This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Not a single mention of Press Council of India. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Too many direct quotations I think... Should rewritten ChiragPatnaik (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC) The Raju quote is wholly inadequate. atleast in once case is horribly out of date. TOI sells about 3 million copies a day. a far cry from th 660,000 quoted. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:IndiaToday-20-20061218.jpg
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Literally all other "media by country" articles follow the naming convention "Media of x". There is no objective reason that the media article for India should differ from this standard. Neelix (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure that this standardization is necessary? "Indian media" sounds much better to me than "Media of India". I also think it should be "Media in India", rather than "of". (NB, to clarify, "all the other articles follow the naming convention" because Neelix recently moved quite a few others.) 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Title standardization is a healthy and generally accepted process for the project in general, as is evidenced by the large number of naming conventions for specific types of articles currently in use. Employing differing titles to refer to the same concept in different countries suggests a difference in content, which is not the case. I looked at all the "Media by country" articles, and saw that over half employed "of", less than half employed "in", and the other two employed a demonym, as in the case of Indian media. Either of the three options would have worked, but choosing one as a standard is a valuable and well-established practice. This article was the only one I was not able to move myself. Is there any reason that this last article should not be standardized other than that the current title subjectively sound better? Neelix (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that title standardization can be a good thing, but it is not essential, and there is nothing explicit about it in the guidelines (afaik). Moreover, once a standard is set, it is hard to revert, and so it is best to request feedback before going ahead with it (see How to propose a new naming convention). By my reckoning, you moved ~28 pages from "Media in X" to "Media of X", when I think the former name is more appropriate. (But here is not the right place to discuss that.)126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I have offended you in my edits. I meant only to be bold and do some cleanup which I believed to be uncontroversial. If you feel that "in" is more appropriate, by all means, propose the naming convention in the way you have suggested, and I will more than happily support it. But couldn't we move this one last article to the current standard until that happens? All I am requesting is that these articles be consistent; I am indifferent to whether "in" or "of" is used. Either seems like a fully viable option, but not both. Neelix (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Indian is ambiguous; there is, after all, some Native American film-making. India is not. Support. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 20:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. My initial reaction was that this should be non-controversial, but obviously I'm wrong here. But I think Media of India is a definite improvement. Andrewa (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, consistent and logical move. +Hexagon1(t) 08:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Support. "Indian" could refer to several different groups, not just the people of India.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.