher will shout foul, and the editor who bothered to correct wrong information will get blocked.

Are my concerns necessary? Maybe they are not. If there had been notice of the impacted communities, I might have been less concerned. Are there South Asian administrators on en.wiki? Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed at

WP:AN and there was a procedural error - see the thread further up this page. - Sitush (talk

) 06:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, yes, there are South Asian admins on this wiki. Some took part in the discussion but I am not outing them here. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's done. Notified after the fact was good enough for the community.... Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW South Asian doesn't require outing, just an edit history. Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your point re: edit history but if you mean that you can tell someone's origin from their edit history then you are incorrect. Probably, you mean something else. - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean you can tell they edit in the area of South Asian articles by their edit history. Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, I am not an admin but if I were and you checked my edit history then you might draw the conclusion that I was South Asian. I am not. - Sitush (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in whether or not you are South Asian. South Asian administrators are editors who monitor activity in the areas of South Asia, such as castes and political parties, preventing disputes from escalating, warning POV pushers, to prevent things like unannounced requests for sanctions against large areas of en.wiki based on the area being a hotbed of POV pushers and personal essayers. Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, in that case your phrase - "South Asian admins" - was a bit ambiguous. Of course there are people who look over such articles. You will see some of them in the AN discussion referred to, but there are many more. The chances of any significant (hundreds of articles) subject area having no admin oversight here are pretty much zero. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Then how did this area get so bad, with so many POV pushers, so much bad blood, the necessity for 1RR, immediate sanctions, community wide? What were these administrators doing, watching it happen? Are there simply too few administrators in this area? If there were so few that this happened, what makes you think there will be enough to administer community sanctions? Have you read any of the India caste articles lately? They need edits by the thousands, not editors blocked from them. A large numbers of the ones I've read should be deleted in their entirety. That's the real crisis, not the POV pushers. Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no 1RR restriction. Some of the admins took part in the discussion. As for "Have you read any of the India caste articles lately?" - honestly, have you checked anything out? - Sitush (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Honestly. That is tough, being concerned about the lack of quality of a group of articles. Honestly. Honestly, it's simply not possible that I've checked anything out lately. Honestly. Pseudofusulina (talk) 07:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You asked me whether I had read any Indian caste articles lately. Check my edit history, or just take my word for it: I have seen many, and edited many also. - Sitush (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a rhetorical question, Sitush: "Have you read any of the India caste articles lately? They need edits by the thousands, not editors blocked from them." It's about the articles, not about your reading.

I didn't open this topic to discuss your heritage or edit or reading history. It's not about you. And, I marked it done. Pseudofusulina (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The existence of practices like discretionary sanctions worries me. It is just the kind of thing a rogue admin could misuse and the clause would allow that admin to get away scot free. I hope in practice that it does not become a fault-zone. AshLin (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is a theoretical problem. However, these things exist in other subject areas and I am presuming that the practical problem does not arise. It would be a "straight to ANI" job if it did and it was spotted. Until then, it is

WP:AGF. - Sitush (talk

) 09:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone at all familiar is welcome to join in and help with this page. I haven't a clue and it is in need of formatting etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, I think its better merged to

Bharadwaja. Lynch7

11:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Bharadwaj is also a prominent sub-caste or gotra, hence the topics should be separated and a disambiguation page would be in order. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, Bhardwaj should be redirected to

Bharadwaja. The current Bhardwaj should be moved to Bhardwaj gotra. However, I don't think a disambig is necessary as the sage Bharadwaja is clearly the primary topic. We can have a {{for}} in the Bharadwaja article, for the gotra article. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk

13:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No issues. Did you mean Bharadwaj (gotra) or Bharadwaj gotra? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Any one will do. What do you think? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: The bird

There is a AfD now.

Immediate attention is called for the article

Is scam a suitable noun for inclusion in the name of an article?? Then, work from where that leads Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

During the

A rough criteria has been drawn up by me and Dwaipayanc with the help of inputs from other members. The same is as below:

There is no strict inclusion and exclusion criteria for accomplished personalities mentioned in the article. Some individuals such as are very significantly associated with Kolkata, while there are many others whose contribution or significance may not be as important. The significance level is a matter of subjective analysis, and there is room for discussion for each individual person. The following set of guidelines is recommended, while the name should meet all the Primary criteria, the person must additionally meet any one of the secondary criteria.

Primary

a. The person must have an existing Wikipedia article which meets the criteria of

WP:NOTABILITY

.

b. Individual reliable inline secondary citations proving the notability in the impugned article must be given.

c. The person must have born, or lived, or studied or worked significantly in the place, that is, the person should be related to place significantly.

d. The name(s) should be added in such a manner that it should not look like a laundry list, rather it should flow into a prose.

Secondary

a. There should be significant contribution to his/her field of expertise.

b. The person received prestigious international or national awards or was nominated.

c. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective prestigious scholarly society or association,

d. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as

WP:MUSIC

and his/her work is well recognised as evident from reliable secondary sources.

I would request all to suggest and have a common consensus regarding the criteria for adding names of personalities in Cities and other related articles. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 12:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Awesome, we needed this discussion to take place. If I may put some minor suggestions: The Primary criteria is fine. Point 'a' in the secondary criteria is very vague; we could delete it. I understand the principle behind point 'd', but in this wording, it looks redundant; it should be worded in a way that only the most notable people are included (I would have suggested a wording myself, but I've gotta run now). Lynch7 14:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Ultimately, this is all an issue of
  WP:WEIGHT. Is the contribution of the person significant enough to warrant a mention in the article? For instance, mentioning Rabindranath Tagore in the article on Kolkata may be a good idea, but that should not necessarily mean that it is important to mention the present Chief Minister of the State who happens to live in the city. There are not, and should not be any strict criteria for inclusion or exclusion except appropriate discussions on the talk page on WEIGHT. I cannot support the idea of any such separate criteria that are exclusively applicable to cities in India. What I am categorically against, though, is the insertion of lists such as "Lists of notable people from the city" as they are often indiscriminate, do not serve any encyclopedic purpose and are spam magnets. — Nearly Headless Nick {C}
  14:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• How about this: The person should have made significant contributions to the development of the concerned city--Anbu121 (talk me) 14:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Nay, its like not including Einstein in an article about Zurich; he did pretty little for the city itself I think. Lynch7 07:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have one question. All these points can be easily met by a politician. Do you plan to include them? Eg.
  talk
  ) 14:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that it can be dealt section wise. In the Administration section, the politician can be included if he/she has contributed significantly to the improvement/development of administration of the city in a unique way which other politicians have not. (Similarly for other sections like Education, sports, culture)--Anbu121 (talk me) 14:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Obviously, a MLA or MP cannot be added by default, unless he has contributed significantly. eg, Jyoti Basu was the CM of West Bengal for around 20 years. The criteria of selection is not general notability but significant contribution is the essence. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
      • So you would have to compare amongst themselves to find out who deserves and who doesnt. (Not only politicians, everyone.) That seems fair but tough too. I am imagining how many Bollywoodies would go on Mumbai's page. -
        talk
        ) 15:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  Clarifications: Firstly, the discussion is not be confined to Kolkata article only, it is a general discussion regarding similar articles. Secondly, the discussion is not about whether we should have a "list of notable person" or "notable person as a separate section" in the article, rather the discussion is about what should be the criteria of having a name or not having a name, which generally flows in the prose in the article. Certain sections like Culture or sports cannot be comprehensively dealt without adding name of wellknown personalities in the place, so it is necessary to fix some objective criteria, even if they are not strict. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem can be divided into at lest three sub-problems! One is

Very important, as has been described above, is context. The names should be in appropriate section, and should flow with the prose. As an example, the education section in Kolkata article now reads, "Notable scholars who were born, worked or studied in Kolkata include physicists Satyendra Nath Bose, Meghnad Saha, and Jagadish Chandra Bose; chemist Prafulla Chandra Roy...".

To establish proper relationship with the location, consideration should be given to the person's birthplace, location of study, field of work. For example, Jagadish Chandra Bose was born hundreds of miles away from Kolkata, but his school and college education, and more importantly most of his research works took place in institutions in Kolkata. So, he has a significant association with the city.

The criteria that is very difficult to assess and should be considered on a case-by-case basis is

Can any one re-look on the issue?? Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the primary criteria outlined above are a good "necessary" condition for inclusion. However, the resulting set of people would likely be too large for practical purposes (not to mention the resulting "I have a source" wars :) ). Looking through the list of Kolkata names WP:Featured_article_review/Kolkata/archive1#Notability here, I constructed a short list of people that I think should be included: S N Bose, Tagore, C V Raman, Amartya Sen, Satyajit Ray, Kazi Nazrul Islam, and Vivekananda. The common characteristic of all these people is that they are likely to be known outside India and it struck me that it makes sense to include names that the general reader is more likely to recognize, otherwise the inclusion is meaningless. Just a thought. --regentspark (comment) 16:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

We have numerous articles that take the form

It should be noted that it seems DGG's reverts were connected to the actions of Pernoctator, who was proposing a fair few list articles for deletion on the grounds that they were empty. My solution to that issue has always been to redirect the list to the article concerning the relevant community.

Comments would be appreciated. There is arguably some overlap with our recent discussion here at

Only if it is verifiable and provided that we adhere to the BLP restrictions where applicable. I do not want this to turn into a re-run of the above debate: that would be pointless because the BLP side of things is resolved. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And perhaps another way of saying that is that the information shouldn't be in the bio either if it's unverified. If you (Animeshkulkarni, or anyone) ever find a caste claim in a BLP article and it doesn't have a source, or the source isn't top notch, please please immediately remove the claim. We cannot attempt to guess at people's caste (nor their ethnicity, nor their sexual preference, nor their religion). So, in response to Sitush's question above, I think we must treat these no differently than we treat any other BLP-related fact--it must be verified by high quality sources or it must come out. And if that means that there is no one left on the list, then that's just what happens. If it happens that there's only 2 or 3 on the list, I think a bold merge into the caste article is pretty clearly in the best interests of organizing the info. If

WP:NLIST says we can't even put people onto a list of "Notable residents of City X" without a good verification, I don't see why we would be able to put people on to the far far more contentious "List of notable members of Caste X" lists without even better verification. Qwyrxian (talk

) 03:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Further to this, per

WP:BLPCAT, we shouldn't be putting living persons into such a list without explicitly citing a source that demonstrates that they have self-identified as being of that caste. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Qwyrxian! Exclude me from this example. I am always of the opinion that caste of a person should be mentioned. If there are no reasonable objections on a particular caste and its quite clear from surname, it should go in the article; EVEN IF WE DONT HAVE A SOURCE. Yeah! Yeah!! I know the WP clauses. But with all that we are not doing any good to readers. If we know that Deepika Padukone is Brahmin, say it so. If you are not sure of the sub-type, leave that part out. -

talk

) 07:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There are several Indians who retain their paternal family names, but do not identify themselves with a particular caste because they do not believe in the caste system and/or because they are products of inter-caste marriages. You can't say "let's include this person in List of Y people, because his name is XY, even if we don't have a source". utcursch | talk 07:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"it should go in the article; EVEN IF WE DONT HAVE A SOURCE". No, it shouldn't, per Wikipedia policy. If you want to put unsourced material into articles, start a blog somewhere. This in an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@Utcursch - What do you mean by they do not believe in caste-system? Just like someone doesnt believe in ghosts? I guess they do not believe in the discrimination based on caste-system, not the system itself. The existance of the system is not to their belief or unbelief in it. Just like how gravitation would exists even if Phoebe doesnt believe in it. Census 2011 had a column enquiring for the SC/ST/Others. There was no i-dont-believe-in-it column. Also the column asked for caste of the Head of the household, not of every person in the house; which means all will be assumed to belong to the same caste. Also they would be counted in that caste and not as caste-less. In case of inter-caste marriages, the child is presumed to inherit father's caste. In legal situations where one parent is of higher and other of lower caste, Supreme Court has decided on the child's caste based on his particular upbringing. That is especially for defining the child's benefits/rights. But in no case have they decided him to be a caste-less entity.

@AndyTheGrump - Thanks for the advice. -

talk

) 12:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what I mean: "I believe X caste exists and my father belonged to that caste. But I'm not a member of it." Caste is a social construct. Just because one of my ancestors belonged to X caste does not mean I belong to X caste, even if I choose to retain the surname associated with that caste as a legacy of my family. If you can find a reliable source which says "Deepika Paduokne has enlisted as a member of the All India XYZ Brahmin Association" or "Deepika Padukone has said she filled her caste as XYZ Brahmin in the census", go ahead and include her in the list of XYZ Brahmins. But you cannot say "Padukone is a surname belonging to XYZ caste. So I'll list Deepika in the list of XYZ Brahmins." That's original research and BLP violation. utcursch | talk 13:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The naming issue goes still further than that. For example, I know some people called "Nair" whose connections with India are non-existent, although they may be connected to the Vikings; Boing! said Zebedee has said in the past that they know someone called "Jain". And both of us could spend £35 here in the UK tomorrow and thereby legally be known as "Menon" or "Panikkar", "Goud" or whatever. It is ludicrous to rely on a name, even within India, and another example of this is where people marry outside their traditional community norms. No source = no entry in a list, and this should be so regardless of whether the person is dead or alive. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup. There is no room for argument here. Any unsourced assertion that a particular living person is of a particular caste is a violation of

WP:BLP policy, and should be deleted on sight - and anyone who persists in adding such material against policy will be liable to the appropriate sanctions, up to and including blocks and bans. If you want to argue that the policy should be changed, then do it in the appropriate place, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: the absence of a "I-don't-believe-in-it-column", oddly enough such a column has existed in the past (1931, for example). - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@Utcursch - I have said it somewhere before and would say it again now....Labelling people by a certain caste should be avoided. But mentioning caste can be done without labelling also. Eg. in this case Deepika's father's caste has a source in his article and that can be mentioned in some clever way in her article as well. That way you dont lable her nor do you prevent readers from drawing inferences; inferences that could very well be correct but are not implicitly stated because Deepika herself in her some interview doesnt say "Yeah! I am filming my next with Ranbir. And btw, i am Brahmin." or because some BLP policy (not clear enough) prevented it from doing so (And as if its a legal thing.)
@Sitush - Already replied to you inter-caste-marriage doubt. Child is presumed to be of father's caste. And you would want to keep your non-indian examples out of discussion as they dont apply. And you forgot you cardinal rule of referencing. Please give 1931's reference. (Couldnt find it.) And wasnt that census conducted by non-indians that then ruled india?
@AndyTheGrump - Thanks again! But the issue was raise here to get little response.

Animesh, I know that you mean well but yet again your contributions are causing a thread to lose focus. This thread has regard to lists. I do not see the need to re-raise an issue that has recently been discussed to death and in which you opinions were rejected. It smacks of a talk page version of

coatracking.- Sitush (talk

) 18:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see why we are debating this here. Policy is clear and explicit, and no decisions can be made here that overturn it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If people stopped dragging up BLP issues then we would make more progress. The lists include/have included plenty of dead people. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@Sitush - I dont care about a particular format as long as the person's caste is mentioned in his bio or some list or that caste's article. But you all have objection to its mention anywhere. Hence the talks. And yes, i am talking for both dead and alive.
@AndyThe Grump - So what are "citation needed" tags for? And i dont think every point on a Biography can be sourced and is sourced. Even in current FAs. And when they meant "likely to be challenged" they probably meant "reasonably likely to be challenged". Because for the sake of challeneging everything can be challenged. -

talk

) 18:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The policy is entirely clear, and adding unreferenced assertions regarding caste is self-evidently 'contentious'. I have explained what policy is, and see no point in repeating myself. If I see any unreferenced assertion regarding the caste of a living person in any article (including lists) I will remove it. If people who are aware of the policy nevertheless chose to disregard it, I will report the issue for administrator attention. I'd ask all others to do likewise. This is all that needs to be said on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump - You said that twice before too and it was well noted. If you have anything else to say, say that. I am waiting.
@Sitush - Was raising this discussing just for formality so that you can point at this when you delete the articles? You people already have a good team with made up minds. Why care to even raise this discussion? -

talk

) 10:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Sitush, but the point of starting this discussion is to seek consensus. If a number of editors, especially those with good solid knowledge of policy, agree, and one person such as yourself disagrees, then there's consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. However, if you can present solid arguments in favor of a different path, then consensus might go differently. Others here probably know that I have regularly changed my position in face of good arguments, and I believe that everyone here will abide by consensus if its clearly established. And, of course, if we have a bunch of people and we can't get conensus (keeping in mind that consensus is not just a "majority", but it also doesn't require 100% unanimity), then we pursue

dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk

) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The point of this discussion should be to seek consensus in a manner that it does not require to be discussed again and again on all talk pages and fight over it. The fact that you all have to fight on all articles and there always is a different someone to oppose your actions shows that the so called consensus or even the policies you cite arent acceptable to these all. Isnt it? -

talk

) 14:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Right here, right now, the only person who is failing to see the consensus that has existed for years is yourself. What goes on at articles is dealt with in accordance with the very policy that you continue to question and which you have repeatedly been told cannot be changed at this forum. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There are n people out there who do not agree with whatever your group decides. There is no dispute about that. The fact that only i am here and none of those are is immaterial. With all the editwars and fights happening you all should have resonably concluded that the consensus you have reached is not acceptable to many and hence lacks something. Dont blame them for not being here. -

talk

) 16:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to have a thorough read of

unreliable = Remove on sight. No "Citation needed" tags or any nonsense of that sort. Lynch7

03:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think its farce for me to comment any more on this; unless you are aiming to somehow change the BLP policy itself (something which would need a much larger forum). Lynch7 03:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Breaking out the non-BLP issue

I wanted to start a new section to clarify a question Sitush raises above (and that he and I have talked about before). I think that the BLP issue is pretty clear, and I'm pretty sure that there really is no debate on that point. However, for non-BLP (i.e., all those people who've managed to go and die before Wikipedia ever existed), how do we feel? The reason I ask is that for BLP, yes, we'll remove on site (and, like AndytheGrump, I am happy to do so and force the issue any time it comes up, fully expecting

1. If someone wrote in an article, "Company X was founded in 1992", and had no citation, I, and I think most other people, would simply tag that statement with a "citation needed" tag...or maybe even just ignore it, because it doesn't really matter if its wrong by a year or two, isn't really contentious, and probably could be sourced with enough searching (even if it meant offline research).
2. If someone wrote, "Company X is the number one seller of product Y in the world", I'd probably tag the sentence with a cn tag, and then remove it after some reasonable period of time if it were not sourced. This is clearly a claim that could be challenged, is promotional, and is more likely to be false than true.
3. If someone wrote, "Company X was accused of regularly discriminating against minorities", I'd immediately remove the claim from the article, and demand it not be reinserted without a high quality source, and then still likely remove it unless there was very strong evidence that the accusation was actually true and met
   WP:UNDUE
   , because this claim is highly contentious and does real damage to the company (whether its true or not).

So, the question is, where do caste claims fall on this rough continuum? And, as a related question, do we treat the concern differently if its a claim in the person's own article, or when its inclusion on a list of "People in Caste X"? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This is good! The policy of BLP suggests to remove any material instantly when unsourced properly so that it is not defamatory. Now whether the material is about a living or dead or company is immaterial. US laws probably allow deceased to be defamed. Indian dont. But calling someone to belong to a certain caste is not defamatory. Discrimination based on caste system is illegal, but classification is not. Hence "citation needed" tags are sufficient for caste mentions. -

talk

) 15:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. See

WP:BURDEN. The stuff that I have been removing has been tagged as uncited, often for years. - Sitush (talk

) 15:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But then you shouldnt just remove it. Are editors notified that a certain statement has no citation and that you are gonna remove it now? And it also says "...Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people;..." -

talk

) 15:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Animesh, please do not bring living people into this section! We do not leave uncited statements lying around for ever; nor do we reinstate information that has been removed as unsourced etc, without providing a citation. Will you please read up on our basic policies, such as

WP:V. - Sitush (talk

) 15:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay! Forget all this. Why do you think that a mention of someone's caste (living or dead) should be strictly deleted without keeping it with a Citation needed tag? Dont give refernce to some WP policy. If at all, give the reason behind introducing that policy. -

talk

) 16:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Geez, I am utterly fed up of this tendentious stuff. Read

WP:V. I do not have to justify policy. If you do not like it then go somewhere and propose a change to it. That "somewhere" is not here. - Sitush (talk

) 16:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Good that you are fed up. Now someone else can sensibly answer things. -

talk

) 16:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(Good to see someone new.) WP:Verifiability says "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it (although an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag)." And thats why i asked, "Why do you think that a mention of someone's caste (living or dead) should be strictly deleted without keeping it with a Citation needed tag?" -

talk

) 17:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Because caste is not something that a person earns by his wish and will. It is thrust upon him by birth. It is an individual's right to decide whether to associate or disassociate himself from his caste. Mentioning the caste of a person without proper reference damages the reputation of the person--Anbu121 (talk me) 17:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Animesh, because its a contentious topic. If it were a non-controversial topic, then keeping a {{tl:cn}} is correct. But its being hotly contested here and elsewhere. The fact is that there are such diametrically opposed views, the "citation needed" option would be the wrong way to go about it. As such, your stand is on the other side of WP:V, & WP:BLP, hence your stance has little chance of being accepted. Arguing here beyond the point of usefulness is not constructive. AshLin (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine! Do as you all wish! -

So where are we with this?

It is evident that

I had raised this issue earlier here, but did not get any response. Given edits like these, I think it's high time we discuss the notability and reliability of such sources. I've started a new thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Sarfaroshi_Ki_Tamanna_by_Krant_M._L._Verma. utcursch | talk 06:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, can someone please mediate here? I don't want a revert war. utcursch | talk 06:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree there should be additional mediation by a higher up. Many articles require extensive review and pruning for unsourced information; Not enough people to do the job me thinks. --Fraulein451 (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been a request from India Chapter for a monthly update and I thought I'd present my report here also. Criticism, suggestions and bouquets are most welcome. AshLin (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The month of January passed quietly for WikiProject India on English Wikipedia. However elsewhere, the SOPA/PIPA discussion in the United States was the hot topic of the month and English Wikipedia went dark on 18 January for 24 hours in protest against these proposed laws.

At this point of time, getting the few small initiatives to keep going have been our concern in WikiProject India.

We have had

AshLin (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

super like Ashlin --naveenpf (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Indian official websites are usually very late to update. Uttara Kannada is common usage. Lynch7 16:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It should stay as it is. Uttara Kannada is its official name and is most commonly used. Furthermore, North Canara is its former name. Kindly refer.

^{Holla at me!}

16:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Uttara Kannada is the official name of the district, it should not be moved to North Canara, North Canara should be redirected to Uttara Kannada --

talk

) 02:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No point, Uttara Kannada is an official and most widely used name. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Let atleast one Indian article have the Indian name. Uttara Kannada it is. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

this may not be the appropriate place, but i noticed many of the articles on Indian topics are in need of drastic copy edit. I have started doing some myself, but there are of course too many; Do you have a team for this ? --Fraulein451 (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point out a few of them? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We should maintain a list of these. I can copyedit many of the social community articles on southern India and Pakistan, also the religious articles for Suni, Sufi, Shia Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, throughout South Asia (including Afghanistan), but very little on Hinduism, except major deities. I bet that most members of this community have areas outside of mine where copyediting would be easy. One of the problems for English-speaking editors with little experience is, the poor translations from South Asian languages to English often lead to contradictory statements because of English-language grammar structures.

Can we create a subpage for a list of such articles? Thanks, Fraulein451 for bringing this problem here. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I just do it as I go along. You can always tag with Template:Copy edit but it would be really nice if there is a way to examine a category of Indian articles requiring ce. Is there a way to combine categories? Having a subpage is just going to be another level of stuff needing maintenance. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of making it a category. There are such things as hidden categories. Can we create one, then put the template thing on the project page. Yes, I try to copyedit as I go along, but I'm better at research, and there are some excellent and devoted copyeditors on wikipedia. A category might capture some of them. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit. I am not particularly good with the detail of how this would be set up, though. - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither am I, but give me a few days, and I can probably take care of it, unless someone more competent does so first. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl and Good Olfactory seem to do a fair amount of work in the category namespace. They might have some suggestions re: implementation etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to get their input? I think the India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh articles need so much copyediting that finding a community-wide means of going about it is a good idea. For example, I could do a fact copyedit on Kannada articles, with some translation help at home, then English speaking editors could easily do a final grammar and punctuation copy edit. Distribute the load, get lots of help. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Have left a note with both of those people. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of ways of doing this. One is to create a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit and use that to tag India articles that need copyediting. The problem with this approach is, of course, that the tagging editor has to know that the sub-category exists. The second approach is to create a bot-maintained list on a subpage. The bot can periodically update the list by searching for articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit that are also tagged as a part of Wikiproject India. Assuming someone can write that bot (tinucherian?), the latter is probably the better approach. --regentspark (comment) 20:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The list of articles that need copyedit is available as part of this cleanup listing. Scroll to the section for "Wikipedia articles needing copy edit". It will take some time to load the page due to the large number of articles that need a cleanup (65% of project articles are marked as needing cleanup). — Ganeshk (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is also possible to download the list into a CSV file using this link. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have downloaded the list and filtered it to the articles that need a copy edit. I have added the filtered list to Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Cleanup/Articles needing copy edit for easy reference. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Category

Saw this at User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Category_advice_requested. I'd be happy to help if i can.

In looking this over, Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit seems to be already set up for what you're talking about, complete with subcats. Is it that you aren't sure of which fixit templates populate which subcats? Or is it that you just want a big voluminous category so that you all can dive in trying to whittle down the forest to a few toothpicks? Or is there some other system that you would prefer?

Trying to understand the want so that we can implement as effectively as possible : ) - jc37 00:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A problem I see with India (and South Asia) articles is when they are added to en.wiki by editors who speak English as a Second Language. From my limited experience it is a bigger problem among South Asian articles than in many other places; possibly because a lot of Indians speak some English and often good English and have access to technology, but may not have the English grammar skills to write an article. I have seen a host of articles on en.wiki that were translated badly from Indian languages into English leaving internally inconsistent text even at the sentence level. Many en.wiki editors have limited experience with South Asian topics, particularly tribal, caste, and social religion topics. The coupling of inconsistent translations on an unfamiliar topic, make it hard for all but a handful of editors to copyedit these articles, so they often are ignored and allowed to sit as bad articles. It is my opinion that identifying these articles to the projects might get some good initial copyediting and fact checking that will leave articles in a state that allows any interested copyeditor to edit the articles. I would like, somehow, to identify South Asian articles to the projects for interested topical editors to take a first pass at. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

How to find articles to copy edit

You can see one way the Guild of Copy Editors (

Aha, that answers my question of 17:33 yesterday: we have the capability to combine categories in a search. That pretty much resolves the issue without any further complexity being necessary. The only problem is remembering/publicising the toolserver link. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could create a "Copyediting department" within the India project (akin to the assessment department). Interested editors can sign up, the toolserver link can be recorded there, and, and this is the hard part, a periodic message can go out to members - perhaps listing important articles that need copyediting. Something like that anyway. --regentspark (comment) 13:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas, most of the huge number of India-related articles seem to need copy-editing. The problem is surely that too few of us give our time to it. Moonraker (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I did check out some of the articles at the link above, and I was shocked. Seems doing nothing but copyediting to readability level would be useful. Pseudofusulina (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee -- I cannot figure out how to use the tool you listed. Are there instructions? Pseudofusulina (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is undergoing an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhookh.com. AFAIK, it is the only Indian Click to donate site. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• All state articles are in or moved to format [[List of districts of <statename>]]. (Except "Maharashtra" which is in the queue for requested moves).
• The class for all articles has been changed from stub/start/etc to "List".
• The master list -
  List of districts of India
  - alone has been retained as having "Top importance".
• Each state list - [[List of districts of <statename>]] - has been placed at importance "mid" for WikiProject India and at "high" importance for that state WikiProject/Task Force and also Task Forces "Districts" & "Geography".
• The talk page template is now standardised to :

{{WP India
|class=List
|importance=mid
|state_name=yes
|state_importance=high
|districts=yes
|districts-importance=high
|geography=yes
|geography-importance=high
}}
{{talkheader}}

Some observations

• All articles have state maps showing the districts.
• The map of Tamil Nadu & text and an old image (which I deleted) have caused some doubt. Someone please confirm the correctness of the whole article.
• In fact, every one please check the correctness of districts of your states and please amend as per latest changes. Please inform the Noticeboard for info of all and especially if you need help with the map/diagram.
• Of all these, the article in the best shape is
  Featured Article
  of the lot.
• In many lists, the sections are empty or text is sparse. If you belong to a particular state or have affiliation for it, please find material and improve these so that they are at least presentable.
• We need a template infobox giving links for all districts of Indian states & union territories for the "See also" section. Any one willing to take it up?

AshLin (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Relief workers in Noakhali, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, i have created a separate Wiki-Project for Mangalore. Anyone interested can add your name in the following link. The project was deleted before, and i hope that this time there are enough people to keep it functioning.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mangalore/Members

Hi! I just created

Should most of the information at "Raebareli Airport" be moved to "Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi"?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The Academy is an educational institution and a separate entity, though it shares the Airport facilities. utcursch | talk 11:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have searched on this topic and in the past there have been some issues raised about the accuracy of Indian Mythology related articles, I have not found any consensus about the issue. I have come across a lot of articles about Indian families like Bharadwaj and terms like Suryavanshi and Chandravanshi. Apart from Veda's and Kurana's are their any reliable books or articles on this topic? Or is it all a matter of personal interpretation? Regards Wikishagnik (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm!!! You will almost never find consensus on such a vast (and vague) question you are refering to. There are many books for referencing to Indian mythology and they surely contradict each others. Refer some current FAs and GAs and you will find "such such thing" according to XYZ and some completely different things as per another PQR. And as they are Myth+ologies, we keep all these stories. And for your question related to families, you will not find them in Vedas and NEVER in Kuran. You would wanna say

talk

) 12:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a disagreement over framing the lead of the article and particularly over how 2002 Gujarat violence should be handled in the lead. Please comment and help build a consensus. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the [[3]]. McKinseies (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, if anyone would be interested in creating any of the four required templates for WikiProject Mangalore, i would be very grateful.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mangalore/Templates

Dear friends,

I would like to welcome

All the best BPositive and hope you have a great time doing things new to you till now!

I request the wider India community to welcome and support BPositive as he guides us on our monthly INCOTMs.

AshLin (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome BPositive on WP:India. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:INDIA ... All the best wishes ! -- Tinu Cherian - 02:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can some one look into

List of members (which Im quite confused about, Im sure its not totally correct, see [4]) and List of presidents need to be hived off into separate lists. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Iv moved the presidents list here and the members list here. The article is still in bad shape though, certainly needs some attention. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a question on this subject on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. Your opinions are welcome. Wiki-uk (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A discussion regarding renaming the article