Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 72

Wrong use of WP:INDICSCRIPT guideline

Some people uses WP:INDICSCRIPT guideline incorrectly. WP:INDICSCRIPT clearly says: "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, or any of India's neighbouring countries." However some people are applying this guideline to other countries too. For example, see this. WP:INDICSCRIPT guideline also applied to Pakistan, Afghanistan related articles!! --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

yes thankyou for bringing it to notice. This is clearly a misuse. WP:URDUSCRIPT is applied in Pakistan related articles. That being said, it is difficult to rollback the edits now due to intermediary edits and will have to be manually edited. WP:PAKISTAN should be informed about this. defcon5 (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

(neutral opinion) The same reasons for not using Indic scripts in India-related articles is valid in all other articles too. I don't see why Indic scripts would be any more relevant or avoid the issues for other topics. "Avoid the use of Indic scripts in lead sections or infoboxes. Instead, use International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides, which are more international. Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, and articles on texts originally written in a particular script." seems wise advice. The reasons why not to include Indic scripts would also apply in other articles. WP:CREEP and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY come to mind - if there are different wikiproject pages about this, then maybe a more general note to avoid this should be left at the most relevant MOS page, wherever that may be. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian, In that case you have to apply same rule for other languages too. e.g. remove Japanese text from this or Arabic text from this etc, i don't understand these text either. There are thousands like this these, you will need a consensus to do that i think. But until then i will oppose if you apply WP:INDICSCRIPT guideline to India's neighbouring countries only (WP:INDICSCRIPT clearly says: "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related..."). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান:I don't see the rationale why Indic script would be more relevant in an article about a topic from, say, Bangladesh, than India, unless one of the exceptions applies (in which case we don't really care where the subject of the article is). In fact, the further afield we go from India, the less relevant any Indic script is likely to be. Would the Indic script name of an Indian expat cricket player really be relevant? Don't think so; and it's likely not even relevant for, say, Indian players themselves (ex. Virat Kohli). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian My understanding is this: In your view, use of Bengali script on Bangladesh-related articles is not OK (you may know Bangladesh is a separate country & they have only one language that is Bengali) but e.g. use of Japanese script on Japan-related articles is OK. I'm seeing some kind of fear here, otherwise why Bengali script can't be used on Bangladesh-related articles but Japanese script can be used on Japan-related articles? (i used Bangladesh & Japan as an example). My only request is this: Please don't apply WP:INDICSCRIPT guideline to India's neighbouring countries. Thank you. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian use of native scripts is a localised issue in Wikipedia and every Country Project have their own guidelines. There is a strong consensus among editors of this project to not use Indic scripts because of the sheer number of scripts used in India. The other projects don’t face the same problem. defcon5 (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: Bangladesh uses a single script - the Bengali script. People in India use more than a dozen different scripts (and even more spelling variations). A consensus has been established within WikiProject India not to use Indic scripts for articles governed by that project. The consensus does not apply to any other WikiProjects - whether Bangladesh, Pakistan, or Japan. Hence, our request is simple: do not try to apply an internal rule of one project to articles that are explicitly outside its scope. Thank you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears if you would like to weigh in... VV 17:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

VV: See, User_talk:TheBirdsShedTears#WP:INDICSCRIPT :) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• As WP:INDICSCRIPT says Avoid the use of Indic scripts in lead sections or infoboxes. Instead, use International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation guides, which are more international It doesn't adress which Indic script(s) should we avoid. Also, আফতাবুজ্জামান is confused about Indic script. It says, "They (Indic scripts) are used throughout the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia and parts of East Asia, including Japan in the form of Siddhaṃ". Hopefully, i have not applied this guideline outside the Indian, Pakistan, Bangladesh related articles while removing the IS. In my opinion, removing Indic script from Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia related articles is not incorrect use of WP:INDICSCRIPT. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  @TheBirdsShedTears: I'm not confused about Indic script. "Hopefully, i have not applied this guideline outside the Indian, Pakistan, Bangladesh related articles while removing the IS" - what? Why you're applying this guideline to Pakistan, Bangladesh related articles?

  Second para of WP:INDICSCRIPT says: This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, or any of India's neighbouring countries. Please read again: articles that are predominantly India-related & excluded from, any of India's neighbouring countries.

  My common sense says: If an article is predominantly India-related e.g West Bengal then i will go ahead and apply WP:INDICSCRIPT but If an article is not predominantly India-related e.g. Dhaka or Kabul or Shakib Al Hasan or Mohammad Hafeez or Shirish Devkota, i should not apply WP:INDICSCRIPT there.

  "In my opinion, removing Indic script from Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia related articles is not incorrect use of WP:INDICSCRIPT" - No, you should not do this, this is incorrect use of WP:INDICSCRIPT. WP:INDICSCRIPT only applies to India, not whole indian subcontinent. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  Why? By your logic, Indic scripts about a person of Indian ancestry living in, say, France, would be acceptable... Clearly, no, "Indic scripts" (of all kinds: they're equally incomprehensible to most readers) should not be used outside of articles where they have a clear relation to their subject and where their use is not inappropriate with the usual concerns given there. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  RandomCanadian, Either you're making your own WP:INDICSCRIPT guideline or you're ignoring half of WP:INDICSCRIPT guideline. I didn't said to include Indic scripts on a person's article who have zero relation with that indic language. Yes, i agree with you that "Indic scripts" should not be used where they have no relation to their subject. However, you should not remove Indic script from all Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia related articles. You should not apply WP:INDICSCRIPT guideline to articles that are predominantly Afghanistan/Bangladesh/Nepal/Pakistan/-related (where subject has clear relation with that indic script). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• The reason to introduce the rule was related to the articles under WikiProject India, and that was the scope also. If an article is under WikiProject Pakistan, Bangladesh etc also and their script adds value, I do not see a problem of adding it. --Titodutta (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Numbering for the films table under Filmography

Requesting comments for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Numbering for the films table under Filmography -- DaxServer (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Narendra Modi - Best PM - MOTN Poll

Requesting comments on Consensus for "Best PM" MOTN poll for article Narendra Modi. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The poll was removed following the discussion. -- DaxServer (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Help regarding recent articles listed at WP:AFD

Hi members, Debottam Majumdar, Rukma Roy, Ratna Ghoshal, Anushree Das and Malabika Sen are listed for WP:AFD. If anybody interested please help to rescue them. Thank you.Run n Fly (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Vijayanagara Empire

I have nominated Vijayanagara Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Izno (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Konkan

Hello, I am ExclusiveEditor and I have noticed that there is no WikiProject for the Konkan division of Maharashtra state. Konkan is a vast part of Maharashtra and there are many categories and subcategories regarding it, also there are numerous pages about its vast culture. What I have seen is that the quality of the pages can be much improved if there is a special WikiProject for it, and therefore I have proposed WikiProject Konkan here. Kindly support the proposal and join it when ready if interested. Regards ExclusiveEditor (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I have supported it, but if you want more coverage, then please go to the talk pages of Konkani articles --Sitaphul (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Meenakshi – Minakshi

This topic appears to have various spellings, as well as other possible names. Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Meenakshi#Recent move. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC

There is a discussion going on the article COVID-19 pandemic in India regarding whether to make Superspreader event Kumbh Mela under seperate heading. Please tell your opinion here[1] Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 18:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu

There is an ongoing discussion on whether to rename the article to Ram Setu; the discussion is at Talk:Adam's Bridge. 183.83.146.194 (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shatamarshana gothra

The article Shatamarshana gothra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is not notable, and is severely lacking in coherent content and sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable and few sources the ones which are cited are also blogs Sikandar khan67 (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Please develop List of Tai ethnic groups in India

Unsourced, unexplained. Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

💔 ☸

Heartbroken for India. I know it's off-topic, but I just had to say something. I'm so sad. 😢 Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for your support during these difficult times Mathglot. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Merchant ship flags

A discussion is taking place at WT:HV#Merchant ship flags of the British Empire re flags flown by merchant ships of the British Empire. Please feel free to join in. Mjroots (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Godi media

There is a request for deletion of article Godi media. Requesting for participation in the discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godi media -- DaxServer (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Tamil language

I have nominated Tamil language for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 in India

The Wikipedia pages on Covid-19 in India are highly outdated especially the ones on the pandemic of every state. There is a complete lack of data / info between September 2020 to March 2021. Considering the second wave of the pandemic, we really need to update the page. Are any Indian wikipedians interested in collaborating to update these pages? Sitaphul (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to collaborate with you and updat the articles related to COVID-19 epidemic in India.Ankit (Talk with me) 19:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Vital Articles

Can we create a list of India related vital articles? It may be helpful in prioritizing the improvement of vital articles related to WikiProject India.Ankit (Talk with me) 17:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ankit2299 To start with, here is the Petscan: 18995086 -- DaxServer (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServerYes this very well could be used as the base/reference list. What I am suggesting is that we create a project page/sub page/special page (whatever is the right terminology) titled WikiProject India/Vital articles or WikiProject India/India related Vital articles. Further this should contain level wise vital articles listed as in wp:vital. Does this idea hold any merit? I'm curious to what people think, I think it could be a great resource. --Ankit (Talk with me) 19:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

List of Jat states and clans

List of Jat states and clans

Can someone have a look at this article and assess its usefulness.

The name seems odd with the "and clans" added to states. noq (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Names of people - using given name / patronymic name

In Southeast and South Asia, many people use only a personal name, which may be followed by a patronymic; in such cases, they should be referred to by their personal name.

MOS:GIVENNAME (also redirected from MOS:PATRONYMIC) allows us to use personal names (given names) [and patronymic names] instead of last names - when the person is referred to as such. As I understand, this will override the MOS:SURNAME. Surely, not everyone is referred to by their given/patronymic names. WP:RS would tell us which one to use. What are your opinions, for and against using given/patronymic names and not surnames, if eligible? -- DaxServer (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with the quoted text especially when it comes to women's names since it tends to be either the father's or husband's and only the given name being the individual's identity. VV 09:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I call for experienced confident editor to relook at edits suggested by me

Please peruse and incorporate the edits I have suggested on the protected article talkpage here Talk:Line_of_Control#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_16_May_2021. Due to personal problems relatives to covid pandemic, unfortunately I do not have time and inclination to indulge in long discussion on that articles talk page. My concern is my hours of goodfaith edit and effort will be down the drain merely because someone threw a time-wasting stone-walling vague objection without substantiating their objections with "actionable/remediable specifics". I am deliberately an IP because I avoid addiction to wiki. In my long years at wiki as an IP, I find that there are many registered editors who thrive on notifications from wiki and they tend to do time-wasting pedantic things including throwing vague WP:DISRUPTIVE objections. This is slowly killing wiki because it drives away IPs. IPs are the most valuable stakeholders (much more than the registered editors and admins) because IPs contribute nearly 60% of all legit edits/content on wiki and they form nearly 99% of readers. Currently, wikipedia's editing system / rules/ policies/ bureaucracy / attitudes are geared heavily against IP editors who are treated as piece of shit (I'm one of those and have faced it regularly over last several years), and time wasting editors addicted to wiki create vague and DISRUPTIVE road blocks. I request some long-timer mature, competent, confident, experienced, editor to please review edits suggested by me on that talk page and take those to some logical conclusion. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Black fungus from COVID infection

• Black fungus (COVID-19 condition)

This is especially affecting India. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Home Shop 18 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Home Shop 18 to be moved to HomeShop18. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Proposed Creation of an Indian Law workgroup

The status of articles on Supreme Court cases is terrible, as well as all manner of other things related to Indian law. Is it possible to create a work group with collaboration from both WikiProject India and WikiProject Law? I can sign up at least two editors with subject matter expertise who will work on this, but we need more. - Semanticz0 (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the lack of response here (for good reasons and other priorities, I am sure), I have proposed a child WikiProject Indian Law. Please express support if interested. Semanticz0 (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Join the new Regional Committees for Grants

Dear all,

We hope this email finds you well and safe. The COVID 19 situation continues to affect many of us across the globe and our thoughts are with everyone affected. We are also aware that there are several processes currently in progress that demand volunteer time and we do not want to add more work to anyone's plate.

We do want to draw your attention to our new Regional Committees for Grants though as they are an opportunity for you to have an active say in the future of our Movement!

📣 So today, we invite you to join our new Regional Committees for Grants! 📣

We encourage Wikimedians and Free Knowledge advocates to be part of the new Regional Committees that the WMF Community Resources team is setting up as part of the grants strategy relaunch [2]. You will be a key strategic thought partner to help understand the complexities of any region, provide knowledge and expertise to applicants, to support successful movement activities, and make funding decisions for grant applications in the region.

👉Find out more on meta [3].

Regional Committees will be established for the following regions:

• Middle East and Africa
• SAARC [4] region (Includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka)
• East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific (ESEAP) region
• Latin America (LATAM) and The Caribbean
• United States and Canada
• Northern and Western Europe
• Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)

👉All details about the Committees and how to apply can be found on meta [5]. Applications have to be submitted by June 4, 2021!

If you have any questions or comments, please use the meta discussion page [6].

Please do share this announcement widely with your Network.

Best wishes,

JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the Community Resources Team

Edit warring

I've ECP protected the following articles for 2 months because of edit warring :

• List of political parties in India
• List of political parties in Tamil Nadu
• Pattali Makkal Katchi

Extra eyeballs on those articles would be appreciated. Cabayi (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles, including India related articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. --John B123 (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article Additions

Hi, Im a student at the university of Sydney and part of my course was to improve a stub-level article. My assigned topic was The Polyester Prince biography on Dhirubhai Ambani, a famous Indian business tycoon. I just finished adding a lot of detail to the article and was wondering if anyone could take a look at it to provide me with some feedback. It would be much appreciated! --WaTErMelON690 (talk) 03:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Lakshadweep Reforms : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lakshadweep_Reforms

Hello, I have created a Draft on Lakshadweep Reforms. Please feel free to contribute to this cause. Thank you~ Tawianomlet (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

This discussion may be of interest to members of WikiProject India: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sportskeeda_generally_unreliable? —valereee (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Indian Orthodox church buildings has been nominated for merging to Category:Malankara Orthodox Syrian church buildings

Category:Indian Orthodox church buildings has been nominated for merging to Category:Malankara Orthodox Syrian church buildings. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Place Clichy (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Amit Mistry 265,697 8,856 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

D. P. Jadeja

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at D. P. Jadeja and checking whether the person written about in this article is the same person? If it is, then the article should be updated because the subject is no longer living. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Looks like the right article. The news article says three times elected as MP from Jamnagar and the D. P. Jadeja article also mentions the same. But there was no mention of Ajay Jadeja. I couldn't say much. -- DaxServer (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this DaxServer. Do you know whether Indian Express is considered a reliable source for India-related topics? Do you think this article is sufficient to support a claim that Jadeja is dead if the source is reliable? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Indian Express is considered generally reliable (WP:INDIANEXP). For some reason, I am not able to find other sources for Jadeja's death. Would you be able to list some more here? -- DaxServer (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

​ I could only find the one mentioned above. I basically came across this while trying to assess the non-free use of the image being used in the main infobox. Non-free images of still-living persons are pretty much never allowed, but there was a claim being made on the file’s page that Jadeja was deceased. I was trying to verify this to determine whether the file could be kept or needed to be nominated/tagged for deletion. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I would expect some coverage when a former 3-time MP and being the father of a prominent cricketer, dies. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

That's what I thought and which is why I was a bit skeptical about the "demise date" comment made by the uploader of File:Daulatsinhji Pratapsinhji Jadeja.gif. WP:BDP assumes that people are alive until either their death can be confirmed through reliable sources or they reach 115 years of age, and that the standard that tends to be applied to non-free images of the subjects of biography articles as well. So, that's why I asked about this article here on the chance that someone might be able to find additional sources (even non-English ones) that would help clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir (state)

There is a big band of IP editors randomly changing Jammu and Kashmir (state) to Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). This is an example.

Please revert all such changes on sight. We have already converted all the links that needed to be changed last year, when the dab page for Jammu and Kashmir was created. If any more fixing is necessary, the editors need to explain in the edit summary or the talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Rupak Sarmah and Rupak Sharma

Are these articles about the same person? defcon5 (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@DEFCON5 Yes, they are. -- DaxServer (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

redirected Sharma to Sarmah since that appears to be the correct spelling. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

IP editwars over lead for banks and PNBs

Over the last several weeks, I've been observing IPs warring for lead text, like "[...] is an [[India|Indian]] [[Government of India|government owned]] [...]", "It is under the [[ownership]] of [[Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas]], [[Government of India]] [...]", and some other would rephrase it to something else. Some examples: Special:Diff/1027156039, Punjab National Bank and several others if explored further. Can we put an end to this? -- DaxServer (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing disputes

Your opinions will be welcome at Talk:Bongal_Kheda (both the sections are relevant) and Talk:Sylheti_language#Issues. Thanks in advance. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Mysore Ananthaswamy

This article has been tagged for notability for seven years. I'm considering taking it to AFD, but thought I would ask here first.4meter4 (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Article requiring cleaning Sandip Soparrkar

Can someone help in cleaning up this article Sandip Soparrkar. I have tried to tone down the promotional stuff but it still requires work. defcon5 (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Shoaib Ali Al Amari

Shoaib Ali Al Amari is a Musican Artist Singer Songwriter Composer Music Production India

Early life. Musican Artist

Singing career. Musican Artist And 7 songs released Shoaib09777 (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Contribute to d:Wikidata:Lexicographical data

Hi. The lexemes and lexicographical data about Hindi and other Indian languages is very less in Wikidata. Please contribute to it as it will be useful for many: d:Wikidata:Lexicographical data. Thanks. Vis M (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC) - Vis M (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Kerala dispute

Opinions are needed regarding this ANI report—are the reported edits a problem? Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

• 87 Sandeep Aur Pinky Faraar 232,799 7,509 Stub Low
• 93 Himanta Biswa Sarma 229,104 7,390 Stub Low
• 127 Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi 201,712 6,506 Stub Low
• 144 Suvendu Adhikari 190,466 6,144 Stub Low
• 146 Left Democratic Front (Kerala) 189,861 6,124 Stub Low
• 228 Ajit Singh (politician) 153,043 4,936 Stub Low
• 248 P. A. Mohammed Riyas 145,935 4,707 Stub Unknown
• 257 Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan 141,856 4,576 Stub Low
• 279 P. T. R. Palanivel Rajan 134,973 4,353 Stub Low
• 292 2021 Puducherry Legislative Assembly election 132,248 4,266 Stub Low

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK ?

Greetings,

Lately I added and updated a subsection on 'Food in Indus valley civilization' based on two different scientific studies. One is related to non vegetarian food samples and another related to vegetarian food samples. May be some one wants to update it further.

I personally find WP MoS and DYK rules too intricate, complex and time consuming. The updated information is relatively latest and interesting, so may be some one can help to add the same to Do you know section of the main page or a portal page if interested.

Thanks and regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

National Maritime Foundation nominated for deletion

I have nominated the article National Maritime Foundation for deletion. Your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Maritime Foundation is welcome. --George Ho (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A latest lecture by Dr. Sanjay Manjul, Joint-DG, ASI

Greetings,

Came across a recent lecture on Youtube by Dr. Sanjay Manjul, Joint-DG, ASI with some latest archeological updates. Though I am not fluent enough in Hindi language tried to understand with help of PPT & Machine translation systems, the lecture sounds interesting. Those interested in topic Indus valley civilisation may have a look at it, so it may help understand basics and create further interest to study research articles and update Wikipedia articles.

Thanks and best wishes.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Chara Basaveshwara Temple

I see that there is a category under WikiProject India called "". However, I don't think that each temple should get its own article, it's absurd. Take a look at Chara Basaveshwara Temple for example, this Wikipedia article is non-notable, suffers from Original Research and contains only two sources. I don't think that such stub article needs to be elaborated. On the contrary, it needs to be deleted and then to be mentioned in an article that carries the same name of the category. What do you think? Space Relic (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specifics of this temple, there are many temples in Karnataka (or rest of India), which can satisfy notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Think of churches in USA. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Dubious source

There is a locally published, non-scholarly book titled Saini Jagat: Utpati Ate Vikas. It was authored by someone named Surjeet Singh Nanua, who was apparently a "Non-Commissioned Officer of Indian Air Force" and has done postgraduation in English: [7]. This book is used on this project by SPAs to promote Sainis and to prove Saini ancestry of multiple historical Sikh personalities. There is no hint of it at Google Scholar, WorldCat, etc. So, should we use this non-HISTRS source for such contentious historical/caste details on this project? Sitush seems inactive, but Utcursch is also experienced in dealing with these type of local caste-related sources. Obviously, all others are also requested to give their inputs. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@NitinMlk: I don't think it is an RS. Could you provide examples of where it is being used? And, isn't there a Saini sock farm that was active a while ago? --RegentsPark (comment) 19:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I have seen it at multiple pages while fixing the list of Saini people, e.g. see here. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

RegentsPark, you are right regarding the Saini sock farm. I have just noticed the mess created by the socks of User:Punjabier. I will try to file an SPI in a day or two. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It is there in other articles as well, e.g. see here. Sometimes its title is written in Punjabi. On a different note, there are multiple other articles which were created under seemingly fake titles by previous Saini SPAs, e.g. there was a historical personality named Bibi Sharan Kaur, but there was no one named Sharan Kaur Pabla. Still, we have a wrongly titled article about her: Sharan Kaur Pabla. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

What is "Saini sock farm"? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, Saini is a caste and you can read about sock farming at WP:Sock farming. :) BTW, what do you think about the book mentioned in this section? - NitinMlk (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that the book is unreliable. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Census 2021

I am seeing an increasing number of edits claiming to add figures from the 2021 census - all of them unsourced, so I have reverted them all. Is it known when the census figures will be released? and, if they are to be released in batches, what the order of release will be? I have tried searching the Census website, but the search facility does not seem to work from England - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Arjayay, the census hasn't been conducted yet.. so. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tayi Arajakate - That is what I thought, but could not confirm it. Is there any idea/decision on when it will be conducted? - Arjayay (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Arjayay, there is an idea that it might not be conducted this year. The government still wants to do it at some point in this year though, I'm not sure how. They haven't provided a specific timeframe yet. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The editors belong to this page. Census 2021 will be conducted the next year, if not later. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TrangaBellam - Arjayay (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

regarding a move request with low/no one commenting. Udasi to Udasin

Hi I'm trying to get more people to add to the topic so that it dose not remain dead. [[8]] It is not my intention to advocate for or against it, as I requested the move, but it has gone nearly a month now with only 1 other person commenting on it. I have stated in short and at length in the talk page as to why I believe the move to be in-line with wiki standards. Rammuni BadaUdasin (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thiyyar/Ezhava

Could someone (@Sitush:, for example) take a look at Ezhava and Thiyyar history? Thiyyar redirects to Ezhava and Thiyyar history was created last month. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Redirected to Ezhava based on comment from Sitush "Ongoing series of POV forks created against consensus, many by sockfarms and off-wiki recruitment/canvassing. They also exploit the numerous variant spellings of Tiyya, Thiyyar, Thiyar etc. That new article should be redirected or deleted - sometimes we have had to permanently protect also."--RegentsPark (comment) 13:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

List of Brahmin dynasties and states‎

The number of red links and uncited "dynasties" on this page is concerning!--RegentsPark (comment) 13:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This article has many, many flaws and probably does not deserve "protected status". I tried to clean it up some but unable to edit it.Rammuni BadaUdasin (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Sri Krishnadevaraya's origin

The sourcing of origins of Krishnadevaraya is conflicted. The cited book does not seem to have the word "bunt", and yet it was cited. The article was being edit warred over it and a few users were blocked. Requesting someone who knows the domain to verify the sources. Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Boha geoglyphs

I merged Great Indian Desert Lines into this article. A rough merge so if someone could take a look, that would be great. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Bharatpedia

Today I ran into something called "Bharatpedia". Domain name "en<dot>wikipedia<dot>ind<dot>in". The page history indicates that it started in August 2020. Apparently, its purpose is to build an encyclopedia in "Indian English"!

It didn't know how to log me in. So I don't know if it is part of Wikimedia or not. [Well, I guess it isn't, because Wikipedia has alreay blacklisted it.] I am sure it is soon going to be bigger than our Wikipedia, because it will copy all our articles, plus also include all the junk we reject. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Chariotrider555 seems to have logged in somehow. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You are right looking at the history of its main page it was created in August 2020 and since it's not a part of the Wikimedia Foundation as per a disclaimer on the site I don't think you will be able to login using the same login details as here on Wikipedia, instead you need to create a new account there. The site was blacklisted here in April 2021 and its interesting to read this disclaimer [Bharatpedia:General_note] which was added after the site was listed in the spam list. 42.106.216.197 (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I hope you did not use your Wikipedia username and password trying to log in. For all you know it could also be a phishing site. Chaipau (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: there is a message on the login page that reads Please note that if you try to login using your Wikipedia username and password, it will not work. so that sounds fair enough to me. @Kautilya3: I registered myself a week ago under my old username (an account under GSS was already there) and contacted them to rename it to avoid any misuse. The account has been renamed and I was granted some advance user rights based on my contributions here which is surprising. GSS ^💬 04:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that is what I would expect a pretend Wikipedia to do! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting for a consensus on N. T. Rama Rao

Appreciate your inputs here: Talk:N. T. Rama Rao#Consensus for "Greatest Indian Actor of All Time" CNN-IBN poll -- DaxServer (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

TheLogicalIndian

Anyone know if this is a reputable website that can be used as WP:RS? Specifically, in this edit. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

RegentsPark, it isn't. They have user-generated as well as sponsored material on their site with no disclosure of what is what making it pretty much unusable on Wikipedia. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the, poorly framed anyway, edit sourced to this site.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Admin intervention kindly requested

Hello, I need help with a certain user and his edits on certain pages on the South Indian state of Kerala. He has been warned prior to this for a similar activity (but the same objective) by an admin. The User:Kambliyil constantly puts in the terms "North Malabar" and "South Malabar" in pages on the villages towns and other places of the Northern districts in the state of Kerala. The administrative setup of India is Country-> State-> District. However he keeps putting in the aforementioned terms for no reason in the pages for districts and places in those districts of the state making it look like they exist officially.

One of the official Government(Kerala)-sites https://kerala.gov.in/districts lists the names of the districts at the administrative level. Another is http://districts.nic.in/districts.php?sid=KL From both its clear that there is the State and then of course the District. The "Region" is something that is completely amiss not just in India but most countries AFAIK and on Wiki too that I think holds. Also here is the "Region" list of India [[9]]

Please look at Kannur/Kannur district/Wayanad district/Kasaragod district/Kasaragod/Kozhikode district/Kozhikode/Malappuram district/Malappuram/Palakkad district/Palakkad. And I suspect User:Boschanot might be a sock0puppet of this user. It seems he around this same time is making these same kind of edits (among others).

Since time immemorial, the southwestern part of India, covering entire Kerala State was known as "Malabar" or "Malabar Coast". The entire west coast of the ancient polity of Tamilakam - which was present-day Kerala - was called Malabar. From the early 1800s or so, when India was colonized, the British named the Northern part of the state as "Malabar district" before Malabar was always used (as were other terms) to mean entire Kerala with adjoining areas. It was only for the next 150 years or so from the early 1800s till the mid-1950s, till the formation of the state of Kerala, that there was a place called "Malabar" (district). Since the 1950s, after Kerala's formation, there has never been at any level whatsoever, a formal or official term called Malabar (let alone "North Malabar" or "South Malabar"), in any sense. The entire state speaks the language of Malayalam in vast majority uniformly. Minor cultural differences are far more along the lines of religion and then caste than along district. In fact the main royal family in the Northern part of the state traces its origin to the primary royal family in the South of the state (as well as originates there) and the two have been in a tradition of mutual adoption of heirs for centuries.

I hope you do the needful and put this user in his place. Whatever I have written here can be ascertained to be correct by anyone here. Hope you help. Regards.NYCLover2016 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to add that my main issue is with this user adding the terms "North Malabar" and "South Malabar" in the Infobox and the introductory paragraph of the respective articles. As I said before the administrative setup in India is Country-> State-> District. So the Infobox should also I believe be in that order first Country - then State - then District.

The user concerned was adding a map of only the northern districts to the pages I mentioned above prior to this in August last year. And Admin OhNoItsJamie stopped that and warned him [[10]]. Essentially what he is doing now is doing the same thing verbally that he was doing in terms of maps then.

I would also like to mention here that though I have this account, I log in to this typically only on the home-PC or my laptop, but as I had internet access on only cell till half a week ago, I had messaged Admin Doug Weller as an ip on my cell, in mid-June [[11]]. I have mostly copy-pasted my message to him over here as it was he who advised that I post here. I really hope some action is taken regarding this user and his edits I mentioned are reverted. NYCLover2016 (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Candidacy for WMF Board of Trustees Community volunteer election

Dear Fellow editors on WT:INB,

An important election of community volunteers to the Board of Trustees was announced by the Wikimedia Foundation on MetaWiki in mid-June. You can access more details about this election ‘‘‘here’’’.

The forthcoming Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Community Election 2021 is a great opportunity for our Indian Wikimedian community. The Board of Trustees is the highest forum that governs the Wikimedia Foundation. It decides the course of action to be taken for the present and the future. It also allocates resources and decides what are the priorities of the Wikimedia Foundation.

‘‘‘Four seats’’’ are up for election this time, and represents a great opportunity for our community to get one or more of our representatives elected. India is likely the world’s largest user of Wikimedia Projects. The Indian Community is one of the world’s most diverse communities in Wikimedia with 96 projects in 27 languages. However, the Indian Community has no representation in the Board. The Indian Wikimedian Community can ensure their voice is heard in the WMF by electing a member of our Community to this position. We can ensure that our ideas, concerns and matters that are important to us are discussed and that we also get equitable access to resources and priority for our cause.

I would like to inform you that I am now a candidate in the forthcoming election for Community volunteer seats of the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees. I am an active member of English language wikipedia, especially WikiProject India, having been an active online editor since 25 March 2006. In the first WikiIndiaConference 2011 in Mumbai, a presentation had been given by me on the topic “State of WikiProject India” in the session where each Indian language wikipedia’s status was presented.

I am also an offline activist, primarily in conducting training sessions in the culture of Wikipedia and basic editing skills across the country, and in mentoring many young Wikipedians.

You can access more details on my candidacy page on MetaWiki [12]. My vision for Wikimedia Movement is:

"An equitable, sustainable, safe, inclusive, accessible Wikimedia movement that presents the knowledge of the world to all parts of humanity in a manner best suited to the needs of the many communities.”

I have remained an unpaid volunteer because I believe that being a paid employee or consultant of WMF would cause a conflict of interest with my values. I believe this is an essential requisite for being a member of the Board of Trustees as well. Based on my Wikimedia experience with the Indian community, both online and offline, my real life-experience, and my independence from the Wikimedia Foundation and its affiliates, I feel confident of representing the emerging Wikimedia communities faithfully, of which the Indian Community is a very important part.

In this election, besides me, we have a number of other good candidates as well. I urge you all to visit the site links given above and learn as much as you can about the election and these candidates, so that you make an informed choice. The election is on 4 August 2021 so there is adequate time to do this. You are most welcome to contact me here for any queries or information at this email address:

ashlin(dot)wikimedian(at)gmail(dot)com

Sincerely, Ashwin Baindur, (User:AshLin)

AshLin (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support! This is great AshLin. I strongly support your candidacy and hope that other editors interested in India and South Asia related articles get behind you. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Darzi

Hello! Can someone please take a look at this article? I reverted @Vimaljadoun: changes twice due to poor sourcing and other other issues. They have now reverted me again but at least changed their sources (other issues still persist) They clearly have a pov base on this edit summary. However, I do not possess the knowledge to assess the sources they are using and certainly do not want to do a wholesale revert again if at least some the their changes are ok. Any help/guidance is appreciated. S0091 (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@S0091: I've dropped a community sanctions notification on their talk page. If you could explain to them that they should use the talk page, that would be helpful. On the face of it, the added source doesn't look reliable but someone who can read it should probably take a look. Courtesy ping @Vimaljadoun: --RegentsPark (comment) 22:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:, thanks! I have left a note on their talk page asking them to start a discussion. S0091 (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear @S0091: and @RegentsPark:, You must read the provided references if you can read Hindi because currently I only have the provided source. If I find more information in any language, I will cite that one later. @Vimaljadoun

@Vimaljadoun: You should use the article talk page to explain your edits, why the source is reliable, etc.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Slayy Point

Listing this draft: Draft:Slayy Point, for anyone who is interested. Peter Ormond 💬 17:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Lavana/Labana/Lohana caste

Could someone with more knowledge sort out the situation at the following articles: Lavana, Labana, Lohana? — Goszei (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC:Mentioning of Narendra Modi's marriage

Greetings,

Request for Comment: @ Talk:Narendra Modi#RfC:Mentioning of Narendra Modi's marriage

Thanks for inputs

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

upGrad company article advice

Please take a look at Draft:upGrad. It is a properly stated WP:COI contribution about an Indian educational company. Please tell what do you think of this article? What should be improved? Thanks! Peter. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Assam Vidhan Sabha constituency, Template:Infobox Kerala Niyamasabha Constituency, Template:Infobox Vidhan Sabha constituency, Template:Infobox state assembly constituency and Template:Infobox Indian state legislative assembly constituency

Template:Infobox Assam Vidhan Sabha constituency, Template:Infobox Kerala Niyamasabha Constituency, Template:Infobox Vidhan Sabha constituency and Template:Infobox state assembly constituency has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Indian state legislative assembly constituency. You are invited to comment on the discussion at wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 15#Infobox Assam Vidhan Sabha constituency. Thank you. 122.167.185.249 (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Attention please regarding List of Paki invention when it did not even exist

Please refer to this discussion where multiple editors have repeatedly raised the issue that the pre-partition of India invention and discoveries must not be placed in the List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries]. Well-respected editors on IVC, including Fowler&fowler have raided objections that the IVC inventions should not go in Pakistan article. Wikireader41, Gun Powder Ma, Huon, Thomas.W, Andy Dingley too have raised the similar concern over the years. But, the user S Seagal continued to demonstrated problematic Ownership of content behavior and as pointed by other editors he has been WP:DISRUPTIVE and pushing WP:POV by ignoring same objection raised by numerous editors. India with a common geographical unit with common name has existed since the time of IVC. Pakistan did not gain independence. India, which existed earlier, gained independence, and India was partitioned and that is how a previously-nonexistent Pakistan was born/formed as a brand new nation. There was no Pakistan before that, however India has existed for centuries before that.

As per established wikipedia conventions and policies, these belong to List of Indian inventions and discoveries. Sicne this is a protected article, I am unable to edit it. Please do the following.

1. Remove the IVC inventions from Pakistani article and move it to Indian article.

2. Change the lede of Pakistani article to the following:

This article lists inventions and discoveries made by scientists with Pakistani nationality within Pakistan and outside the country since the formation of Pakistan on 14 August 1947. As per the established wikipedia conventions and policies, place the invention prior to the 14 August 1947 in List of Indian inventions and discoveries. See also misappropriation.

3. Counsel and inform the editor of Pakistani page who are demonstrating the Ownership of content, to stop doing that, stop adding pre 1947 discoveries to pakistani article. User S Seagal in particular continues to demonstrate this behavior. Please address his behavior and his pattern of editing.

4. If S Seagal does not fix his behavioral pattern, then plese take him to ANI, or do something to fix this pattern.

I am a long time IP, IP by choice because I do not like notificationa and i try to minimize addiction to apps/wiki/social media. I am not related to any of the editors mentioned above. I have never edited Pakistan page, i.e. I have no conflict of interest or past good or bad track record with any of these editors above, all are strangers to me except that IO recognise Fowler from IVC related articles where he is highly respected by other established editors of the topics. I leave it in your capable hands to fix this issue.

Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Requesting attention at Komaram Bheem

There seems to be a lot of poor or no souring and possibly POV content. Requesting cleanup! -- DaxServer (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The subject looks interesting to me, I'll look into developing the article in a couple of weeks. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Advertising marketing

yes i am ready but i don't know how do i get it Manya Bhai (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

India schools/colleges at Articles for Deletion (AfD)

Editors may be interested in participating in discussions of currently nominated articles for deletion of these schools and colleges in India:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ascend International School
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Chamoli
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Aloysius' College (Jabalpur)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Aloysius' High School, Kanpur

Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Photo request

Please add any photos you find suitable for Godi media article. 122.179.65.171 (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at 1,2 and 3 122.179.65.171 (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think all of those are going to be copyrighted images that won't work for Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Changing Infobox company type of govt orgs as "Nationalised"

Lobstobar (talk · contribs) has been changing the type parameter in the Infobox company for the government companies and setting them as Nationalised ... Do we have a consensus about what should be put for these govt. companies and orgs? Also, @Lobstobar: could you please stop these modifications until this discussion? -- DaxServer (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• The correct term would be public sector. Nationalised only refers to a subset of public sector companies (such as Air India, many of the banks etc) that were private earlier but taken over by the state. —SpacemanSpiff 16:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Could it be just [[Public company|Public]] as set in its docs (Template:Infobox company), or do you see a difference between Public sector and Public (from the docs)? -- DaxServer (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Both are very different, public sector is where the company may (or not) be listed but the government is the majority (or sometimes only) shareholder. Public is as the name suggests, open to ownership by the public. That said, I don't have an opinion on how this should be treated, just clarifying the terms. Perhaps a discussion on the corp/business WP may be helpful. e.g. here, Lufthansa Group has less than 25% govt ownership, while Air India Limited is 100% owned by the government.—SpacemanSpiff 17:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think "state-owned" would be better term here when referring to the type of ownership. It avoids possible ambiguity with public services and public company. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  That is better. —SpacemanSpiff 17:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• The type parameters refers to the type of entity they are, which can vary between state owned companies. There are companies which are say public limited ones where a majority shareholding may be with the state. The ownership structure itself belongs in the owner parameter. Nationalised company is also not a synonym of state ownership, only a very small subset of state owned companies in India are nationalised ones, most are statutory corporations so their edits are just increasing inaccuracies. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• I'm wondering what to do with the user Special:Diff/1036014622 -- DaxServer (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Godi media § Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2021

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Godi media § Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2021. 122.179.87.96 (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Honourifics in Infobox and elsewhere in Dipak Misra

Do we put the "The Honourable" in Infobox at honourific param? I removed it stating MOS:HONORIFICS. Also, do we refer to him as "Justice Misra", or simply "Misra" per MOS:SURNAME? -- DaxServer (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Look buddy the thing is in India every person who is or has been on a constitutional post is address as with an honorary fics. The title defers but they are addressed with honour. So we should add it to the article. EditWiki45 (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Style of addresses like The Honourable are used only when the judge is in the office, not for life. So it should not be added in the | honorific_prefix = parameter. Professional titles such as Justice are omitted per MOS:CREDENTIAL. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi [[[User:Ab207|Ab207]], The link you provided as a source is the personal view of a person. You can see that it is clearly mentioned at the end of the article that the views expressed are personal. And personal views are not rules. EditWiki45 (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ab207, The link you provided as a source is the personal view of a person. You can see that it is clearly mentioned at the end of the article that the views expressed are personal. And personal views are not rules. EditWiki45 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, EditWiki45. You haven't provided any sources for your claims. Besides, the author Yatindra Singh is a former Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ab207Yes he is a former chief justice but still one's personal view can't be counted as a rule. And I also agree that I haven't provided any source but that's how it is. EditWiki45 (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

EditWiki45, we need better sources than "that's how it is." See WP:VERIFIABILITY. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Our manual of style is pretty clear. If you can't accept that then you should look for an alternative venue to publish things the way you like it. William Rehnquist and John Roberts provide good examples for how it's handled. —SpacemanSpiff 07:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Afd

Hi Folks!! Would it be possible for some folk to participate in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramcharan Bharali Afd. It needs some expert input, to determine if an award is notable. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Data table styling in Legislative Assembly listing

There was an attempt made to organize the table district-wise at Telangana Legislative Assembly - Special:PermaLink/1036402292, but didn't look quite well. This would be similar to Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly. I don't know about other states. The MOS:DTT#Avoiding column headers in the middle of the table suggests not to put table headers in the middle to visually separate the table contents, but rather split the tables. The Telangana article, unlike the Andhra Pradesh one, if split by district-wise would only get one or two rows for several districts. How should this guidance be used in these two, and potentially other similar pages? Or would adding a new district column be another option? -- DaxServer (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Naren aviation Could you provide your comments here? -- DaxServer (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Unnecessary access-date fields

The purpose of the "access-date" fields in citations is to note the date of access for websites that can possibly change. For example, a typical government website that provides information about some geographical entity, without giving any author or date, might change silently when the next government official feels like it. These days, web sites that provide Covid-related data change practically everyday. Sometimes they specify the date, and sometimes they don't.

On the other hand, news articles, institutional publications, journal articles etc. come with a date of publication. They do not need an "access-date" field. The template:citation documention says so explicitly: "Not required for linked documents that do not change". Moreover, it is the date of publication that is important and relevant.

Adding an access-date field unnecessarily adds cognitive load to the reader to figure out which date is what (especially when one occurs at the front and another at the end). For web-archived pages, we also get a yet another date: archived-date. That makes it a bit more worse.

I notice that the visual editor and other tools tend to add an access-date field automatically. I will raise the issue with them. But I also notice many editors depending on the automatically entered access-date fields and ignoring the date of publication. That is even worse. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

At this juncture, the automatic citation doesn't parse the publication date for some websites/webpages. I've observed it for Times of India. -- DaxServer (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

P. V. Sindhu

P. V. Sindhu is called Sindhu not Purshala.Subject is exclusively referred as Sindhu or P V .Sindhu in all almost WP:RS sources not Purshala and even in School and College she was called Sindhu .In this Indian name, the name Pusarla is a patronymic, and the person should be referred to by the given name, Sindhu.Her father's name is also Pusarla Venkata Ramana that is P. V. Ramana and he is refered as Ramana not Pusarla just as Sindhu. Readers almost exclusively know as Sindhu which is WP:COMMONNAME not Purshala. Further in South Indian names like Muthuvel Karunanidhi the subject is referred as Karunandhi not Muthuvel. Sindhu's sister Divya is referred as Divya not Purshala.Her name is also Pusarla Venkata Divya .Both Sindhu and sister Divya are called Sindhu and Divya not Purshala

• Her Father's name is Pusarla Venkata Ramana P. V. Ramana and is refered as Ramana not Purshala
• Her Sister's name is Pusarla Venkata Divya and is referred as Divya not Purshala
• Sindhu's name is Pusarla Venkata Sindhu and is referred as P.V.Sindhu or just Sindhu.
• Both her official facebook page and Twitter use P V Sindhu only.

Some Editors are wrongly changing her name to Purshala reverted it but wanted Indian board's opinion .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME dictates that "after the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only". For example, see Rahul Gandhi. There are so many Gandhis out there including Mohandas and even some in his own family, but he is referred as "Gandhi" after the initial mention of his given name of "Rahul". And WP:COMMONNAME is a article title policy, not related to what you have come with. And his father's and sister's articles should also be edited, per the MOS:SURNAME and should be referred as "Pusarla", after the initial mention of their given name, just like the Gandhis. Pusarla is not a patronymic, it is a family name that is used as an initial. Also, see her jersey, which has the words "Pusarla V S". Regards, Peter Ormond 💬 14:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

In the same article you've shared, it goes on as Sindhu became the first Indian woman to win two individual medals at the Olympics, having added to her silver in Rio 2016 but not Pusarla became the first [...]. I think MOS:GIVENNAME (Culture-specific usages) (In Southeast and South Asia, many people use only a personal name, which may be followed by a patronymic; in such cases, they should be referred to by their personal name.) supersedes the MOS:SURNAME (Subsequent use) here. I think we should follow RS and the MOS:GIVENNAME guideline for the subsequent use and not MOS:SURNAME. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with DaxServer. MOS:SURNAME is generalized policy with a plethora of exceptions owing to different cultural practices around the world. Telugu names like P. V. Sindhu where there surname dropped in favour of an initial is one of such cases. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to say I disagree with you .Her official name is Sindhu not Pusarla.Both she and her sister and father are known as Sindhu,Divya and Ramana and all 3 of them are not called by the same name Pusarla this is case in South Indian names like Muthuvel Karunanidhi ,Conjeevaram Natarajan Annadurai the subject is refered as Karunanidhi and Annadurai MOS:SURNAME does not apply here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion is now being duplicated here and on Talk:P. V. Sindhu. Let us decide where the centralized discussion must go. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

NDA in otherparty param for Infobox officeholder

Does the {{Infobox officeholder}}'s otherparty param accommodate alliances such as NDA/UPA? The docs said | otherparty = <!--For additional political affiliations--> -- DaxServer (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Arimaboss Could you provide your comments here before adding NDA any further? Thanks! -- DaxServer (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• It's unnecessary, I believe. Firstly, because the parameter is meant for only political parties and not alliances of those political parties. Secondly, it opens up new issues because the alliances of many regional parties keep changing on a regular basis and it could needlessly clutter the infobox. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Imsamrat392 has created bogus pages – Bagnan (Subhadip Mondal's Birth Place) and Talk:Bagnan (Subhadip Mondal's Birth Place). An admin/ other editor may please see and do the needful. - Chandan Guha (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I've tagged them with CSD G3. If an admin is reviewing them, please also look at the move log of the user. There seems to be a bit of back and forth moves creating redirects. -- DaxServer (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I've moved back one article, some of the creations seem a bit dubious to me but I have no clue on football leagues, so someone with some understanding of that area needs to check and tag appropriately. —SpacemanSpiff 16:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Odd behaviour

Can anyone have a look at this SPA? Till now they were active on Saini-related articles and have done disruption at them. But today they are blanking seemingly valid details at Yadav (surname) in small edits. This might be an attempt to get extended confirmed status to further disrupt extended-protected caste articles. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I reported the user at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. They are clearly WP:NOT HERE. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI would have been the correct venue. They wanted the extended status to disrupt Saini article – see this edit. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This user NitinMlk thinking himself super smart but his smartness is not in correcting an article anshsaini (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Neeraj Chopra

An SPA is repeatedly adding caste claims at Neeraj Chopra, although none of the sources provided by them shows self-identification. I have tried to explain to them, but they are not listening and I can't edit war with them. So can someone have a look at this issue? - NitinMlk (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate userpage

Has anyone noticed this userpage? It says "ahir gurjaro maachudo", i.e. 'Ahirs and Gurjars get your mothers fucked'. - NitinMlk (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe revdel is needed here. - NitinMlk (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I tagged the page for speedy deletion. @NitinMlk:, I'd suggest you too to use twinkle or any other quicker way in such cases to grab Admins' attention quickly. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Lightbluerain, thanks. Most admins don't understand Hindi. So I thought a post here would get the attention of those few who can understand it. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Rod Maratha clan

A newbie has created Rod Maratha clan based on the non-HISTRS Marathi media claims. This is apparently the clan of Neeraj Chopra. Not that this clan article is a hoax version of Ror article. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sardar Patel National Unity Award

The draft claims that this award is the highest civilian award of India and it is equivalent to Bharat Ratna. It sounds hoax to me. An expert view on this topic will be appreciated. Hitro talk 07:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The same claim was added by an IP made at Orders, decorations, and medals of India a day after it was constituted but the cited source does not support the statement. While the award is legit, I don't think its an equivalent of Bharat Ratna or any of the Padma Awards. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyone reads Kannada?

• 
  Caption1
• 
  Caption2
• 

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course, I do not know Kannada, not even a wisp, but I have been told Google Translate has become quite good. Dineshkannambadi has already given the name of the deity in two images.

• In Caption 1 it is "Shankara Narayanmurthy". So I translated that from English to Kannada, and obtained: ಶಂಕರ ನಾರಾಯಣಮೂರ್ತಿ which is exactly the sign above the deity (if you examine it.) So, correcto mundo  Done
• In Caption 3 too he has supplied the name. It is "Chandikeshwara Prasannamurthy". Reverse engineering it in GT gives ಚಂಡಿಕೇಶ್ವರ ಪ್ರಸನ್ನಮೂರ್ತಿ Which is also the same as the sign above except in one place. So, correcto mundo again  Done
• In Caption 2, he did not supply anything. And the image is not so clear. Never mind. I cut the sign out, enhanced it, made a negative, OCR'd it, and received ಕಿರಾತಾರ್ಜುನಮುಾರ್ತಿ which seems to be the sign. Fed it into GT. Lo and behold, I got Kiratarjunamurthy or (The statue of Kiratarjuna). The internet seems to think it is Kirātārjunīya, so it could be "Kirātārjunīyamurthy" or the statue of Kirātārjunīya. hopefully this is also correct mundo  Done

• While I am at it, I should advertise some articles I wrote on Kannada and its scholars long ago without any knowledge of the language or the script, not even remotely. They are: Kappe Arabhatta, Tripadi, A. N. Narasimhia and G. S. Gai. Fools rush in, in other words, where angels fear to tread. Enjoy! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

1. 1 is Harihara - Vishnu & Shiva combined. You can see the headdress differs on the right & left, also only one thigh has an ornament.
2. 2 shows the same moment as the lead pic at Kirātārjunīya, a painting by Raja Ravi Varma described as "Arjuna receives the Pashupatastra from Shiva".
3. 3 looks like Shiva & Parvati - not sure what special form (if any) the name denotes.

Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Very good Johnbod. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Shows the difference between brute force (me) and iconographic wisdom (Johnbod). But inspired by the wisdom, I note that in the first picture, below the lotus pedestal are their two vahanas (vehicles). Shankara (Shiva)'s on the left shows Nandi the bull; Narayana (Vishnu)'s on the right shows Garuda. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

For (3) : This. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks guys.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

Could I get some feedback on my merge suggestion of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed and Death and state funeral of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed on the talk page here? Dhalamh (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Government PSU table column

There is a table in List_of_public_sector_undertakings_in_India#Public sector companies. One of the columns is ‘Government Shareholding %’. There is a site listing percent holdings. I have gone through some, but I found companies not on the list such as Punjab & Sind Bank. I wanted to let the wikiproject know that it’s incomplete and anyone can fill in the gaps. Manabimasu (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

MaysinFourty: reviewing sock edits

MaysinFourty is a sock account blocked in September 2020. Many if not most of their edits [13] have since been reverted on the basis that they were made by a sock. This particular sock, for reasons best known to the owner, had made a habit of pruning promotional material from articles about corporations and/or commercial figures, and in many cases their concerns were quite valid. I would appreciate any assistance I could have with respect to reviewing the articles they edited, and removing the promotional info once again, or at the very least tagging it. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Indian philanthropist biographies

Indiaspora has compiled a list of philanthropists. Editors may want to create articles on any of the people on the lift who do not already have an article."40 Indian Americans in 2021 Indiaspora Philanthropy Leaders List". The American Bazaar. 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2021-08-13. From the article: Indiaspora’s 2021 Philanthropy Leaders List includes philanthropists from India (26) and from geographies with significant diaspora migration, including the United States (43), the United Kingdom (17), Canada (5) , the United Arab Emirates (8), Singapore (10), and Australia (2). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I am confused. Why are Indian American philanthropists India-related topics? Presumably they are American citizens, and have made their fortunes in America. As for India, the non-sectarian philanthropists have mostly been non-Hindus. Among corporate philanthropists, the Tatas (Parsis) have given more than the rest put together. Among individuals Azim Premji (Muslim) has achieved the same feat. I can speculate on the reasons, but those seem to be the facts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I support User:Fowler&fowler's view. Ethnic Indians abroad who are citizen's of other nations should not be a priority to this WikiProject unless their associations with India are notable, aside from just ethnic origin. AshLin (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Constituency articles

Nahtrav (talk · contribs) was moving constituency articles from "Xyz (SC) (Assembly constituency)" to "Xyz (Assembly constituency)". I assume the latter is more consistent. Do we have any consensus in the past about the naming? -- DaxServer (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion, but it kind of petered out. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a bummer! -- DaxServer (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Another question: Does the chronological ordering per WP:SALORDER (or perhaps WP:CHRONO or WP:LISTPURP or something else?) of the elections be observed or should they be in reverse chrono as recent elections hold significance (see my discussion with the user)? I tried searching Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums for any MOS, but was not successful. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I refer Hemant Dabral's edits also See WP:CONSISTENT Nahtrav (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nahtrav Could you rather stop moving the articles and changing the existing order of the election boxes until we reach an agreement here? -- DaxServer (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see previous users edits and the generality of naming articles, not any article in other states and countries are like that, and removing the reservation name won't hamper the article's genunity and essence, already many users moved many loksabha and assembly constituencies citing name, mistake, reservation,adding reservation after name irritates the users who are consistently dealing with elections, as there isnt any rule that reservation is compulsory and there is a rule that every information need not to be mentioned in the name of articles.Nahtrav (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nahtrav I agree with you that they are consistent. I don't really have any objections for these moves. All I am asking you is to wait for sometime and hear some opinions from others. -- DaxServer (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with removing the reservation status (SC in this case) from the name of the article. Also, regarding order of elections. I've tried to adhere to the reverse chronological order myself, mostly because a great majority of the articles that I saw were in this order. Like Nahtrav, I too did this mostly in the name of consistency, but i also believe that the latest elections are usually more important than the first elections in, say, 1955. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 True. Also, are you aware of any prior discussions or RfCs related to the ordering, somewhere in the WP:E&R perhaps? -- DaxServer (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Board of Trustees Election voting has begun!

Hello fellow editors on WikiProject India,

Wikimedia Board of Trustee Elections has begun from 18 August and will last till 31 August. The link for voting is here.

There are 19 candidates in the fray. Please see the list of candidates here, along with links to their candidate pages.

I would also like to draw your attention to the complete list of 61 questions which were asked by the Community. The Election Committee of the WMF selected eleven of these questions which were mandatorily needed to be answered by the candidates. Some candidates answered the complete list of 61 questions and you can read their views in their questions, however please note there was severe time pressure on the candidates in this election and all candidates were genuinely not able to answer all the questions due to commitments in real life.

Please do go through candidate statements, their answers to the mandatory 11 questions and complete set of community questions before voting. Vote wisely, and Happy Editting. :)

Disclaimer: I am a candidate for the Board of Trustees Election and this post is only for information of editors on my home wikiproject - WikiProject India. :)

Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutral Language when talking about Caste System

Hello! Im pretty new to editing and I have a few questions on a recent edit that was reverted.

The edit was around movies which depict caste system in India (Ex: Dhadak ), and the pages had words like “Upper” caste and “lower” caste, which are predominantly used but not necessarily neutral. I may not be right in changing them to different words, “Oppressor” and “Oppressed”, but I want to understand how we can avoid “Upper” and “lower” caste words becuase i believe these words are again decided “Upper” caste people.

Im not sure if there is already discussion around this topic and the language,

Response for reverting the language: Arjayay in User_talk:Arjayay#Edit_on_Dhadak

Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagarikakumar (talk • contribs) 04:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sagarikakumar. You have not elaborated on why these words are problematic. It seems to me that they are fairly descriptive and easy to understand regardless of who decided them. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

“Oppressor” and “Oppressed” are clearly a good deal less neutral than “upper” caste and “lower” caste, and are also not used by reliable sources, outside political polemic. So we won't be using them. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

+1 to Johnbod. That LCs were oppressed by UCs is not under any significant doubt but such descriptors are not yet used in academic scholarship. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Susan Bayly uses elite and non-elite. This is generally my preference. Thus, the Kurmis, whose gender-neutral work ethic the British were in love with, were a non-elite tiller caste in the lower Gangetic plain. The Brahmins and Kshatriyas whose unkempt fields the British revenue specialists could spot from afar were obviously elite castes, the taboo against handling the plough (the lord forbid letting their women out of the home to gather the straw) very much an aspect of their caste ideology. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

"Oppressor" can be problematic in other ways. The Jats, for example, were traditionally non-elite but they engaged in female infanticide. Their female to male ratio, i.e. the number of females in the population for every 1000 males, was appalling, down there with the Rajputs. In other words, the Jat women were oppressed not just by the elite castes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

"Oppressor" and "oppressed" strikes me as far too heavy a use of editorial voice unless and until it becomes the norm in academia. "Privileged" and "underprivileged" are terms that I've seen used, as is "marginalized", and I prefer those somewhat. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Where is Chondhi?

Are there two villages named Chondhi in Maharashtra state, in Raigad district and Yavatmal district? There is an article Chondhi, with no references, which has been in the encyclopedia since 2015, and says that the village is in the Raigad district. A draft, Draft:Chondhi, has been submitted, which says that it is in the Yavatmal district. I rejected the draft, but then it has occurred to me that there might be two villages; but I don't know enough about the sources to be able to answer the question, and am asking here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, there actually eleven (populated and legally recognized) villages in Maharashtra with the name "Chondhi". Three of them are in Yavatmal district (in Bublagaon, Pusad, Ralegaon sub-districts). They can be found at the census website search here. When there are multiple places with the same name, they can be disambiguated with state or district or sub-district as applicable. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Ab207. Yes, I am familiar with disambiguation of multiple places with the same name. This also happens in the United States with counties, which are the equivalent of districts in India, see Montgomery County, and with towns, see Danville. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 Taliban offensive

I made a request with a reliable source (the Washington Post) here but for some reason nobody is adding it to the article. It will take 4 days and 10 edits for me to add it myself, so I request one of you to do it (I have been told to get a new user name which I will do right away).--27.7.9.173 (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Need help for vandalism on articles Purvanchal Expressway and Agra Lucknow Expressway

Hi! Hope you are doing well. Just would like to bring to your kind notice of an incidence regarding the article Purvanchal Expressway. A user namely Akash Singh India has been continuously and constantly removing sourced data from the page. In the past, he has several times, inspite of being notified thoroughly of the edit war rulings of Wikipedia on his talk page, constantly broken 3 revert rule and engaged in edit war, while reverting and editing referenced info, making it one sided and biased, apparently inviting sockpuppetry allegations which now I believe is inevitable. Recently, he deleted the entire controversy section of the article “Purvanchal Expressway” which was sourced and put in by an unknown editor, I just restored the data citing unexplained sourced info removal, he has yet again responded with reverting, and mentioned this in my talk page, ”Good to see u back here. Tomorrow I will create criticism section in Agra-Lucknow Expressway with sources. This is just for your information.” I totally welcome if any editor edits or contributes to Wiki but am offended with the way he has responded, as if anyhow I was related to Agra Lucknow Expressway and by doing this he will probably take revenge, totally indicates that he is engaged in edit war. Also, there is already a section of controversy on article “Agra Lucknow Expressway”, I don’t understand what he meant to express by saying that he will create criticism page with sources, and at the same time removing criticism page of another expressway article. What I supposedly assume is that both expressways are built by different Chief Ministers of different political parties, and somehow or the other he has been violating Wiki neutrality guidelines with his edits being kind of sockpuppetry towards a political party. Secondly, on Agra Lucknow Expressway article he has been continuously editing the mentioned source info and presenting it biasly by adding his own views. Need your help, as his engagement in edit war has been far more number of times, he has been continuously broken the three revert rule and rarely engaged in discussions on talk page. Any user would be far disappointed with such behaviour from fellow editors. Kindly look into this. Shresthsingh71 (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Freedom fighter" - how to use it?

I have recently come across an article labelling someone as a "freedom fighter". A search reveals that the practice is somewhat common in Indian BLPs.

This turn of phrase is enumerated in the general MOS (manual of style) as value-laden and therefore to avoid, and it did make me uncomfortable. After some search, I found the context in List of Indian independence activists, according to which "freedom fighter" is a government-recognized legal category in India for "veterans" of the independence movement. There has already been two discussions on this noticeboard, but I do not really see a clear consensus (also, the latest discussion was 2017).

I do not see anything in MOS:INDIA, maybe something should be added? My (wholly uninformed) opinion would either:

1. Avoid the use of the term (at least in the lead) and/or systematically qualify it (i.e. "In 1978, X was recognized as a freedom fighter by the government")
2. Use it, but always wikilink to an article about the India-specific context (which could be a simple stub: "The government of India recognizes as freedom fighters those who fought during in the independence movement" or something like that).

Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 12:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree it should be avoided. "Independence activist" works just as well and is far less loaded. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Avoid it with a vengeance. In many (most?) parts of the world a freedom fighter is perceived as an out and out terrorist. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Irrespective of the guidelines on the term, I'm really curious as to why it's being used in BLPs. India gained independence in 1947 and it's 2021 now! —SpacemanSpiff 16:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably needs to be checked if they are properly sourced, though some of the people involved in colonial era movements are still alive so there's that. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I doubt most people in other parts of the world would consider Indian freedom fighters to be terrorists (itself somewhat of a loaded term) in the present day and age but otherwise yes completely agree that it should be avoided with vengeance, "freedom fighter" is a loaded term as well as an ambiguous one. I'd say it shouldn't be used beyond the systemic qualification. "Independence activist", "revolutionary" and other terms which actually describe what they did are much better alternatives. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

In order to be alive, in an actuarial sense, you'd have to have done your freedom fighting in 1946 or 1947 and done it at a very young age, say 16 or 17. Maybe you dropped out of Intermediate first year and joined the youth wing of the Congress or the Communist party. You'd be about 90 now. I see the "freedom fighter" concept to be a form of reparation, both material and immaterial, for the conventional career thrown overboard in the pursuit of anti-colonial nationalism. Not unreasonable. The amounts are fairly modest, so it is unlikely to lead to corruption. The FFs will be gone in another ten years. There is no harm in saying, "In 1978, the Government of India honored X with the "Freedom fighter" recognition/designation for his participation in the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

After Independence of India, many people who went to jail during the struggle were given the status of "freedom fighter" which brought a few perks including a small pension. The term was also prestigious in its own sense. However all those participated were not and could not possibly be granted that status by the Government. So a very large number of people self-referred with that epithet. I support the proposition that it be used carefully as regards those people bestowed with the title, suitably referenced, and its generic use avoided altogether. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @AshLin: I didn't know about the self-designation. This is what I love about WP, there are always people around who have the requisite knowledge to fill an existing gap. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Nor'westers

Nor'westers occur in Bangladesh and many parts of eastern India and in the North-east. It is called 'Kal-Boisakhi' in Bengali. Some editors have bee trying to portray Nor'westers, particulalrly Kal Boisakhi, as a Bangladeshi phenomenon. My point has been that natural climatic phenomenon cannot be identified with a country. I have just reverted an edit on the Nor'westers page. I shall request other editors to kindly keep an eye on that page. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert war

A new user has reverted my edits because he believes that Indian and Pakistani publications should not be used here. Please comment there!--Baamiyaan2 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Another revert war

The noted historian Binoy Ghosh had mentioned that the rulers of Karnagarh belonged to the Sadgop caste. Some editors (with red links) are determined to change the caste to Kurmi, without any supporting reference. Will an admin please see and do the needful? Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Tag& Assess 2021 commences

Hello friends,

This is to announce Tag & Assess 2021 drive for assessing the class and importance of WikiProject India articles that haven't been assessed so far, a total of about 10,800 articles. The drive is planned for the period from 0001 hrs on 1st September to 2359 hrs on 30th September 2021.

The landing page for the drive is: Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2021.

On this page, you can find :

• a place to add your name;
• information about the drive;
• guidance about how to participate in the drive;
• the running score of how many articles we have collectively assessed,
• the individual tallies of the participants;
• the rewards;
• and userboxes.

Editors will be classified into two groups, less than 3000 edits and editors with 3000 or more edits. There will be 1st, 2nd and 3rd place medals for those with highest tallies in each group of editors .

In addition, barnstars will be awarded for those who cross 200, 400, 600, 1000, 2000, 300 or 4000 total articles assessed.

For those interested in automated edits, the script Rater.js has been tested and found to work on WikiProject India articles.

All are welcome to participate in the drive, including those who are not part of WikiProject India :) .

Expect to find periodic updates on this talk page and on <wikimedia-india> and <wikimedia-in-en> mailing lists :)

Happy editing, Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Good morning, its September 1st and our tag and assess drive begins. We begin auspiciously with three participants and over 10,000 articles to be assessed. There are plenty of articles and lots of barnstars to be won. Come join us on our journey to zero articles left for assessment. :D Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to the WikiProject India Community for your support during the WMF Board of Trustees Election

Dear friends,

I wish to thank all WikiProject India Wikipedians for your support during the WMF BOT elections which concluded early this morning. My best wishes to all the candidates who stood for this election. A special shout-out to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga @KCVelaga: for all his hard work in South Asian community to make this election a success. :)

I hope that this election throws up at least one candidate from India. Regardless of outcome, I am honoured to have represented the WikiProject India community to stand as its candidate.

Warm regards, stay safe and happy editting!

Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Ladakh

Ladakh is now a union territory. So, there must be some template regarding ladakh. .... Soumitrahazra

Template:WikiProject Ladakh exists. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The template does not support assessment, that feature needs to be added. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

RSN

Multiple threads concerning this project are being discussed. Please take a look. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, for those interested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with User:TrangaBellam's attempt to target feminism-related sources wholesale. Please discuss each use-case with the material and article proposed to be used, or specific cases as per the general policy instructions given for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I think that each article, and its claims that you wish to use as a reference should be fact-checked instead. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

These do not appear to be good faith cases, the user is attempting to [an AFD] by getting the sources of its citations declared as non:RS. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations, flying in the face of available evidence. WP:NPA.

RSN is generally used when a source is contested. There is nothing good or bad faith about it. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Very sorry, but you might have too many sites there. In my way of thinking, to have more than one is to strain other volunteering editors' available time, and to unfairly use the system to my advantage. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• There is no issue in listing sources on RSN for discussion over a content dispute or AfDs, pretty standard and this is when they should be brought to the noticeboard in the first place. If anything it helps create a reference point for consensus on the reliability of those sources in general in the future. That said, the number of sites listed all at once wasn't a good idea especially considering the objection to them in the AfD seems to be the citations from them are interviews which is a different issue from the reliability of the specific sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Baburi Andijani

Is Mensxp a reliable source of Indian history? For example this article used in the context of Baburi Andijani defcon5 (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

For Mughal History, definitely not. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur with TrangaBellam. In this case, the question is not whether the website Mensxp is a reliable source in its entirety, the question is whether the article "Babri Masjid Was Apparently Named After Babur's Gay Love Interest 'Baburi'" is written by a recognised author and with references or evidence both within the article for the information under question? The author is "Ayaan" who appears to be a blogger and not a notable or reputed author or journalist. The article is written like a blogpost, it is very short and conjectural. It provides no factual evidence whatsoever for any information.

The answer to your query is therefore: The said article is not a reliable source, and any information therein is not supported by reliable external sources either.

In fact, the question here, is is whether the subject of the Baburi Andijani is notable in itself. It is only supported by generic magazine articles and not historical tertiary sources, peer-reviewed papers or history texts by noted historians. This article looks like a good case for deletion. Any information that is supported by reliable sources should be merged in Babur. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Afghanistan and Mughal Empire

Can you suggest me any good book on the topic? I am particularly interested in reading about Aurangzeb's maneuvers in and around Bamyan. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Originating from this t/p thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Dev Anand

Dev Anand#Ban on 'black coat' mentions that Anand was banned from wearing black colored coats by the Bombay High Court. The source cited is an AmarUjala article which is in Hindi. Another source cited is Ibtimes article which itself cites the AmarUjala report. Can someone who can read Hindi verify the reliability of the Article or is it an urban myth passed of as fact?defcon5 (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I see an article on TOI which doesn't mention any kind of source of the information. The Hindustan Times article refers to a "leading daily". I see some other websites, some of them being blogs and some unknown "news" websites, a quora question, a few YouTube videos. Apart from that I couldn't actually find any concrete evidence.

References

— DaxServer (talk to me) 08:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Google translate (is accurate enough here): "But he also saw the time when that wonderful way of bowing his neck, his dress of black pant shirt used to make girls unconscious. It is said that seeing him, the style of wearing a black coat over a white shirt was very trendy in those days, but after that something happened that wearing a black coat was banned in public places. How many girls lost their lives for him. It is said that in Dev Sahab's hit film 'Kala Pani', he was stopped from wearing a black coat. Because he looked so handsome in a black coat that it was feared that girls might jump off the roof seeing him? In those days such news was written a lot. Obviously nothing like this would have happened, but Dev Saheb never denied this by going to the media during his time." Probably a publicity stunt based on something a lot less exciting that might have happened once. We need to look at the "leading daily" and "such news" ourselves to know the truth. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The key word here is banned by Bombay High Court. If this is false then the section should be removed in accordance to WP:NOTGOSSIP.defcon5 (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

DEFCON5, neither Amar Ujala or International Business Times (RSP entry) are reliable sources so I would recommend removing the part of the Bombay High Court as an extraordinary claim and basing it of the Hindutsan Times article which is the only source of any worth in this mess, in addition to attributing it to "news reports" instead of presenting it in wiki-voice. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy#Requested move 27 August 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy#Requested move 27 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Article titles for Allahabad/Prayagraj Kumbh Mela

Yet another one related to Allahabad-related titling. From the talk discussion on Talk:Prayag Kumbh Mela, I see that Allahabad Kumbh is the predominant usage (in Google Books) when compared to Prayag Kumbh and Prayaga Kumbha. Shouldn't the earlier become the WP:COMMONNAME and thus the title? The move log stated by @Razer2115 reads "Prayag is more suitable term in context as the event is mainly a religious affair." The 1954 and 2013 stampede articles were moved to include "Prayag" stating WP:CONSISTENT by @Hemant Dabral. What should be the titles for the them? Also, what about the 2019 Kumbh Mela? (Also, requesting comments on my edit using commonname on the Prayag Kumbh Mela article.) — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There is an established pattern of editors renaming articles on en.wiki when the "official" name is changed, with no regard to COMMONNAME; and this seems to be more of the same. I have yet to form an opinion on what we should be naming current articles, about topics from after the Allahabad->Prayagraj name change occurred; but it's quite silly for someone to argue that this change should apply retroactively. There's really no basis in policy for those moves. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Opinion on blood donation organizations in India

Hi Everyone, I've been trying to improve the article Blood donation in India over the past few years. Under the section for list of blood donation organizations, initially I added a few notable ones that had adequate coverage in reputed sources. Over time the list has been expanded with or without sources. I'm wondering if it is necessary to have such a list with sub-headers or just provide a broad overview of blood donation agencies, considering there are thousands of charities, hospitals and organizations for this purpose in the country. There's already an article on List of blood donation agencies where this section can be routed. Kindly let me know your thoughts. MT Train^Talk 16:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject South Asia

Should we tag WP India scoped articles with WP South Asia project as well (example) ? — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• That is for WP South Asia to decide. Let's see how long it lasts, most of these Wikiprojects (and workgroups) have some initial enthusiasm and then go inactive, leaving talk pages completely unruly. I'm still hopeful that at some point in time we'll get rid of all these state workgroups from our WP banner and reduce the clutter. —SpacemanSpiff 18:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  What kind of effort do you think is needed to make to condense these workgroups? I see several of their discussion boards (at least the states') are redirected here. — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Hindutva § Adding new section on Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hindutva § Adding new section on Dismantling Global Hindutva Conference. 2405:201:D01B:6A8D:398C:4357:788E:75CE (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography of India

What is this eponymous article about? About 1000 books are published on topics concerned with India, every year. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if it violates some aspect of WP:NOTDIR. Chaipau (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Article about Telugu wikipedian

Could someone have a look at Pranayraj Vangari? There's a lot of promotional stuff that will need trimming, but I can't tell if there'll be anything left after that. Almost all of the sources are in Telugu, and the two that aren't mostly show how little their authors know about how Wikipedia works. Anybody willing to have a look? It probably doesn't help that the summary of his wiki achievement on Telugu Wikipedia is currently being machine-translated and pasted across other language versions (examples 12). – Uanfala (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Lets have a Tag & Assess this year?

Namaste, editors of WikiProject India articles,

India articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	2	6	34	48			90
FL	6	10	33	136			185
A			2	2			4
GA	24	55	170	460		1	710
B	115	411	843	1,617		75	3,061
C	93	799	2,243	9,671		517	13,323
Start	19	1,030	5,176	61,739	1	1,631	69,596
Stub	1	308	2,458	95,608	1	1,489	99,865
List	21	198	618	4,996	27	151	6,011
Category			7	47	40,654		40,708
Disambig		1		42	730		773
File			12	7	1,453		1,472
Portal					89		89
Project					209		209
Redirect	2	107	403	5,875	3,469		9,856
Template		1	2	4	6,256		6,263
NA					2		2
Draft				35	838		873
Assessed	283	2,926	12,001	180,287	53,729	3,864	253,090
Unassessed		2	2	49	2	3,045	3,100
Total	283	2,928	12,003	180,336	53,731	6,909	256,190
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 1,011,081			Ω = 5.42

This table is now up to date again.
It is updated by a tool on the toolserver; it will not work if the toolserver is
having problems. If this chart is showing much more than zero,
then the table will be updated slowly or not at all.

The number of untagged, unassessed articles has gone up. We have over 7100 articles that haven't been assessed for importance, and over 3600 articles that need to be assessed for quality as well. Imho its time for a Tag & Assess drive 2021.

Our previous Tag & Assess drives were held in 2008, 2012 and 2014. Hat tip to @Ncmvocalist: and others who organised the first drive. My thanks to all those who participated in all three drives and did sterling service. My thanks also to those who unheralded, uncelebrated have been patiently chipping away at the huge backlog when no drive was on.

I would like to know your opinion on this, because it's Community alone that can make this a success. If we are agreed, I will take up a case for repair of the Tag & Assess script. Once its ready, we can begin. Of course if anybody wants to start off right away manually, most welcome. Just add #Tag&Assess2021 to your assessments and they will count for the drive, if it happens. :)

AshLin (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm in. In case anyone wants to start early, this seems to have been the guide used last time. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

MPGuy2824, good thinking in linking part 1 of our Tag & Assess Guide :) Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Best of luck with this drive. I ran one in 2020 but it was a flop. There used to be an automated JavaScript tool for assessing but I recall there was problems with it in the 2014 drive and it hasn't been used since. If an automated way could be found then that would make assessing far more accessible and efficient; perhaps AWB has the functionality nowadays? Kind regards, Zindor (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I see now you said you might repair it, I truly think it would be key to a successful drive. Zindor (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for organising the Tag & Assess, @Zindor:. It really takes courage to organise a drive, its absolutely okay no mtter the outcome. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'll join as well. Other than assessing possibly we can also work on adding Ind templates where it is missing. --Titodutta (talk)
  • Yes, we could, @Titodutta:. For this, we would need help to get the Assessment Bar made functional again. Can you help? Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• m:Indic-TechCom (and User:Jayprakash12345) possibly might help. I am not sure how much occupied they are at this moment. I personally use User:Evad37/rater.js. As User:Evad37 has already worked on a rater script, possibly he can fix the IndicRater (or help us anyhow)? --Titodutta (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Titodutta:, @Jayprakash12345: I have made the request here on Meta-Wiki's Indic-TechCom request page. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm in -- DaxServer (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you, and wishing you all the best with this year's effort. I'll at least help with a handful when I can. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at ANI

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#AvinashCabral that may be of interest to watchers of this noticeboard. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Please review new article

I have created a new article Draft:Kongthong (Singing Village in Meghalaya, where villagers use the whistling tunes as unique name for each other). Please review and approve (move to main namespace). I am a long timer IP (IP by choice as I do not want to register), hence enable to move it myself. Thanks in advance for the review and help. Regards. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Pls partition the mega article

Please partition the unmanageable "Automotive industry in India", a mammoth "mother of all" "throw everything in" article, into 4 separate article as suggested on its talk page. Thanks in advance. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Ghughua Fossil Park & Mandla Plant Fossils National Park

From what I can find Mandla Plant Fossils National Park seems to be a made up park, probably created by the initial article author, A quick look at google maps shows that the purported location of the park is actually the location of the Ghughua Fossil Park. I suggest either wholesale deletion of this article, or redirection and history merge into Ghughua Fossil Park. I'm notifying recent editors of that article and relevant wkiprojects.--Kevmin § 01:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I second the proposal. Request put up merge templates for these articles after which they can be merged. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

RSN discussion on The Times of India

There is an ongoing proposal at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding The Times of India. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Circular references from The Times of India. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A proposal for Princely India-related pages

A little over two years ago I made a proposal here for "Kashmir-related pages," on what was then a perennially fraught topic. I pinged some knowledgeable Wikipedians. The proposal—critiqued and amended—has brought peace and quiet to that corner of WP—witness the leads and infoboxes of Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Azad Kashmir, Aksai Chin among others. Even K2 now bears in its bodily frame the marks of its disputed status, as do the neighboring Himalayas. The people I pinged then I am pinging again. They were: @Kautilya3, Saqib, Vanamonde93, El C, RegentsPark, Sitush, MilborneOne, Chipmunkdavis, Abecedare, Drmies, Joshua Jonathan, Tamravidhir, DeluxeVegan, Gotitbro, Lingzhi2, Ceoil, Bbb23, Bishonen, Ms Sarah Welch, Moonraker, DuncanHill, Doug Weller, Philip Baird Shearer, Mar4d, Rjensen, HLGallon, Ragib, and Titodutta: I will be pinging other notables at the end.

I should warn that the proposal is long. It requires attention. Please read it when you have some time. Get a coffee or other beverage if you'd like.

This proposal has its origins in a post made by user:RegentsPark, asking how "scions of former ruling families" in India might be identified, and whether we had a policy for doing so. Before I launch into the proposal, though, here is a brief history of rulers of princely states in post-colonial India:

(Background) Before the end of British rule in South Asia in August 1947, there were approximately 560 kingdoms in the British Indian Empire. These were not a part of what was called, British India, i.e. the regions that the British ruled directly; instead, the kingdoms were ruled indirectly through earlier treaties whereby the British had control of defence, communication, and foreign affairs and the Indian rulers of internal affairs, though with British oversight.

(1) During the period immediately after India's independence, i.e. 1947–49, the princes lost their dominions and therefore the power to govern; to compensate for their loss, they were granted an annual pension (the privy purse), certain privileges, and the continued use of their royal titles. (View scholarly references here.)

(2) In 1971 the Government of India amended the Constitution to end the privy purses, privileges, and the use of the titles. (View scholarly references here.)

(3) After, 1971, in other words, members of princely families became heirs to unofficial forms of ancestral legacy. The meaning of "princely" was also evolving. From the late 1950s onward, but especially after 1971, what was popularly being considered "princely India," was driven largely by what was found to attract western tourists, and later tourists from the Indian diaspora and India itself. The generally small but numerous former princely states of Rajasthan (in the dry, desert, regions of western India) became the focus of tourism; by contrast, big states such as Gwalior, Mysore, Hyderabad, and Baroda, famously of the 21 gun salutes in British days, largely, though not entirely, disappeared from the descriptions of what was considered "princely." (View scholarly references here.)

Post-colonial princely pages, therefore, are those that fall in Groups 1 and/or 2 and/or 3. (Clearly, some princes lived long enough to belong to more than one group.)

Moreover, in stage (3), which runs into the present, some princely families have continued to use former princely titles (unofficially) for certain chosen family members, or have styled new titles for them; in many instances, the Indian media has reported this without quotes or irony. The notion of "scion" is also at variance with what was de rigueur for the majority of princely states—i.e. patrilineal descent whether biological or adoptive. (Royal descent was largely though not exclusively, the province of males.) Four princely familes exemplify the ambiguities:

(3a) Yaduveer Krishnadatta Chamaraja Wadiyar. (I am using permalinks.) His "grandfather" Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar lived long enough to belong to Groups 1 and 2, dying in 1974. JW's son Srikantadatta Narashimharaja Wadiyar, therefore, lived his life as an ordinary citizen—though not without being called, "Maharaja of Mysore" unofficially every now and then—from 1974 until his death in 2012. SNW left no offspring. Fourteen months after his death, his widow adopted YKCW, aged 23, as their son. He was crowned "Maharaja of Mysore," unofficially of course, soon thereafter.

(3b) Padmanabh Singh is the great-grandson of the last ruling Maharaja of Jaipur, Man Singh II. MSII belonged to Group 1 but missed belonging to Group 2 by 18 months, dying in June 1970. His son Bhawani Singh, a decorated soldier, therefore properly belonged in Group 2 and was granted the pension, privileges, and the use of the title "Maharaja of Jaipur" for 18 months ending on 28 December 1971 (the date of the Constitutional amendment). Bhawani Singh's only child was a daughter Diya Kumari, now an Indian politician, who was never called "Maharani (Queen) of Jaipur" after Bhawani Singh's death in 2011. Instead, her son, Padmanabh Singh, then aged 12, was unofficially crowned "Maharaja of Jaipur."

(3c) Maharaja Bhupal Singh of Mewar belonged to Group I. His son Bhagawat Singh belonged to Group II and lived until 1984. However, Bhagawat Singh's sons Mahendra Singh Mewar and his younger brother Arvind Singh Mewar are still disputing each other's claim to be the "scion," i.e. the "76 Custodian of the House of Mewar."

(3d) As can be imagined, disputes about who is the "scion," the "Head of X," the Custodian of Y in the name of deity Z," etc. are sometimes underpinned by disputes over property. In Baroda, of 21-gun salutes of yore, Pratap Singh Rao Gaekwad belonged firmly to Group I, dying in 1968. His son Fatehsinghrao Gaekwad belonged firmly to Group II, dying in 1988. FG's younger brother Ranjitsinh Pratapsinh Gaekwad claimed the title of the head of the "House of Baroda" after his death, but his right to the property was challenged in the court by a third brother, Sangramsinh Gaekwad, the property dispute lasting 23 years. Upon RPG's death in 2012, his son Samarjitsinh Gaekwad was unofficially crowned "Maharaja of Baroda." The property dispute was resolved in 2013.

The characterization of Groups 1 and 2 is fairly straightforward. It is Group 3 that offers the challenge implicit in RegentsPark's original post. Here then is my proposal.

Group 1

For rulers firmly in Group 1 (i.e. dying before 1971), it is proposed that we write:

1a X was the ruling Maharaja/Nawab of the princely state of Y in the British Raj from ---- to 1947. After the state was absorbed into independent India, he was granted a privy purse, certain privileges, and the use of the title Maharaja of Y by the Government of India, which he retained until his death in ----.

Examples are Man Singh II, Jiwajirao Scindia, and Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi. I note that it is not my intention to have a regimented look on these pages. Creative but accurate variations would be most welcome. I note also that I am avoiding the use of the term titular ruler which is sometimes seen on WP pages of Group 1 or Group 2 ex-rulers. The term has many meanings and its use is best avoided. (I thank Johnbod for pointing this out.)

Added (12:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)) In light of @DaxServer:'s remarks below, I have made the above proposal more accurate

1b X was the ruling Maharaja/Nawab of the princely state of Y in the British Raj from ---- to 1947, and for a short period thereafter in the Dominion of India. When the state was absorbed into independent India, he was granted a privy purse, certain privileges, and the use of the title Maharaja/Nawab of Y by the Government of India, which he retained until his death in ----

Group 1-2

For those in Group 1 and 2 (i.e. those who acceded to a throne before 1947, but died after 1971), it is proposed that we write:

1-2a X was the ruler of the princely state of Y during the British Raj in India from 19-- until 19--. After the state was absorbed into independent India, he was granted a privy purse, certain privileges, and the use of the title Maharaja/Nawab of Y by the Government of India. However, all forms of compensation were ended in 1971 by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India.

An example is: Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar

Added (12:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)) Or,

1-2b X was the ruling Maharaja/Nawab of the princely state of Y in the British Raj from ---- to 1947, and for a short period thereafter in the Dominion of India. When the state was absorbed into independent India, he was granted a privy purse, certain privileges, and the use of the title Maharaja/Nawab of Y by the Government of India. However, all forms of compensation were ended in 1971 by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India.(same citations as above)

Group 2

For those in Group 2 who acceded to the privy purse, title, and privileges after 1947 and died after 1971), ... that we write:

X was the son of Y, the last ruling Maharaja/Nawab of the princely state of Z during the British Raj. Upon the death of his father on ------, X succeeded him in receiving an annual payment (the privy purse), certain privileges, and the use of the title "Maharaja/Nawab of Z" under terms accepted earlier when princely states were absorbed into independent India. However, all were ended on December 28, 1971 by the 26th Amendment to the Constitution of India.

Examples are: Bhawani Singh and Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi. (The case of a ruler acceding after 1947 but dying before 1971 can be worked out in a similar fashion.)

Group 3

Finally, for those in Group 3 (i.e. those whose claims to royalty date to the period after 28 December 1971, when princely India had lost all official recognition), what can be said is somewhat more general, as the claims are varied and unofficial. Their language is vague, using expressions such as, "Head of the House of X," "Head of the erstwhile ruling family of Y," "Custodians of the House of Z," and so forth. A general statement can follow as a qualifier in the wake of various unofficial claims to the ancestral legacy. An example is

3a On (date ------) it was reported that X was installed as the "Maharaja/Nawab of Z," alternatively, "Head of the House of Z," etc. (with citation to the newspaper report). Although princely pensions, titles, and privileges were officially abolished in India in 1971, families of some former princely rulers have continued to use the old titles unofficially for certain family members or styled new ones for them. In some instances the titles are used for the purpose of officiating in family ceremonies and cultural observances; in others, they are used with a view to promoting the allure that princely India holds among tourists or among other groups which value princely traditions, and to sustaining the wealth, stardom, and clout that the families have retained.

Examples are YKCW and Padmanabh Singh.

Added (11:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)) In light of @Johnbod: and @Chipmunkdavis:'s comments in the discussion below, the above version could be simplified to

3b On (date ------) it was reported that X was installed as the "Maharaja/Nawab of Z," alternatively, "Head of the House of Z," etc. (with citation to the newspaper report). Although princely titles were officially abolished in India in 1971, descendents of some former princely rulers, and sometimes the media, have continued to use the old titles unofficially or styled new ones.

I don't know if this proposal will fly, and if it does, whether by contrast, it will make these pages more grounded. I have benefitted from discussions with @StellarHalo:, @Johnbod:, @DEFCON5:, @DaxServer:, and RegentsPark of course. I again welcome their responses. Others that I see on this page are @AshLin:, @SpacemanSpiff:, @LearnIndology, Usedtobecool, TrangaBellam, and Redtigerxyz: and @Zakaria1978 and Ganesha811: on some other India-related pages. All are welcome. The princely states were a part of the British Indian Empire, and ipso facto of the British Empire. I am pinging some editors from that page: @Wee Curry Monster and Wiki-Ed: From those I have overlooked, I beg forbearance, but they are welcome too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: After a quick read, my initial comment is that I'm glad "titular ruler" is being avoided, but a term one of the "tourism" sources used, namely "former ruling family" is good, and better than versions with "erstwhile", which is surely near-obselete. In cases where it is fairly clear that he is recognised as such by the rest of the family, a group 3 man can be described as "head of the former ruling family of Foo state". Of course sometimes headship is disputed within the family, & this needs treating differently. This is also different from the case of I forget which family, where two aunts were or are suing their nephew over the inherited property - his status as "head" appears to be agreed. I still think there is rather too much in the examples on the details of the 1971 abolition. Privy Purse in India seems clear and comprehensive - Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India redirects to the "abolition" section. In general, I think a very basic statement with dates should be (normally) in the 1st para of the lead, along the lines of "he was the ruling maharaja of Foo State until 1947, retaining the title until the abolition of princely titles in 1971". The more detailed stuff should be in a "life" or whatever section below. More comments later. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I apologize I may not have been clear earlier. I have since created more subsections. The scholarly examples on the 1971 Amendment from a previous discussion thread are for the reading pleasure of people participating in this discussion, not for putting in the princely pages; for those, footnotes [2] and [3] in Group 1-2 of the Proposal or footnotes [4] and [5] in Group 2 of the Proposal—which are really the same references—suffice. The WP redirect, Twenty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India, I do use in the sentence, but I am reluctant to use it as a reference, i.e. without citations, not only because its contents can change, but also because it has too much historical background. Readers want a statement of the amendment and a sense of how it was interpreted, which the footnotes [2] and [3] amply provide. Perhaps I shouldn't link it, but if I don't someone else will. Finally, for better or for worse, India has been determinedly Republican since its independence (not as much as Ireland, which did not remain in the Commonwealth, but close). To grant families of ex-rulers any status other than we grant families of ordinary Indians is a disservice to India's history. If they style themselves otherwise, then the styling needs some reality-test or explanation. That is described in the proposal in Group 3 beginning with "Although ...," which may be on the long side and could be shortened. But giving any literal meaning to "House of Y" after 1971, let alone its "Head," would be a form of revisionism, in my view. As for "erstwile," I don't know if I used it, but if I did it was because it is a favorite word in the newer titles (e.g. "Head of the erstwhile ruling family of Y") Although the same as "former" in meaning, it might be being used because it is less common (not to mention near obsolete) and might imply for those who don't know its meaning and too lazy to check that they are still ruling. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Before I go to bed, let me note that "former ruling family" does not mean "descendants of a former ruler." It was used in that reference for (families of) rulers that went through the changes of 1947 and 1971, not for people today whose grandparents were in that generation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction, nor do I see how you can so confidently attribute it to your source, which said: "Later, the growth of tourism, and the earnings associated with it, provided the context within which the former ruling families repositioned many practices related to their courts, and adapted themselves to the new circumstances. Today in Jodhpur region (formerly Marwar), the Maharaja and his family have created distinctive forms of hospitality tourism..." Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A ruling family is the family of a ruler (his immediate family, or his extended family, a generation up and down)). A former ruling family, therefore, is an earlier ruling family, or a ruling family earlier in time. It does not mean descendants of a former ruler. For there is a reason people say, "descendant(s) of the former ruling family." (See here) As for the quote, Gaj Singh of Marwar was four years old when he became the Maharaja in 1952. He is still alive. His father was the ruler of Marwar; Gaj Singh (Gaj=Elephant, Singh=Lion) was the Maharaja from 1952 until 1971. He might not have ruled himself, but he was the Maharaja and his father did rule. He therefore very much belonged to a ruling family in the past, a former ruling family. Padmanabh Singh on the other hand is a bit of a stretch. The last person who actually ruled in his family died 30 years before he was born. He is a descendant of a former ruling family. In your quote, "former ruling families repositioned many practices related to their courts" = "families that once ruled revised their strategy for marketing (literally and/or figuratively) certain practices... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

And where is this novel interpretation of the words set out? Frankly, I think you're making it up. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Well you tell me, why would people be using the expression, "descendants of the former ruling family?" PS In India it seems "family" is used with more timeless meaning. "We once ruled Jaipur," a great-great-grandson might say, ipso facto he becomes a member of a former ruling family. I don't know if this is subterfuge the ex-royals engage in (and on their behalf the media), i.e. mostly hot air, or a culturally accepted form of grandiosity but it is best avoided in an encyclopedia. A person cannot really be the Head (or scion) of descendants of former rulers. You take some of the air out; the expression becomes meaningless. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

PPS If you are asking me about "reposition," it is obviously used in its marketing meaning but transferred. ("To change the positioning of (a product, service, or business) so as to target a new or different market sector. (OED) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This reads like a good basis, although I would expect some variation in later groups as reasons for notability may shift. With variation in mind, I generally agree with Johnbod that there need not be so much detail. I think much of the text in Group 3 could for example be replaced by "although the official title was abolished in 1971" or similar. If that particular individual leverages the claim to the title for tourism, or it still retains strong local cultural relevance, or they are often referred to using the title by media for another reason, I would expect that in those cases more information about officiations and cultural observances may be merited, but there is no reasons to have such detailed general information on pages where it is less applicable. That said, there presumably should be some location where the general information could be included or linked to. Perhaps Princely state, which currently covers only up to integration, could have a new section to deal with the aftermath of integration up to the modern period, including the interesting information quoted from the sources collected above. CMD (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, CMD. It is getting rather late here, way past my bedtime, and I have to drive some distance early tomorrow AM, not returning until late in the day. I should have thought about all this before, but I forgot ... So, forgive my late reply when it comes tomorrow. Meanwhile, I'm sure there is plenty brain power here for the discussion to progress much without my inputs. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I have rephrased 3 more succinctly in a second version (see above) in light of your remarks, and Johnbod's. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: That's a welcome move. Thanks for working on this. The rationales above for the groups make sense. --Titodutta (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Tito. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: The Group 1's first sentence ends with 1947. That'll need to be changed to 19-- (when the state was absorbed, like Hyderabad in 1948, Mysore in 1947). Which in-turn contradicts the British Raj period which ended in 1947. What do you think of "during British Raj until 1947 and in the Dominion of India until 19-- (and then in the Republic of India until 19--)" (where applicable) Seems to me a bit too much, but explains correctly. Or maybe a different wording, of course. Also, do you think we could have the same wording in the first sentence for Group 1 and Group 1-2 as they both represent the same during that period, following which Group 1-2 differs at the end. (Or is the difference in wording intentional?) — DaxServer (talk to me) 10:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Have corrected. There are two versions now: the old and yours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Really not my field, but this looks like it's going in the right direction. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks for asking me to comment. In most cases, what is proposed is a sensible and well thought out suggestion. Inevitably, there will be a few that don't fit into this picture, eg some of the Princely States weren't entirely willing to join the Dominion of India; from memory I think one was actually annexed militarily. I would suggest that what you propose forms a general guideline with the recommendation that it is adapted to meet the needs of the outliers that don't quite conform. WCM_email 17:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

WCM Good catch. Yes, Hyderabad and Junagadh were annexed. It had slipped my mind. Will add a 1c for them. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: @Fowler&fowler: Thankyou for your meticulous work. The proposal after the revisions looks good to me. The main articles of the princely states such as Jaipur State and Jodhpur State each have a list of rulers of their respective state. How will this proposal affect those list? 05:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks Fowler for the excellent summary. I think we're good with this with whatever few exceptions show up along the way. Regarding the comment just above mine, both those articles use the word "titular ruler" which should be removed. I also suggest not including anyone under the ruler section post accession and definitely not post 1971. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Mostly happy with this, “former ruling families” is clearly correct in all cases. I don’t much like “During the period immediately after India's independence”, as the departure of the British also meant immediate complete independence for those princes who wanted to try it. There were several of those in the area that became the present-day Pakistan (see Princely states of Pakistan), no doubt fewer in what is now India. So we might perhaps say instead “immediately after independence”. I agree with what WCM says, but the loss of the princes’ dominions and power to govern came after accession (or at the time of conquest) and was involuntary in far more cases than just the few who were invaded. My last point is to ask what sources are relied on for “granted… the continued use of their royal titles”? As I understand it, the titles of the princes who acceded to India were recognized, as they had to be, see the standard text of the Instrument of Accession, especially “Nothing in this Instrument affects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over this state”. Later, that recognition was completely withdrawn. It seems unlikely that independent India *granted* any royal or princely titles, and if it didn’t then surely they just fell away through lack of recognition, like titles in Europe and other parts of the world. (NB, some European republics have actively abolished the titles of the nobility, that is, made it unlawful to use them, but others have not. I haven’t heard of any such legislation in India. Moonraker (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Moonraker: Always happy to read your comments. Agree that "granted" is a little problematic. The sources for Proposal 1 (a and b) are in Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#1947–1949, with the first, Ramusack, the one used in the proposal itself, and proposed for use in the individual ex-royalty pages. Agree also that the Pakistan royals had a slightly different history. Note, Ramusack says "guaranteed," not "granted." I don't want to use "guaranteed," not only for reasons of avoiding close paraphrasing but also because it is fraught usage on WP, as are its precise synonyms, a trapdoor for OR. But as you imply, unlike the pension (the privy purses) and certain privileges, the princes already had the titles before 1947. So per your implication, we could add "continued," to proposal 1b, as in:

X was the ruling [[Maharaja]]/[[Nawab]] of the [[princely state]] of Y in the [[British Raj]] from ---- to 1947, and for a short period thereafter in the [[Dominion of India]]. When the state was [[political integration of India|absorbed]] into independent India, he was granted a [[privy purse]], certain privileges, and the ''continued'' use of the title ''Maharaja/Nawab of Y'' by the [[Government of India]]."

Political integration of India, a Wikipedia page to which "absorbed" is piped is about the period after accession to which you refer. It includes the instances in which the princely states were absorbed with what has been called "dubious legality" in Judith M. Brown's characterization.

For the 1971 Constitutional Amendment in India, see references in Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#1971_Constitutional_Amendment_aftermath). As for "titles," I'd rather not get into the topic of whether or not the Amendment actually made it illegal to use them in India, as the focus here is narrow. But sources have interpreted the Amendment to have decisively ended princely pensions, privileges and titles in India.

Finally, could you explain in more detail what you mean by: “former ruling families” is clearly correct in all cases?" Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: While I see why a need for clarification over lead wording on such rulers is required, I am not comfortable with biographies having standardized lead sentences (that read like auto-generated database entries). The proposal should be about what shouldn't be in the lead (titular ruler etc.) and for a general overview to follow, rather than set in stone leads (which is what I believe the nomination also says). The proposals look fine but look too verbose to me, absorption, recognition, constitutionality et al (which could perhaps be better dealt through notes). Lastly, I don't think these standardized leads should be applied wholesale in every article of such rulers but the ones which are problematic from the get-go with modifications to suit the needs of the particular bio that is being dealt with. Gotitbro (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Please see my remark in Group 1: "I note that it is not my intention to have a regimented look on these pages. Creative but accurate variations would be most welcome." There is a lot to what you say, and I will bear your sage advice in mind when I summarize in the next few days. True, we should only worry about the problematic pages, but then which page is not problematic, or rather which ones were not before my first intervention 10 years ago? The language of that intervention, in regimented form no less, I see repeated in princely ages then-uncrowned and accents then-unknown. The regimentation doesn't seem to have done much harm, but it hasn't been enough. The tourism is being promoted much more now. For example, this bit of hype in GQIndia, which fails to mention that the Jaipur royals and others of Rajputana presided over the most backward region of the Hindi-speaking belt, the most dangerous for its women who were beyond the reach of the Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870, not to mention for its wildlife which lay gasping beneath the princeling's foot long after the rulers had ceased to rule. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

PS I'm not trying to be provocative here; rather, I am suggesting that for princely pages there is value in mostly using WP:SCHOLARSHIP, whose distillation is the proposal. What is "princely India" is changing, and scholarship is usually what is able to summarize the change in a reliable and due manner, not the popular media. I would be open, as I say earlier, to creative but accurate variations of the scholarly summaries.

• I was so gob-smacked by Fowler's ignorance of Irish history and politics above, that I have not returned to give my promised further comments. As always, it is very unfortunate that Fowler's inner political blogger cannot be restrained on these occasions, and stuff that is a) completely off-topic and b) patent nonsense always comes in. There is no draft of an actual policy sticking to the point here, and one can see that unless we are careful the rambling essays above will justify Fowler reverting anything he feels like, airily citing "policy agreed by consensus", as he does in India and several other articles. If this in any way to be treated as something with consensus, all the tendentious pov references to "tourists" and Westerners should be removed. It is not "tourists" who are so ready to repeatedly elect to political office princely chaps with nothing much to recommend them but a low golf handicap, nor is it tourists who turn out in vast numbers to the public parts of princely weddings. All the references demonstrate is that many relatively poor Rajasthan princes (belatedly fortunate that their ancestors did not have quite enough cash to rebuild their palaces in Victorian or Edwardian styles) have sensibly cashed in (also benefiting their local economies) on the undoubted appeal of their palaces, which are handily relatively close to each other and Delhi. A small shining light in India's generally appalling failure to capture the share of the international tourist market it deserves and needs. Does Singapore still get more international tourists than India? About Pakistan, the less said in this connection the better. All this should go, or a more concise quideline be started from scratch. I certainly agree with the many editors calling for flexibility above, but I agree the general principles, such as the division of these figures into groups. Given that many of these articles are fairly short, and typically have very short under-developed leads, this should distinguish between forms of words suitable for the lead (if short), and those for the "Life" or other section below. A lead that spends most of its space explaining why someone is not a maharajah is just mystifying to non-India readers. I don't myself think that unofficial post-1971 ceremonies should be given as much emphasis. They don't by themselves prove that any claim to be head of the family is undisputed. But I do think that where the post-1971 headship of a family is clear, as in most cases it will be, that information should not be suppressed. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Johnbod, everything I say on Wikipedia can be sourced to reliable scholarly references. It is not that a few poorer ex-Rajputana princes opened their palaces to western tourists; rather, it is that western tourists chose Rajasthan the least developed part of princely India, its poverty not easily discernable—hidden away in inaccessible villages that sparsely dot its desert landscape. Here is Barbara Ramusack. Ramusack, Barbara N. (1995), "The Indian Princes as Fantasy: Palace Hotels, Palace Museums, and Palace on Wheels", in Carol Appadurai Breckenridge (ed.), Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 66–89, 77, The slower rate of economic development in Rajasthan increased the sense of its distinctiveness from modern India, and the sparse distribution of its population partially mitigated the stereotypes of Indian poverty. Tourists sought historical fantasy, and Rajput princes have been packaged to satisfy this quest. The princes were not poor; their subjects were, screwed out of house and home for centuries by feudal dynasties. Again, it might seem like blogging to you, or off-topic, but nothing in what I say is untrue. I can find sources for Ireland too I'm sure. The popularity of the princes among their former subjects is no longer a given. Some have done well in elections; others have very plainly not. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Indian nationalism, btw, had longstanding links with Ireland, going back at least to the Home Rule Leaguers. The flag of the Republic of India is modeled on that of the Republic of Ireland; the shades of orange and green are only a tad different. de Valera was the only Western leader who came out openly in support of India's annexation of the princely state of Hyderabad. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• PLEEAAAAZE don't bother us with your views on Ireland, which are clearly wholly off-topic. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Johnbod: your other points.

• >>> Given that many of these articles are fairly short, and typically have very short under-developed leads, this should distinguish between forms of words suitable for the lead (if short), and those for the "Life" or other section below.
• Why are we setting up straw men in roundabout language, talking in generalities? I gave everyone specific examples (in un-screaming language) in the proposal. The examples and the sources are where the rubber hits the road. For Jaipur, they were Man Singh II, Bhawani Singh, Diya Kumari, and Padmanabh Singh. Where are you seeing the heavy-handed assertions in the lead? (In many instances, the leads of randomly selected articles are short because the arrogations of the monarchy (or of its symbols) were taken out between 2011 when I made an earlier proposal somewhere and created a bank of sources and now, but they are still much better—even for an average non-South-Asia WPian—than the patent falsehoods that had previously graced the leads. ( In any case, the inability to write adequate leads is a WP-wide problem—I've seen plenty at FAC—though it may be more pronounced on India-related pages on average. Those leads you saw could be easily expanded by integrating other aspects of the subject's notability. ) But let's stick to the examples above. I have already changed the language of 3 in light of CMD's comments and yours.) As I've stated above, I will summarize what I see to be the consensus tomorrow after the proposal has been out there a full week.
• >>>> where the post-1971 headship of a family is clear, as in most cases it will be, that information should not be suppressed.
• Please give me half a dozen examples of where the "headship" is so clear to you that disabusing statements to the contrary are unwarranted. i.e. for someone born in the determinedly republican post-1971 India. I have already given reasons (with plenty of sources) for not using the expression, "former (or erstwhile) ruling family of ... " in the present tense, suggesting that it is more accurate to say "descendants of the former ruling family of ..." If the sources are not enough, let me end by directly quoting from the preamble (31 July 1971) and the text (28 December) of India's The Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971

  The concept of rulership, with privy purses and special privileges unrelated to any current functions and social purposes, is incompatible with an egalitarian social order. Government have, therefore, decided to terminate the privy purses and privileges of the Rulers of former Indian States. It is necessary for this purpose, apart from amending the relevant provisions of the Constitution, to insert a new article therein so as to terminate expressly the recognition already granted to such Rulers and to abolish privy purses and extinguish all rights, liabilities and obligations in respect of privy purses. ... BE it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-second Year of the Republic of India as follows: ... Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution or in any law for the time being in force-(a) The Prince, Chief or other person who, at any time before the commencement of THE CONSTITUTION (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971, was recognised by the President as the Ruler of an Indian State or any person who, at any time before such commencement, was recognised by the President as the successor of such Ruler shall, on and from such commencement, cease to be recognised as such Ruler or the successor of such Ruler;

  Note that it says "Rulers of former Indian states," not "former Indian rulers." In that spirit, I'm happy to replace "descendant of the former ruling family" (phrasing I argued for at the beginning of this discussion) with "X is a descendant of the ruling family of the former princely state of Y in the British Raj in India ..." That would be even more accurate. Note also that the Act derecognizes succession itself. Obviously, "head descendant" would be meaningless, unless satire is allowed on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Since this appears to be going off topic, I'll reiterate that Fowler's grouping above is a reasonable and clear way forward. To Johnbod's point about succession information not being suppressed, or that the lead should not contain the why of why someone is not really a Maharaja, I both agree as well as disagree. I agree that if someone is generally being called the "Maharaja of defunct state Y", we should probably say so. However, I disagree that we shouldn't add detailed caveats. This is an encyclopedia and clarity is important. Thus, for Padmanabh Singh for example, we should say in the lead that he is styled as the Maharaja of Jaipur but must also make it clear that he is, in fact, the Maharaja of nothing and why that is the case. Either that, or we eschew the Maharaja-ness entirely.--RegentsPark (comment) 19:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Execution by elephant for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

:) In this instance, I'd say bag the rules and delist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Navjot Singh Sidhu

Could someone take a look at recent edits to this article? I'm concerned that there may be BLP issues but am not in a position to figure things out. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Watchlisting. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Some Assam related pages

Currently Assam related topics are under the focus of a number of ethnic-based SPAs. May I request some volunteers from this group to please pay some attention to those pages. The pages are: Kamarupa, Islam in Assam, Chutia kingdom, Chutia people, Ahom people, Ahom kingdom, People of Assam, etc.. Maybe some of us could put these on our watchlists and monitor the edit patterns. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hindu Human Rights

Some new accounts claim HHR to be the oldest standing Human Rights organisation for Hindus in the UK and one of the first outside India in the world. Will appreciate if somebody can find reliable sources for the claims at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Human Rights. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Commented. Venkat TL (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edit to {{WikiProject India}}

Suggest to add a direct link to this discussion page in the WikiProject banner to increase participation from other contributors, who otherwise need to click 'Talk' on an article (one barrier) then click 'WikiProject India' (second barrier) then click 'Discussions' in sidebar on the right (third barrier) to arrive here. The proposed change would reduce this to two clicks instead of three.

Suggest to change "If you would like to participate, please visit the project page." text to "If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join a discussion.", where "join a discussion" links to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics (this page), if this is the most appropriate venue.

Regards, --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 21:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: this would be of great utility to authors who create a new draft, and are in a dire need to contact someone who speaks their language and/or lives in the local area, to assist with notability assessment.

It is my strong belief that a WikiProject would often be better equipped to help with the search of sources, as well as with communication without language or cultural barriers, than any of the small number of generic volunteers who help with processing the Draft queue, whose "please check notability" pleas are not always understood, and are often hindered by the barriers of language and lack of familiarity with the local news sources and aura. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 21:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, still interested in your views on this. Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 07:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Support This is a good suggestion. There is no harm in doing this. Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Charumitra

Is this a historical person or someone from literature and/or TV shows? Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It is the name of a fictional character of a TV show named, Chakravartin Ashoka Samrat#Supporting cast. There is also a drama written by Ramkumar Verma [14][15] with the title Charumitra. Venkat TL (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Allahabad

You are welcome to provide your views and comments on the move discussion taking place in Talk:Allahabad as to whether name should/shouldn't be changed to Prayagraj. Thankyou 🌌Zoglophie🌌 11:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Zoglophie has conveniently omitted that there is an existing RfC started 4 days before he started the move request. — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)