Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:37, 10 August 2015

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Shortcuts WT:IN WT:INB

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

India Project‑class This page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Misplaced Pages Meetups edit Upcoming none Recent Outside India Past meetups

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Misplaced Pages articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Misplaced Pages, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Proposed Revision to WP:INDICSCRIPT language

Current version:

Indic scripts in lead

There is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script. It is suggested that IPA be used for help with pronunciation. For details, refer to this RfC: Native languages in lead. The closure of the RfC was clarified here and here.

Proposed version:

Indic scripts in lead sentence

There is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script. It is suggested that IPA be used for help with pronunciation. For details, refer to this RfC: Native languages in lead. The closure of the RfC was clarified here and here.

This guideline does not mean Indic script may not be included elsewhere in the lead, infobox, or in the main article, when such an inclusion respects Misplaced Pages's core content policies and guidelines such as verifiability, reliable source and no original research.

Reasons for proposed change:

• It is consistent with the original RfC and consensus, which was about "lead sentence". It only clarifies, and may prevent misunderstanding and recent inappropriate deletions of the Indic script from infobox and elsewhere.
• Misplaced Pages's consensus policy states, "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Misplaced Pages, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines." In other words, consensus cannot overrule fundamental policies that encourage content addition to articles, when such content is consistent with various wikipedia policies and guidelines.
• The RfC question behind the above consensus was never about an outright ban of Indic scripts from wikipedia, nor was the conclusion. The RfC question started with the concern that people were randomly inserting one or more regional scripts in the lead sentence, that were personal translations or vandalism. The RfC reached a consensus to stop such Indic script insertion and vandalism. Nothing more. One cannot extrapolate, or extend a consensus beyond the scope of the original RfC's intent, because the community never discussed it, nor can consensus overrule wikipedia's core content policies (for example, we can't hold an RfC and vote to make original research acceptable in India-related articles).
• Indic script can be useful in infobox and elsewhere in the article. When the use of Indic script is verifiable in reliable sources, its mention makes the term traceable to published literature, and to manuscripts. Numerous English wiki pages on Chinese, Japanese, Arabic and other language concepts/words include regional script for good reasons (See Four Noble Truths infobox, for example). Same good reasons apply for Indic scripts when it can be verified in reliable sources.
• Misplaced Pages/web search engines have their limitations given the keyboard layout inconsistencies worldwide. Thoughtful inclusion of Sanskrit etymological roots or text in wikipedia articles, when verifiable in reliable sources, is useful encyclopedic information. It is also consistent with wikipedia's Accessibility initiative, multilingual aims, ease of verifiability and wiki guideline pages on non-Latin scripts. This reads, "Articles on the English Misplaced Pages may contain words or texts written in different languages and scripts".

I welcome your comments and concerns for the above proposed WP:INDICSCRIPT version on the main page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. It looks like you actually do not understand the problems with using these scripts, even though they and proposed changes have been discussed at length and on multiple occasions. I'm not rehashing them all now but your proposal is an open invitation for people to game the system. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Would appreciate a few page links where the problems and proposed changes have been discussed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Just search for "script", "scripts", "indicscript" in the archives for this talk page. You do realise that there are 26 or so official languages, don't you? Under your scheme, someone could write "Person A" (d.o.b. - d.o.d.) was the nth prime minister of India. Their name is also rendered as script1, script2, script3, script4 ... script26" (and some of those renditions would almost certainly be vandalised, which probably would not be spotted). - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there are numerous languages and scripts in India. Vandalism too is not new to wikipedia, with or without MOS and guidelines such as WP:INDICSCRIPT. I did search and read the archives on this issue. I failed to find a discussion about including an Indic script if and when the script is verifiable in a reliable source. Perhaps I missed. I would appreciate a link to the page, when you or someone can find time to hunt it down. We are in no hurry to resolve this. Do note that the current WP:INDICSCRIPT wording on the main page is only about "lead sentence". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I have not read everything above, but I think that indic script should be allowed in lead. I see no harm in adding just one indic word in lead. --Human3015 knock knock • 15:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that it is often difficult to decide which scripts should and should not be included, and editors either edit-war over the issue, or we get a messy compromise in which 5/10/20+ scripts are included. I myself am no big fan of WP:INDICSCRIPT and have in the past proposed some exceptions, but that policy is like democracy: the worst form of government except all the others. Wouldn't recommend reopening the can of worms.

@Ms Sarah Welch: WP:V/WP:RS/WP:OR have never been the issue with including Indic scripts, since for notable subjects it is almost always possible to figure out how to spell out the name in any particular language. The issue has always been WP:DUE/WP:NPOV, which unfortunately is often a judgment call and leads to endless arguments. Check out the talk pages of India or Jana Gana Mana to see the type of problems that arise when trying to decide primary languages of interest; or, some classical Bollywood movie pages where it is often difficult to decide whether the movie is in Hindi, Urdu or Hindustani; or, worst of all, biographical articles where editors insist that a language and/or script be included based on the subject's community, parentage, languages spoken, mother tongue, language of work, region where they lived/worked, language of the best sources, language of followers etc. Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I would also oppose the proposal, for the reasons given by Sitush and Abecedare. South Asia has several hundred languages and scripts. Which do we use? Allowing their use in the infobox is going to lead to clutter (because people insert every possible script) or an NPOV violation (because we are using only one of the possibilities). We should use the IPA, and where possible provide an audio pronunciation guide, but no more. If it were up to me, I would modify the language to explicitly forbid Indic scripts in either the lead or the infobox, but of course another RfC on this topic is likely more trouble than it's worth. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I empathize with your experience and frustration. My proposal is not triggered or motivated by "Person A" articles and similar India-related notable subjects. My proposal is predominantly motivated by Sanskrit-related and Indian philosophy-related articles. There, a Sanskrit script for a philosophical concept is just a statement of fact if and when it is verifiable in a reliable source. There, it is not WP:NPOV issue because there aren't multiple sides and NPOV presumes more than one POV. As explained above, I see addition of Indic script when verifiable in a reliable source, to be consistent with wiki's overall policies and wiki's policy on consensus.

Perhaps, a solution is to be found in more clearly defining the scope of India-related topics where WP:INDICSCRIPT applies, and where it doesn't. Indian philosophy and practices such as Yoga has presence, and wide interest, outside India. Hindu philosophy and history has been found outside India, such as in southeast Asia in past and Bali Indonesia currently.

Democracy (majority votes) should not overrule the Constitution (core policies), outside or inside wikipedia. We wouldn't need the Supreme Court or the wiki's Arb committee / Admins, were votes to decide everything. It would be a tragedy if "original research" becomes acceptable in wiki articles after an RfC and majority consensus because that was democratic. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

And people with experience are telling you that you are re-hashing old arguments and proposing the same poor remedy. The very fact that you are already wikilawyering and you have a narrow sphere of interest is not helpful. INDICSCRIPT is the best of a bad lot. Live with it. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. - Sitush (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The previous conclusion at WP:INDICSCRIPT was not a good summary of the discussion, and indic scripts for the topic name are useful (esp. geographical), and they are appropriate in the infobox. --Bejnar (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Placenames are already an exception - it just didn't get recorded. You can use scripts for placenames provided you only use those that are verifiably the official language(s) for the place. If this proposal goes to a new RfC then we're going to see a shedload of trouble again, especially from the Hindutva-sympathising contributors. We've got enough problems without travelling down that road yet again. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: which wiki page lists and explains the exception(s)? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, it wasn't added to the INB MOS. You'll have to search for it in the archives as noted above, sorry. Or just accept that I know what I'm talking about in that regard ;) I'm not aware of any other exceptions: the idea was to keep things tight, not provide lots of loopholes. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While I'm all for enhancing our literature articles etc, we do allow IAST and ITRANS in Sanskrit etc. In films Pather Panchali a recent FA done after the INDICSCRIPT consensus was formed does not include Bengali despite being one of the masterpieces of Bengali cinema and the world hasn't crumbled. For a long time I held the opinion that the indic scripts would add value to Mahabharata or Ramayana (both have Devanagari included now) but I've come to the opinion that it might add value to editors but not to readers. Both these had changes to Devanagari multiple times and had gone without reverts for long, in addition to every other regional language creeping into the lede making it an unfathomable mess. The script adds value for editors to aid in their search for sources etc and that can be resolved with a talk page banner listing out scripts. Again, in some aspects we ought to exhibit common sense and that's already done, Jana Gana Mana being a prime example for that.—SpacemanSpiff 17:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(after ec; loss of session data; off-line distractions etc) Sarah, the current consensus, or at least practice, is not to apply WP:INDICSCRIPTS to articles primarily falling under the Hinduism project since, as you point out, in that area the primary language (often Sanskrit) is usually not a contentious issue. I recall this being discusses at User_talk:Redtigerxyz and some other places, although I don't know if there is a formal discussion anywhere. The boundary between Hinduism- and India-related articles is somewhat fuzzy, and even on Hinduism related pages, the approach can sometimes lead to a mess (see Ravana), but that can be dealt with on a case by case basis based on discussion and common sense.

The reason I and some others are objecting to changing WP:INDICSCRIPTS as you originally proposed is due to the unintended consequences of the ambiguity/loophole the changes create, which will effect tens of thousands of articles and suck up a humungous amount of editor time. In practice, the approach I personally follow is to apply WP:INDICSCRIPT strictly to non-historical bios and any page where inclusion of scripts is becoming an issue, and allow some flexibility elsewhere as long as the issue is not being gamed; leading to distracting edit-wars; or, degradation of article content (that is the reason I have sometimes advised editors not to apply INDICSCIPTS blindly in mass edits using AWB or bot). Such a approach is of course hard to formalize into policy although I have seen other project regulars practice it tacitly. :) Abecedare (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Abecedare: That was a very helpful summary. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that we have already opened this topic, someone please edit this MOS to specifically include the accepted exclusions; like the geographic places mentioned above by Sitush.
Also, as SpacemanSpiff says, the Indic scripts are more useful to editors than readers. I and others have many times provided Indic scripts for search terms for articles at AfDs and doing a regional language search have at many times been useful to not only collect information but also establish notability of subjects not very well covered in English internet world. We specifically face these challenges with not-so-celebrated people or remote locations or traditions restricted to local regions. And if these Indic scripts are useful to enhancing the article in this manner, a little vandalism is no good reason for excluding them thoroughly. I agree that stuffing lead sentence with non-readable-by-many or browser-not-supported-texts is tacky. It also eats up the space in external search engines where more valuable info would be provided in the small preview than eat the space by these scripts. But we should not forget it's utility value. Some have argued that these scripts are available on respective language wiki and can be found on Wikidata. But that’s only if the article in that language exists and let's not forget how some regional wikis are lousy. Also, let's not forget that if not majority but at least a small group of readers would really use the Indic scripts more than those IPAs to understand the right pronunciation.
In the previous RfC itself it was proposed that these Indic scripts be moved to other locations within visible range itself, maybe infobox or footnote or something brand new. But that proposal was drowned in the usual banter. I would still appreciate if some thought was given to include scripts in a more workable manner than just shoo them off totally. Also, do note that 26-official-language-in-lead is only a hypothetical problem and that hasn't really happened, not even to make a point. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I actually disagree with this point quite strongly: I have found many pages where I have removed at least a dozen or more language forms all spelling the same name identically. Usually it's Hinduism-related, such as the name of a god or a text; and the introduction of Devanagari in the lede is particularly annoying for classical languages as it is not helpful for English Misplaced Pages in the same way that IAST might be and people use it for Pali as well, which I don't have to tell you is completely ahistorical. It also keeps a check on Bengali nationalists asserting the need to spell every premodern Indian Buddhists in the Bengali alphabet's Sanskrit form, which attracts Odia and Assamese nationalists to add their own alphabets. There's also a crowd that adds Sinhalese to every topic on Buddhism, including Tibetan topics where it is, like with Bengali, simply Sanskrit spelled in the Sinhalese alphabet. Even Pali topics mislabel and misspell things as Sinhala, when in fact it's Pali in the Sinhalese alphabet. People aggressively change the lang template back to lang-si. There is in fact a good use for this policy. What we need to encourage is infoboxes that contains useful information like name equivalencies that include Tibetan and the Southeast Asian languages that employ Pallava-derived scripts like Burmese, Sinhalese, Khmer and Thai. There's also an epic shed-ton of "etymology" sections that are completely OR maybe 9/10 times I find one in relation to Indic topics. And there's a ton of misspelled devanagari forms of Sanskrit: so often, the devanagari is just wrong, like wildly wrong, due to speaker unfamiliarity with Sanskrit. I know a lot of people might disagree with my assessment, but Sanskrit in Devanagari basically just as new as Sanskrit in IAST and there's no reason to use a non-Roman script when a IAST/NLK equivalent is accepted and widely used in the scholarly community. If you read scholarly books about Indian philosophy or religion, the presence of devanagari in the text is limited to quotes from published sources and does not usually include it. Ogress _smash! 20:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: There are reliable secondary and tertiary sources providing the properly spelled devanagari sanskrit script for numerous terms/concepts in various Indian philosophies. Recent sources include Marco Franceschini (2008), An Updated Vedic Concordance, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0674030800, and John Grimes (1996), Dictionary of Indian Philosophy, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791430682. Another is the Shankara Rau's classic widely cited in recent RS: Glossary of Philosophical Terms. Etc. Let us stick with judicious use of the consensus as explained by @Abecedare on this, when RS exists on the use of correctly spelled sanskrit script in Hinduism project articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, any pages co-owned/co-managed by the WP:WikiProject Hinduism can have an indic script in it, because the no-indic-scripts policy is local to WikiProject India. However, I would advise against adding it, because it would be an invitation for other people to add their own scripts. Perhaps the WikiProject Hinduism can develop a policy on limited use of Devnagari, and then we can adhere to it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Indeed, your concern is what I had in mind when I wrote "judicious use of the consensus". @Abecedare's summary above explains it well. FWIW, I am unaware of any comprehensive scholarly RS for sanskrit Indian philosophical concepts in non-devanagari indic scripts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, people will not stick to the spellings. Like it or not, people repeatedly meddle with this stuff and the vast majority of readers and contributors don't know Devangari from Inuit, so it really could be anything (including obscenities etc). The hassle just isn't worth it - it wasn't when the guideline was introduced and, if anything, the situation is worse now because of certain WMF activities relating to encouraging participation in India. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that if you're quoting and discussing a work in the Mahabharata for example, you could use Devanagari and no one is going to complain. The problem comes up when you try to add Devanagari name to Adi Shankara's bio, where then the Malayalam drive-by's will then add Malayalam script, Tamil drive-by's will add Tamil claiming that Malayalam hadn't split off at that point in time and so on and on. In addition to being a waste of time for many editors, there's really no value to our readers provided by giving them any of those scripts, in contrast to discussing something specific. I remember that in Narayanmurthy's bio a degrading Kannada name was added and left unreverted for days before I stumbled upon it, same has happened with other bios as well as with Sanskrit related articles (Mike Lynch had a few examples if I remember correctly).—SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush, @SpacemanSpiff: The boundaries between Buddhism-, Jainism-, Hinduism-, Sikhism-related biographies, etc and India-related articles is fuzzy, and your concerns resonate with my own. I agree with @Abecedare that this needs judicious judgment in Hinduism project articles. For Vedas, Upanishads, various schools of Indian philosophy, sanskrit-rooted philosophy articles, where RS is cited for the devanagari-script, I do not anticipate a concern. Requiring a reliable source for the script, in Hinduism project articles where it is allowed, is a more appropriate guideline. Indeed, vandalism is a problem in wikipedia, but banning even RS-sourced content in philosophy articles is not the way to end vandalism, or fear thereof. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

But that is where we disagree: I do anticipate problems, even with the reliable sources. You have to bear in mind that this is the English Misplaced Pages and most people will not even feel capable of pattern-matching the "squiggles" (sorry) of non-Roman characters. That lets the idiots in, and we have a vast army of them. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am going to complain about devanagari a lot of the time, actually, because this is the English wikipedia, IAST and NLK exist and are in roman script and thus easy for budding scholars to read, and devanagari has this weird sacred weight added to it as if it is the official script of Sanskrit when in fact devanagari is just a recent standardisation that often does not reflect the historical scripts used to write it. Use of devanagari for Sanskrit leads to its use for Pali and Prakrits and the Tamil wikipedia warriors come by... I literally just had this situation happen at Maya because everything in India is apparently Dravidian in origin. I have people on my dash all the time pleading special exception for Tamil, for Marathi, for everything. I put the native name in boxes to use for topics on Indic subjects because 20 official languages plus the classical ones equals a nightmare lede. Ogress _smash! 16:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: As consensus, will you be okay if RS-verifiable sanskrit devanagari script is moved from the lead sentence to someplace else in the article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

What difference will that make? You will just be moving the problem. Honestly, I think you should drop this - you've been trying to get your way for a while on this issue and you're hitting brick walls. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I am okay with @Abecedare's consensus guideline explained above. You? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Abecedare had it right here on 3 July when they said Wouldn't recommend reopening the can of worms. The problem is, you won't let it go and we're already in the long-winded territory that always accompanies discussion about INDICSCRIPT. You are not going to get consensus - that much should be obvious. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: See this guideline summary posted by @Abecedare later than day. I am fine with it. I hope @Ogress is okay with it too, as we sometimes edit the same philosophy articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

NO. Indic scripts in the lead caused massive flame wars and edit wars in the past with rather disgusting edit summaries such as edit rape. Consensus was arrived at for a reason, and there is NO grounds to change it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Samethanahalli Rama Rao

Samethanahalli Rama Rao has been unsourced since at least 2009. Can anything be done with it or is it a candidate for WP:AFD? - Sitush (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

At first, the personality seems to be non-notable but we should not forget he's Kannada author and there are chances that the sources maybe there in local languages (see INDAFD ). What can be done-

• Try contacting the contributor and the editor involve with that article.
• Nominate for AfD.

I suggest try raising the issue on IRC. — CutestPenguin 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't use IRC, so someone else would have to do that. The creator has not edited for seven years. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I tried looking for the references but hardly find any. I think one should nominate for AfD and see if any one come up with proper sources. — CutestPenguin 14:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. I have now sent it to AfD. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ram Pyari Gurjar

The article on Ram Pyari Gurjar claims that she was a woman commander who fought against Timur. However, the only source cited in the article is The royal Gurjars by Nau Nihal Singh. The book seems less of a reliable scholarly work and more of an attempt at ethnic glorification. I cannot find any other sources -- Google just throws up Misplaced Pages mirrors or articles based on Misplaced Pages. I've tried searching with alternative transliterations. Singh claims that she fought alongside Jograj Singh Panwar -- I can find mentions of this guy in some reliable sources, but those sources describe his story as more of a local legend than history.

Being a female commander who fought against Timur is no mean achievement. So, it's surprising that there are not more sources that mention this. I am wondering if this is a real historical figure, a legend or a hoax. Any inputs are appreciated. utcursch | talk 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Prodded. Exceedingly unlikely to be a (known) historical figure, and lack of sources suggest that it is not even a notable enough legend (I tried several spelling variations too, just in case). FWIW, the cited source says "One of the commanders of Jograj was Mam Chand, who was Gurjar. One of the Lady commanders Ram Piyari was a Gurjari. Ram Piyari Gurjar gave training to 40000 women in the warrior art. These women fought shoulder to shoulder with male soldiers."

If any of this were true (or at least historically attested), scholarly works wouldn't have simply forgotten to mention it. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with Abcedare, I expect that the Prod will be declined, and certainly would be if a certain arbitrator saw it. I'll watch the article in readiness for AfD. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll nominate it for AfD if the prod is declined. On a related note, this problematic source is cited on 10+ pages on Misplaced Pages: site:en.wikipedia.org "The royal Gurjars". Needs a purge. utcursch | talk 18:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think all these articles date from that 2009 to early 2010 time frame when there was a Gurjar discussion board egging people to come on here and edit. One of the editors from here had even posted how to stay under the radar and do it (including which admins to keep away from!). —SpacemanSpiff 19:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ogress has cleaned-up the articles. utcursch | talk 20:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been featured on Times of India

Article here. Apparently someone from the ToI went through my edit history too. —SpacemanSpiff 19:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty odd last statement. "Either way, vandals have their hands full." --NeilN 19:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few other odd stats and statements, but courtesy of the article I see that Jashodaben Narendrabhai Modi has been recreated after four delete AfDs. Some things never change. —SpacemanSpiff 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: are you going to file the speedy delete for that? I am not sure where the AfDs are. Ogress _smash! 19:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

OgressThey are listed on the talk page, but I think I'm missing some context here in that this probably went to DRV or something which overruled the AfDs. Will have to check on that. —SpacemanSpiff 19:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: if you are on it, I won't recreate the same investigation simultaneously, then. Ogress _smash! 19:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress:Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 30 is what I found and it seems to endorse the redirect. I'm not entirely sure that a G4 would go through, but four AfDs and one DRV should be more than enough in my opinion. Eitherways, if it has to go to AfD a salted redirect should probably be the option. (I won't nominate now as I'm trying to stay away from time consuming AfDs for a while). —SpacemanSpiff 19:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

JNM was moved to user space after the latest delete decision and it stayed there getting stronger in content and then came back to article space recently. I admire the great efforts of the User:Bluerasberry, especially of commissioning the image of JNM. But I still don't see much of encyclopedic value in the article. But alas, I find myself furious and helpless. The article has now got tons of material, (we won't comment on the educational quality of it yet), which very well fit in our sacred WP:V policy. The article won't be deleted now, at least on the face value. But as it stays, it remains a live example of what Misplaced Pages is not....
But congrats User:SpacemanSpiff, just like JNM you too can have an article sooner or later post featuring in TOI. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move discussion

Proposed move discussion (Vithoba to Vitthal) is going on here Talk:Vithoba#Requested move 29 July 2015 --Human3015  22:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Vithoba is a featured article. --Human3015  13:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1st Indian Cavalry Brigade

There is an ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

RfC is going on regarding result section in infobox. Kindly give your opinion on talk page here Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971#RFC, Should "Decisive victory of Provisional Banlgladesh Government" be written in result? (reporting on India-Pakistan-Bangladesh related notice boards) --Human3015  22:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Swachh Bharat Abhiyan

The leading section of the article Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, needs to be rewritten. Please feel free to improve. Thanks! — CutestPenguin 17:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Tennews as a reliable source

What is the general opinion of Tennews.in as a Reliable Source? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05 No! it is not a reliable source to cite articles on Misplaced Pages. — CutestPenguin 16:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Would appreciate it if someone could echo that on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prashant Mali. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Presidential Standard of India

Does anyone know if this exists/existed and its current status? Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's mostly used by the President in honoring the armed forces, a unit gets the presidential standard as a mark of honour. The image used currently is incorrect I think, I'll have to find a proper source for the right image (we have a lot of user generated images on Commons that are designed from text and use incorrect representations of what's written). —SpacemanSpiff 17:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good to get some proper source and then restrict the article content to what we can actually verify, so that we don't end up spreading misinformation given that an hour after the article was created it was already a top hit for the term. Also agree with you about the commons images (see my note on the article talkpage). Abecedare (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are some primary sources , also , TOI. --Human3015  18:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Two images of the standard being presented. Doesn't look much like our images. The crw source is also problematic in that they have caused the wrong banner to be used in BI articles for 1858-1947. —SpacemanSpiff 19:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• The Presidential Standard of India and the President's colors/standards are entirely different things. You can see the various iterations of the Presidential standards in this image. Chand N. Das (1984). Traditions and Customs of the Indian Armed Forces. Vision Books. p. 53. - FLAGS OF THE VICEROY, GOVERNOR-GENERAL, THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNORS - Before Independence the flag of the Viceroy of India was a Union Jack superimposed with a crown and the Star of India. After Independence, the flag of the Governor-General was dark blue with the crest of the Lion and Crown in full colour with 'India' in golden letters. When India became a Republic, the flag of the President was quarterly, blue and red with the charges in gold line: first the Ashoka Lions, second an elephant, third a pair of scales, and fourth a lotus bowl. The Lion came from the Ashoka Column and represented unity. Patience and strength were embodied, in the lively-looking 5th Century elephant, taken from the Ajanta frescoes. The scales, a 17th century Moslem design came from the Red Fort, Delhi and symbolised justice and economy, and the lotus bowl, from Sarnath, (Circa 1st century bc) stood for prosperity and plenty. The Governors of the provinces flew a saffron flag with a crown. This was also superseded by the state emblem and the name of province which later became the state. The names of the states were changed into Devanagri script, when India became a Republic. On August 15, 1971 it was, however, decided that the President and the State Governors will fly the National Flag. The Presidential Standard of India is not in existence anymore while the President's standards are actively being conferred on various military units from time to time. The website got these two mixed up. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that, it makes perfect sense now. —SpacemanSpiff 04:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That is most helpful, Masked Man! I have reworked the article based on the quote you provided. Review would be welcome, esp. to check that I haven't missed or messed up some vexillological term or MOS requirement. Abecedare (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sompura Brahmin

Sompura Brahmin is unclear and hard to understand in many places, due I'm sure in large part to non-native or Indian English and partly to unexplained Hindu terms, such as shilp-shastra. I've done my best at editing it for clarity, but I know little more about Hinduism and Gujarat than the average American. The page needs work by a knowledgeable person. I'm willing to help with editing but I can't do any more with content. Please {{ping}} me to discuss. (Thanks to Human3015 for pointing me to this page.) --Thnidu (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

MP twin train derailment

Should we change the title? Harda twin train derailment is also mentioned in many sources. Please give your opinions. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 04:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I should have asked this in article talk page but since this is a new article there will be very low traffic, so I asked here. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 06:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely it should not have MP in title. Either it should be Madhya Pradesh or the name prescribed by you.--Vin09 (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest it should be Kudwa.--User:Vin09 (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Vin09, here and here, Harda was mentioned. I think we should redirect "Kudwa twin train derailment" to "Harda twin train derailment". What do you think? Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 06:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support

@Supdiop:As per The Hindu newspaper, it was Harda only.--Vin09 (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Vin09,  Done Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 07:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Are we now to have an article on every train accident? There have been thousands in the UK alone, and probably many tens of thousands in India. Why, oh why, don't people consider WP:NOTNEWS? - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

But not every train accident gets coverage in media as much as this accident got. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 09:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it got coverage in the news, which is what Misplaced Pages is not. Loads of them do, worldwide. Every accident at a level crossing gets coverage across umpteen newspapers here in the UK. It's not encyclopaedic stuff. The test is basically "will many people look up this thing in a few years' time". The answer, very frequently, is "no". - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this train accident has enough notability. When was the last time a train or any accident got this much coverage in India? It rarely happens. There are almost 800 news articles related to this accident. I also saw some news in Chinese and Arabic languages while searching for information. Thanks Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 10:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I am not going to nominate it for deletion because that, too, would be a waste of my time. I just think we've got bigger problems than dealing with news stuff and that it is almost always the case that these articles begin with a huge flurry of activity and then languish in an half-complete, often massively copyvio state etc for eternity. That is what happens, for example, with many of the scam-related things, which get a lot of initial press coverage, attract a lot of poor contributions and are then rarely followed-through. They also tend to end up being havens for violations of WP:BLP etc.

I'd much rather people concentrated on stuff that actually matters in the true encyclopaedic sense rather than waste effort time on excitable news-driven ephemera. If you want to read news, go to a news website. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You might want to see this template. There are far more articles on train accidents than you might think. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 08:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

... and you are missing my point again. Just because something can be created doesn't mean it should. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

After I created my article, Mjroots created another article on the same accident. Do you think that an admin with over 1000 articles is also wrong? I guess not. It is now featured on the main page because it is notable and many admins saw the article and approved it. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 13:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Admins are not always right, nor are you, nor am I. The article was a mess of poor writing and unsourced claims, although I've since copyedited it. Basically, it says (a) there was a train accident caused by derailment; (b) quite a few people died or were injured; (c) an investigation has been opened. Everything else is speculation reported or even originated by journalists. That's a nothing of an article, really. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I see where Sitush is coming from. This article that I picked out of Supdiop's template on a rail accident in India earlier this year presumably generated a lot of coverage initially. The last line says "a report would be published within a month". Perhaps the report was published (or not) but apparently everyone - the news media and wikipedia editors - have forgotten all about the derailment. This rail accident article is likely to be similarly moribund a few days from now. --regentspark (comment) 22:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Whatever opinion we have about newsy articles this discussion is better off at VPP. We are not going to solve it here, not that it'll be solved there but it's a better place to not solve it. On Wikiproject pages this meta discussion ends up being a distraction, that's all. —SpacemanSpiff 03:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Temples

Use of Sri and Swamy in temple names. Some don't use like Tirumala Venkateswara Temple, Hanuman Temple, Kedara-Gouri, Kanaka Durga Temple. To maintain uniformity there should be a consensus.--Vin09 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should happen at WT:Hinduism. —SpacemanSpiff 05:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No! Each temple name should be taken case by case. You can't maintain uniformity as we have to use names based on what it is commonly known as. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Shifting the discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Hinduism-related_topics_notice_board#Temples on advice by User:SpacemanSpiff.--Vin09 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

FAR listing

I have nominated Tamils 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Editors watching this page might be interested in this merge discussion, which proposes merging Religious conflicts in India into Religious violence in India. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hot Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages has got the national attention of India . Expect all kinds of editors to come in and hack it, like this one . Dear admins, you have your work cut out for you! - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Didn't a similar thing happen a few months ago re: the same article? I seem to recall an influx of edits, albeit without sign of an official investigation. It makes me wonder if someone might be orchestrating this. In any event, yep, it looks like yet another skirmish is on its way. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

¡Ay, caramba! Well, as long as it's nothing like the flood which followed Modi's (in effect) election to the Indian premiership, we should be able to cope :) Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting Fiji Hindi Misplaced Pages

I have found one very interesting Misplaced Pages Fiji Hindi Misplaced Pages which writes impure form of Hindi language inspired from "Awadhi" and "Bhojpuri" in English script. For example see Welcome message on my talk page there . Also read article India there. If anyone interested they can edit some pages there. No need of Devanagari script. -Human3015  19:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Speaker of Bihari languages

Is there anyone who can assist in explaining things to a contributor who might well come from the Bihar region? User_talk:Sitush#Any_passing_admin.3F gives the background. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This is resolved now, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

suggesting article merger of Naivedhya & Prasad

Theory aside, practically if, Naivedhya & Prasad are the same thing, then why not merge these two articles in to one. So better encyclopedic attention will be given by the community. pl do suggest.

Mahitgar (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

They are two different definitions: Naivedhya is what goes into the sanctum sanctorum of a temple etc while Prasad is what comes out. Our article on Prasad is quite confusing to say the least. I think Ogress might be able to provide the correct definitions within the articles. —SpacemanSpiff 19:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff and Mahitgar: My specialty is Buddhism and to some degree Jainism; I'm not that fluent in Hinduism. But I can tell you that naivedya is both badly misspelled and that it means an offering of edibles presented to a deity and that the Sanskrit word prasāda means "serenity, tranquility". However, the modern meaning of prasad in Hinduism, which is not the same as its meaning in the historical Vedic religion or the Upanishadic period, is food you offer up and then share with people as a meal. The problem is that the article on prasad is - as so often happens - insisting on mixing the extremely ancient meaning of a Sanskrit word with the modern meaning. There is a sense that because Hinduism is descended from earlier practices, it is identical to ancient religion, when in fact modern Hinduism is the product of like 4000 years of change since the Vedas and there is no reason to include the now-obscure early meaning of prasāda in an article that is clearly mainly about the practice of prasad. Ogress _smash! 19:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to confound the early and modern definitions, but I think the modern definition itself is quite hazy for Prasad (and while the roots of the word might be Sanskrit, I was going in terms of current usage). In colloquial terms prasad might be taken to include naivedya in a geographical context, but I don't think that the definition of prasad being "food you offer up" is universal while the latter bit of "share with" is universal. The articles are a mess, so any cleanup would be beneficial. —SpacemanSpiff 19:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Operation Polo or Indian integration of Hyderabad

I have found some good sources on the historical and political aspects, but the sections on the military preparation and operation are very weak and only sourced to a couple of websites. Any help is appreciated. I have also asked on WP:MILHIST Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

There is another good book directly relevant to the topic, From Autocracy to Integration: Political Developments in Hyderabad State, 1938-1948 by Lucien Benichou, which surprisingly is not used in the article. The focus is again political developments, but it of course discusses the military actions and should have citations to more detailed studies. I had part read it a couple of years back with the intention of improving the Hyderabad state article, but got distracted... hopefully, your efforts will bear better fruit. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

For Nizam related topics, there is another book, P. V. Kate (1987). Marathwada Under the Nizams, 1724-1948. Mittal Publications. ISBN 978-81-7099-017-8.. --Human3015  20:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hyderabadcha-Swatantrysangram-Ani-Marathvada (Author: Anant Bhalerav (language marathi) is a good reference book about political developments preceding the police action.

Mahitgar (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Bhakt

There's an ANI post about the article at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Qualified eyes needed at Bhakt. Interested editors may want to look at the article and/or the ANI post. —SpacemanSpiff 14:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I have doubts about the notability of this article. It has received coverage, sure, but there is not much substance there, and given the nature of the topic, not ever likely to be. If it gets nominated for deletion, though, the anti-Modi camp is likely to be all over it (and the pro-Modi people too, diluting the real reasons for deleting it, ie lack of notability). Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

No arguments there. Any AfD on this is just going to be an ILIKEIT vs IDONTLIKEIT issue and the real issue of our supposed status as an encyclopaedia would get lost. —SpacemanSpiff 15:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Weird question

Weird question, does anyone recognize the language being used here, and if so, can someone help with a translation? For some context, I'm involved in an SPI case, and an IP editor flagged a user as a sock of another user. The IP also left these comments, so I'm curious what they are saying. Thanks, and sorry for the weirdness. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My guess is Saraiki (based on a couple of words and on the users listed in the message). Obvious sock and should be blocked immediately. --regentspark (comment) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as sock of User:LanguageXpert--regentspark (comment) 19:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely linked to Punjabi, so Saraiki seems about right.—SpacemanSpiff 20:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Help Akshardham Environment Violation Section

Hello Everyone,

If you have time would you please take a look at this article: and this discussion and provide your input. There is a cited content dispute I am having and I feel that this board can help with some clarification for this topic. I was told to post here and I would find help. There seems to be a group of swaminarayan followers who refuse to allow cited information in the article. Also if you are member of this group, could you please refrain from providing a biased POV. It is difficult to be neutral because members of BAPS feel like it is their duty to make sure their group is portrayed a certain type of way on Misplaced Pages from cited controversy. Another editor has asked openly for help on improving what has been written so please feel free to do so directly in the article.

Thank you, Swamiblue (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Project-Class India pages
• NA-importance India pages
• Project-Class India articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject India articles