Talk:Mudumalai National Park

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Barbarian policies by govt. and false information provided in wiki[edit]

I too live near this disputed land . Please note the real scenario of people living/dieing here as on 23.08.2012 as below:

1. The people living here are forcefully evacuated from here and 3 cents of land were given to them in a remote place initially. But afterwards no compensation was provided. 2. More shocking news is that the forest area is forcefully increased wherever/whenever possible. 3. No one was provided with Jobs as forest guide etc. Even the TOURISM is banned. Adding to the horror, The national highway passing through forest is closed and traffic is banned at nights. Even one cannot pass through the highway for emergencies like death of a relative, medical aid etc. 4. Animals like elephants have right to enter any agricultural land and destroy agricultural products, kill humans, destroy houses etc. No compensation is guaranteed. 

All people living here have no security on their lives/ properties and we are dieing every day fearing our lives/right to live

The foreign governments funding this project must  stop their funds and let people here live with dignity. otherwise, they are held responsible for seizing our lives and properties.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.118.99 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mudumalai National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title too long for "Mudumalai National Park" in Tamil .....[edit]

The title on the right says Mudumalai National Park in English version, but it says முதுமலை தேசிய பூங்கா மற்றும் வனவிலங்கு காப்பகம் முதுமலை புலிகள் காப்பகம்

in Tamil ...For the aesthetic reason, it is requested to kindly include the tamil translation for "Mudumalai National Park " instead of 3 line name since the original purpose of the native name in English wikipedia page is for informational native name only rather than full translation .

Action suggested : Please change the title on the Right side to 3 word tamil translation . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy sage (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mudumalai National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image galleries[edit]

User: Shaan Vinoth keeps adding large amounts of images into 3 galleries, despite my repeated suggestions to read and follow the respective guideline at WP:GALLERY. Since @Moxy: have been contributing to write this guideline, please comment on those galleries, which I removed multiple times. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well all of these are legit photos, check their file names or if even it is wrong to add any check other tiger reserve articles too. Please dont bring our personal vengeance into this. Shaan Vinoth (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lets ask a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biodiversity, Protected areas & Environment of India : @Shyamal: please comment on the image galleries. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, it is in violation of the basic purpose of the encyclopedia if it is being used to display an unjustified number of images - more interestingly, since I know the area, I had to look up the elephant supposedly attacking a car - and found that the number-plate is not of Indian format. A little check identified that this is a copyright violation of an image from Thailand - see https://nypost.com/2019/11/01/outrageous-photo-shows-snoozy-elephant-resting-on-back-of-car/ Shyamal (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt response, Shyamal! Then I will request speedy deletion of this image. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Just saw that you did this already. It may be worthwhile to check a few other images for copy vio issues. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the extensive image galleries already twice, but this was reverted. If you also think they are not appropriate, please act as you deem fit. I suggested to place them all in a page at Commons and link this page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the images are from Southeast Asia, it would be hard to trust if any of the images actually were taken by the editor. Would be safe to remove all contributions by the user. Any further problematic edits might lead to administrative actions. Shyamal (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Shaan Vinoth - some of the images like the elephant (from Thailand) and the hawk owl from Singapore do not have a place here. Firstly they are copyright violations and there is no indication that any of the images you are adding are legitimately take in Mudumalai. Secondly they do not add value - for instance a moist deciduous forest image should show identifiable floral structure and composition, not a photograph taken by a passing tourist. Shyamal (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image was previously published at https://123rf.com/photo_10731790_royal-bengal-tiger-in-ihrem-nat%C3%BCrlichen-lebensraum-zu-sundarban-wald-in-bengal-indien.html, and copyright holder is "neelsky" (Nilanjan Bhattacharya). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive number of images[edit]

@Shaan Vinoth: you must reduce the number of images. On a small screen e.g. of a notebook computer, the image list is far longer than the text itself. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, NOT primarily decorative, but meant to illustrate to aid to understanding. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted 2 images Shaan Vinoth (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? You need to remove at least another 15, so that the list is way shorter than the last section. – BhagyaMani (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Vinoth: again: if you add images, you must delete others to keep the number reasonable. Adding images does NOT improve this page, as long as text is so mediocre and largely unsourced. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please focus on content improvement (with proper sources) to balance it with the number of images. More images with less content will not make a quality article. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaan Vinoth: why do you think is it necessary to show 2 images of a tiger when the other species are represented by only 1 image? – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC) (moved – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Image layout[edit]

After lots of playing around with layout of images in the Fauna section, I would like to rope in opinions of @Shyamal, Rasnaboy, and Tagooty: how many images should be displayed – 4 or 6, and which layout do you prefer: all in one multiple img with 2 per row or split into 2 parts with 1 per row? And do you have any suggestions about WHICH images to show? – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep them to as few as possible, in a zig-zag layout in-line with text, there are plenty of lists of wildlife and even galleries on Commons that can deal with large sets of images. I would not put in every bird that has been seen in Mudumalai into the article, the only one I would consider are the now rare and endangered white-backed and long-billed vultures, a small population of which is in the Moyar range. Other than this a few large mammals and perhaps a proper representation of a moist-deciduous forest rather than truly horrid images of overgrowing Chromolaena or teak monocultures or photos of safari trails from the tourism zone. Shyamal (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on the park, so images pertaining the landscape, structures, maps, etc. would take precedence. Next comes the flora and fauna found in the park. Like Shyamal said, not every animal needs an image here but only the chief ones that the park is known for or the endangered ones that the park aims to preserve. Image inline with the text would be the best in my opinion (for which we would need more textual content). Multiple images intermittently would be appropriate if you think there are more images worth retaining. (This is how I managed to retain more images in the Arignar Anna Zoological Park article after adding enough text content.) Rasnaboy (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your prompt replies!! I basically agree with both of you to remove a few more images from the present version.
  • The img File:Dry Forest Theppakadu Mudumalai Mar21 A7C 00505.jpg looks indeed like a teak plantation, but has a QI seal, which is why I kept it in. But if I understand you correctly @Shyamal: you would remove this?
  • Alas, there are no photos of vultures in the resp. Commons page of Mudumalai NP. Therefore, I suggest to use only 3 images with QI seals, namely of Crested honey buzzard, Crested hawk-eagle and Indian pond heron, or perhaps instead of latter: the Indian roller, as this is FA page.
  • In the subsection on mammals, I consider the photos of leopard, gaur and Indian giant squirrel worth retaining, but would remove the other 3. And you ?? – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC); revised, BhagyaMani (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mudumalai started life as a Wildlife Sanctuary, it was then converted to a Nat'l Park and a Tiger Reserve. Its main attraction is the fauna. It has little landscape that is exceptional, the flora is largely teak and bamboo forests with lantana undergrowth. It makes sense to have a larger number of images of fauna compared to other Nat'l Parks. Cf. Mukurthi Nat'l Park with the Mukurthi Peak and Western Catchment; Great Himalayan Nat'l Park with spectacular mountain scenery, etc. I like the 2x2 or 2x3 layout showing several images relevant to a section. --Tagooty (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page passed the GA review with nine images including the one in the infobox. The reviewer commented that the many images in the previous version of the page caused overcrowding and did not look neat. Lets keep it that way. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lantana[edit]

@Shaan Vinoth: a few days ago, I added this content Lantana camara ... negatively affects the dispersal of ..., but does not affect growth and dispersal of other shrubs. with a reference (Ramaswami & Sukumar 2011), see revision of 1 Oct. Your addition on basis of a newspaper article CONTRADICTS the findings of these 2 scientists. And AGAIN you added a bare url, despite repeated hints to read + follow respective guidelines. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC); added revision id, BhagyaMani (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K Shaan Vinoth (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improved article[edit]

Thanks to User:BhagyaMani for diligent, persistent and patient editing of this article over the past few months. It is now a much better article, with sections of text tastefully illustrated by small galleries of relevant images. --Tagooty (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I second that. That's a very persistent effort on User:BhagyaMani's part, as always. I also appreciate newcomer User:Shaan Vinoth's efforts to improve the article. I understand this user is learning the ropes and I suggest he work in coordination with BhagyaMani and other experienced editors to achieve the best results. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will try my best, thank you Shaan Vinoth (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback!! Am glad that you are interested in the progress and hope you stay tuned. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges vs. threats[edit]

Anything causing destruction of habitat and death of wildlife is a THREAT, but clearly NOT a challenge [for whom?]. If you think otherwise, then put forward your arguments here, who you think is challenged. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoregions[edit]

@Shaan Vinoth: how often did you add a link to the South Western Ghats montane rain forests? And how often did I remove it, because it is INCORRECT? At least 5 times, possibly more! And it will NOT become correct, if you add it again and again and again. I recommend you to READ + understand the book by Wikramanayake et al. (2002) and also to get familiar with WP:CITEHOW, before you again add a bare url for the umpteenth time. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Shaan Vinoth (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

The Etymology is stubby - maybe combine with next section and rename to History and naming? Also who named it Mudumalai and why...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback !!! I revised this. But Hedge (2000) did not explain who selected this name, only outlined a few cornerstones of its history from 1805 under British rule to 1986 in some 10 sentences. Do you think it worthwhile to dig deeper into pre-sanctuary history ? – BhagyaMani (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the origin of the name is worth adding if a souce can be found yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I traced back publications about forests in south India to a book dating 1860, in which the author mentioned logging operations in "Mudumalai forest" : volumes, people hired, elephants used, prices + that the British government RENTED this forest from the Raja of Neelampur in 1857. In later years from about late 19th century on, the focus of publications by British + French explorers gradually shifted to wildlife in "Mudumalai": butterflies, insects, wild dog. But none explained the origin of the name. So I suppose it was called "Mudumalai" long before the British arrived in south India. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mudumalai National Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 02:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello BhagyaMani. I will be reviewing this article over the coming days. Please let me know for any problems. Thank You. Kpddg (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section-wise Assessment[edit]

Lead Section[edit]

  • This section has several unsourced statements, which have been marked. Please add reliable citations.
    As already explained in my recent edit summary, ALL of these statements are referenced in the sections. In all the GA + FA pages I contributed too, the leads are summaries of info provided in sections, without repeating sources. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then Kpddg (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

  • '₹' sign comes before the amount. It says that the project had been extended till 2021. What happened to it now?
  • Done. Re extension: if funds will be released for the comings years, it may be too early now to announce this now. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geography[edit]

  • There is an unsourced statement, which has been marked.
    This sentence IS sourced by the ref <ref name=Hedge_al2000/> at the end of the 2nd sentence. To make this more clear, I placed a ; between the 2 sentences. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mudumalai National Park is located in the eastern hills of the Western Ghats, covering 321 km2 (124 sq mi), at an elevation range of 850–1,250 m (2,790–4,100 ft). Add commas
    I revised the sentence so that commas are not needed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In climate, all the sources are old. Are the figures still the same?
    Climate does not change that frequently. And later authors state basically the same figures, but most without referencing. So I traced these figures back to these two sources. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Kpddg (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flora[edit]

  • Reference 18 is very old (from 2008). Update that and the corresponding sentence.
    Old does not make it unvalid. And it's not like botanists are inventoring plant species in the same area every other decade: see the next source no. 14 dating to 1978. Number of species in MNP hasn't changed significantly since then. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I was just checking, since you have a better knowlegde of the topic. Kpddg (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, it looks fine

Fauna[edit]

  • There are too many images here, causing overcrowding. Only keep the best ones and format them better. Currently, it is not looking very neat.
    I fully agree!! Please let me know HOW MANY do you suggest to keep? I'll remove 2 now. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images to remove
•Moyar River Theppakadu Mar21 A7C 00304.jpg
•Gaur on the bank of Moyar in Sigur Range AJTJohnsingh.jpg
•Crested Hawk Eagle Rodent Mudumalai Mar21 DSC01433.jpg
This should be fine BhagyaMani. Kpddg (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was one editor who kept insisting on many more images than displayed now. And I think that the 2 in the section Flora represent both flora and habitat types in MNP quite well, so opt to keep them both. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the one of the crested hawk eagle has a quality img tag, I would like to keep this as well. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of the gaur, I propose to show one of Asian elephants, also because MNP is an important ele corridor in the Western Ghats. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine @BhagyaMani, go ahead. Just make sure that it does not get too crowded Kpddg (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mammals
      • Looks fine
    • Birds
      • Good
    • Reptiles
      • Good
    • Fishes
      • Fine

Threats[edit]

  • Update reference 56 and the corresponding sentence
    I haven't come across a later estimate of firewood need. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2019 forest fires here have not been mentioned
    As you surely noticed, I refrain from using newspapers as sources. Verma et al. (2017) is the latest peer-reviewed article on forest fires in MNP I was able to find. If the 2019 fire is mentioned in such an article, I will be happy to reference this here. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are several news sources I found. E.g. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/forest-fire-in-mudumalai-tiger-reserve-contained-to-an-extent/article26378063.ece This is just one, there are others as well.... Kpddg (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See section External links : one is already listed there. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I just feel that since it was a major fire, it should be listed in the article. Kpddg (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This fire is anyway covered in a separate page listed under See also. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, atleast change 'between 1999 to 2013' to 2019 or something and change the sentence. Because this cannot just be ignored in the article. Kpddg (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Also[edit]

  • Can be arranged and formatted better
    Done. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Hold For Improvements[edit]

This article is placed  On hold for a time period of 1 week. Further decisions will be taken after the above corrections are made. Thank You. Kpddg (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final Decision[edit]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass:

· · ·
Since you left all the GAList checks empty, i.e. displaying the symbol : what do you think is still missing for promotion to GA? – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BhagyaMani I am waiting for the image problem to be resolved. I feel one of the forest pic can be removed Kpddg (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I opt for the 2nd, as forest is also shown in the ele pic. Ok with you? – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Kpddg (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And added one more ref as a thank you to you. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BhagyaMani for your contributions. This article is  Passed. Kpddg (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank you for cooperation and suggestions for improving this page. I think this is the second page on an Indian protected area with a GA status. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mudumalai_National_Park&oldid=1201871127"