Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Do you need the Indic name(s) of something or somebody? Post a request for it.

Click here to add a new section

Indian Map

Among all the articles on wikipedia about countries only main Indian and Pakistani articles seem to be showing disputed territories in the political map on article. I must note here very few countries in the world are totally free from territorial disputes but the political map in these countries only show the territories claimed by that particular country with no references to disputes. In this example that I gave Russia is shown without any territorial disputes. Also even in India's map only the disputed regions of Kashmir are shown and the rest of disputed regions are not shown. Why is the territorial dispute in Kashmir been given a special place?? I would request other editors to have a look at this List_of_territorial_disputes including rest disputes that India has. I think the disputed map should be added in the article about the particular territorial dispute.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Indic Sysops

Kindly take a moment to read the Indic Sysop proposal in meta and express your opinion. Thanks --Jyothis (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI (Jamesinderbyshire) per WP:FAKE for Famine in India article

I have reported User:Jamesinderbyshire at ANI for providing ficticious references attempting to bolster his claim that 26 million Indians did not perish of famines during 1875-1900. Separately, my attempts to include the a line about Green Revolution in the lead section of the same article is being resisted by the same user. Please vote/participate in both the ANI as well as the inclusion of Green Revolution in the lead. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This comment is clearly designed to make it sound as though I deny there was a mass famine in late-19th Century India, which is most emphatically not the case. It also attempts to recruit for a POV battle. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ganga/Ganges

I've posted it before. Posting it again. Would any kind sirs/madams take at look at Ganges. It should be Ganga. And how does one reach consensus on something? How many should agree? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ganges#Ganga_vs_Ganges --SpArC (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Kharwar

Can someone on this project take a look at this article. It clearly has some merit but needs a considerable amount of work to bring it up to scratch. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Party symbols and copyright

Hello all. I am posting this message in regard to a new issue that has come up in regard to electoral symbols of Indian political parties and their copyright. I had created some files and had uploaded them on Wikipedia. A user is claiming that it is copyright infringement. I would like to know if this is the case. The files in question are:

• File:DMK Rising Sun.png
• File:MDMK Top.png
• File:AIADMK Two Leaves.png

I really doubt that this is the case as most Indian parties have their party logos and flags uploaded on Wikipedia when users create these files. Cheers --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Per the Copyright Office of the Government of India, creative works attract copyright immediately upon creation (see answer to question 4). There's really no dispute in this. These are creative works, and copyright is automatically generated on creation. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, that is why it is my copyrighted work. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 13:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• If these are solely your works, then they are not the electoral symbols for these parties, and there's no reason for them to be here on this project anyway. If they are recreations by you of the actual electoral symbols, then they are derivative works and the original copyright holders still maintain copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you know anything about India and its electoral system? Could I request you to ask someone if you don't? Any depiction of the so called electoral symbol can be used by the party. It is (listen up again) NOT a court of arms or logo. It doesn't have prescribed dimensions or orientation. For example the Congress Party in India uses "palm of an hand" as its symbol and it doesn't even matter if it is right hand or left, or a picture or a line drawing. Anything can be used as a electoral symbol and they are not (like in your adamant interpretation) come under any copyright. Why don't you have the patience to wait and see what editors who know about this have got to say? I'm assuming you are confident enough that you are right. In that case there is no reason to shy off. Isn't it? --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 13:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• You've been unable to refute the cite I have provided from the Government of India's Copyright Office. Do you or do you not acknowledge what that office says is law in India? Do you believe that only coats of arms and logos are copyrightable? And why should I be silenced in this debate? It is obvious to me that you do not understand the very basic precept of copyright; a creative work can be copyrighted, and under Berne convention that copyright is conferred on the moment of creation. It doesn't matter if its a coat of arms, a logo, a statue, or the drawings of a random person in a random province on a random day of the week. Copyright is conferred upon the moment of creation. Now, would you please answer the question: Are these solely your works and not derivative works? If they are not derivative, there's absolutely no reason for them to be in the article mainspace on Wikipedia, as they are not the actual electoral symbols. Otherwise, anybody could create any drawing they wanted, claim it's the electoral symbol, and place it on the article. We could have a gallery of thousands of "electoral symbols" created by every resident of Tamil Nadu. Either these are, in fact, the electoral symbols of the parties (in which case you do not have full rights to the images), or they are not, in which case they should not be appearing on any mainspace page. There's no middle ground here. You can't have it both ways. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Let us put it this way: Breaking it down helps sometimes. Pattali Makkal Katchi uses Mango as its party electoral symbol. So would you claim that it is a copy right infringement if someone uploads a picture of mango on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiality123 (talk • contribs)

• If someone uploads an exact or derivative copy of the mango symbol they use, yes. If they upload an exact or derivative copy of File:Mango and cross sections.jpg, no. Anybody can create their own drawing of a mango, and copyright is conferred upon that creation immediately for that image. In theory, there could be a thousand drawings of a mango, and every one of them can have a separate copyright for them. If this were not the case, then any artist who created a still life of fruit in a bowl on a table could never claim copyright on their creative work. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That is it. There is nothing called exact or derivative copy of the mango symbol they use. This is exactly you fail to understand. Any figure of mango can be used as their electoral symbol. Period! --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 14:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Cool! Off to upload thousands of mango images and place them on the article's page. They're ALL the party's electoral symbols, right? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Very funny indeed. If you have better picture of mango, then feel free to upload it to the page and nominate the one already there for deletion as orphaned. That would be constructive to wikipedia. FYI: The image I have created uses the party colours, and flag as a ribbon. So much so the AIADMK itself pinched my image and modified it on their site a few times in the recent past. So if you make something better, feel free to replace my image. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 14:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'd love to see mail from AIADMK acknowledging they took your image. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair use on English Wikipedia

Note to the uploader: Please refer to Wikipedia:Logos and Wikipedia:Fair use for the current policy on the use of non-free images on the English Wikipedia. As long as the uploader asserts that there are no free alternatives available for the logos and is willing to reduce the resolution of the images, your uploads are acceptable under the fair use exception in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The Indian Copyright Act is irrelevant since the servers are located in the United States. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is the uploader claims rights, and also claims these are the electoral symbols of the parties in question. Yet, if they are in fact the electoral symbols of the parties in question, then the parties hold rights, not him. He's attempting to take a non-existent middle ground between the two; that he holds rights and that they are the accepted symbols of the parties. Attempts have been made to retag these as {{non-free logo}} [1][2], but Wikiality keeps insisting these are his works [3][4], claiming others have to prove an image is copyrighted [5] (when in fact copyright is granted automatically on creation), removing PUF discussion tags [6], and etc. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. It appears that these images are exclusively uploaded on Wikimedia servers and I cannot find any verifiable pages that link these symbols to the political parties in question. Therefore you can nominate them for WP:FfD under WP:NFCC#4. If these were logos of political parties then they would be copyrighted and any publication on Wikipedia would fall under the United States fair use law. The uploader cannot release copyrighted material or derivative works of copyrighted content under a GFDL license. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

take it easy guys. I understand both side of the argument. I understand Hammersoft's argument that derivative works are still copyrighted to the original creator. I also understand Wikiality's argument that Indian parties use such common objects (such as mangoes and hand) as symbols and it is not really clear if these common objects can be considered their copyright. I guess this is a grey area that has to be addressed with elaborate consideration. I would say it is important we demonstrate (cite Indian law or court judgements) which clearly says Indian party symbols are (or not) necessarily copyrights of the parties. Until then (because wikipedia has a strict copyright policy though I am doubtful Ramadoss is preparing to sue us), we can use these symbols in party's pages using Fair use rationale (like Nick suggested above). --CarTick (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but it is absolutely clear; If I create a drawing of a mango, I own complete rights to the drawing. It doesn't matter that there are zillions of mangoes around the world. It's my drawing, and I can claim rights. It's creative work, and far exceeds the threshold of originality. There's no need to cite court decisions; India observes the Berne convention. Their own copyright office, as I previously cited, acknowledges that copyright is conferred at the moment of creation. This notion of there being a grey area here is absolutely and provably false. _IF_ these images are the actual property of the parties, then I support retagging them as non-free. If they're not the parties' logos, then they have no business existing in mainspace purporting to be their logos. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is clear to me that Indian law allows copyright to creation as soon as they are created. I guess your argument is, you can use the drawing of a mango in Mango article but not in Pattali Makkal Katchi article? --CarTick (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Creating a logo that is not a derivative work, and then claiming that it's the "Party logo of Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) a regional party in India." is absolutely wrong. That's what Wikiality appears to have done. I'm quoting from the image description page. So if it's the logo of the party, he doesn't have rights. If it's not the logo of the party, it has no business being represented as the party's logo. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

i see, you mean he did not even create the Mango logo, he just copied it from somewhere. I dont know about it. I will be surprised if he did. He has done a lot of valuable contributions to Tamil Nadu related articles and we know from his user page he is staying away as he has gotten busy a bit in real life these days.

I am just trying to understand the copyright issues and hopefully will be able to solve these election-symbol related issues. Let us say, if he indeed created the mango drawing by himself, can it still be used in the PMK article under the description "Drawing of mango used by PMK as election symbol". or like I said, it can be used in Mango article but not in Pattali Makkal Katchi article because it can be construed as a derivative work of PMK election symbol?

On the other hand, can we use photographic images of Mango? --CarTick (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if he created it himself entirely independent of any logo, if his work is a derivative work, or if it's a direct copy. I can't get an answer to that. I've been asking, but no answer has been forthcoming. What point to use it in the Mango article? That's well illustrated already. As to using it as a party logo, absolutely not unless it's shown to be the party's logo, in which case it's not his work and must be used under WP:NFCC here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure i am convinced and need to hear from more people. I am not even sure if election symbols are the same as logos. They are not necessarily permanent. it is assigned by the Election Commission of India during every election. Big parties hold on to their symbols forever, but smaller parties that can not maintain a minimum consistent number in assembly or parliament cant. Allotment of election symbols is well documented here. You might want to look at this article List of political party symbols in India as well and it would appear there is a lot to be deleted. --CarTick (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a complete loss as to figure how to convey this very basic concept; creative works are copyrighted at the moment of creation. I've cited this from the India copyright office, noted the Berne convention, etc., to no avail. I just don't get it. Where am I failing in conveying this point? What the hell does it matter if these symbols are like logos or not? It has absolutely no relevance. It's blatantly obvious these are creative works (because otherwise, as I previously noted, still life paintings could never be copyrighted, and they most emphatically are). They are therefore eligible for copyright and were so at the moment of creation. There's no wiggle room on that. The issue isn't whether or not these can be copyrighted. It's blatantly obvious they can be. The issue is whether or not the uploader created them as entirely new works of creativity without them being derivative works, or not. If not, then we can not tag them as being freed of copyright by the uploader since he does not have the right to release all rights. THAT is the question. All this stuff about whether or not they're logos, whether or not mangoes are copyrighted, whether or not they are kept by a party, etc...it's rubbish, the lot of it. It has nothing to do with this. Absolutely nothing. The FACT is these were created, and being beyond the threshold of originality, they were copyrighted at the moment of creation. PERIOD. If this isn't clear, I just fail to see how in the world I can possibly make this clearer. I'll be bald faced honest here; I see an utter lack of understanding of copyright on the part of the people arguing that these are not copyrighted. I'm desperately trying to educate on this point, without any success. But, regardless of my ability to educate or not, the fact remains these were copyrighted at the moment of creation. What remains is being able to prove they have been released from those rights. Right now, since the uploader has refused to respond on whether he created them entirely independent of the parties or if they are copies and/or derivative works of other originals, we must assume the rights have not been released. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

what you are not understanding is that I have difficulty accepting elections symbols are creative works of the parties for the reasons cited above. but i understand my "belief" has no value without a reference. so, i am not going to stand in your way if you decide to nominate all the election symbols in List of political party symbols in India for deletion. --CarTick (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think a reading of threshold of originality should help dispel the issue then. As to the other symbols, I'm not concerned with them just yet, just the images that Wikiality is claiming are the electoral symbols of the parties. The other symbols, many (all?) of which are on Commons, a casual review shows them lacking in sources and licenses. This makes them candidates for speedy deletion. See Commons:Category:Indian_party_symbols. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hammersoft, sorry for asking again. But are you saying

any depiction of mango - creator has copyright

any depiction of mango as party symbol in India - ECI has copyright

--Sodabottle (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

From page 31 of this link, it appears that parties dont hold copyright to the symbols. I have been arguing ECI doesnt really create images, just allots the symbols. But looking at these images [7], i am begining to think i may be wrong. If anyone knows more about this. If this is the case (may be even if not), ECI could be copyright holder of all Indian election symbols. --CarTick (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I was pretty sure that the parties do not hold any rights on their symbols. But it is a good question if ECI does though. I have sent them an email asking this, but can't be too sure about the reply. However, another question is still left open. Does any depiction of the electoral symbol be still considered legitimate? For most Indians this would pass as common knowledge. However, it is best to see if that’s the case. I guess this is what Sodabottle too is concerned about. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts my logic tells me that even ECI can't hold copyright claims on electoral symbols since some of them like Hammer and sickle and Spinning wheel (formerly used by the Congress before the split by Indira) predates the ECI's first election in 1952 where it started allocating symbols. It is not possible, as far as I can see, for ECI to claims rights over symbols that predates itself. All they seem to claim by their 1968 act is that they hold the final say in allocation of the symbols in the state and national level. Comments are welcome. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

our assumptions have been correct, that these are not logos and not copyrighted to the parties. u r probably right about these two symbols. but, it appears ECI holds the copyright to most (if not all) symbols. --CarTick (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, can you specify the page numbers? And how about the depiction of the electoral symbol. Are they specific? If I am to go by their publicity materials, most parties would seem to be campaigning for someone else. A simple example would be the two leaves depicted on ECI's official document, the one on AIADMK's official website and the party's leader's. The question is the same as we were dealing from the begining. Is there a fixed depiction for the electoral symbols? --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 14:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you go to the bottom of the link, you will notice all the symbols. on the second page is the copyright notice. Though these are depictions of common objects, it would be considered copyrighted to ECI though the document doesnt explicitly say that. ECI still holds copyright to these depictions even when its derivative works will be used as an election symbol either in elections or wikipedia or anywhere. --CarTick (talk)

Election symbols like the Elephant are used by various political parties round the World.Unlike Company Logos they are not exclusive.In India both Samajwadi Party and the Telugu Desam and earlier the Tamil Manila Congress used the same cycle symbol.I do not think anyone holds the copyright.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that the copyright notice for the document per se? When at least a few of the symbols are not ECI's, how are we to cherry pick that they really do hold rights on the symbols. To put it in simple words, a copyright notice in a book which contains pictures from public domain doesn't mean that the entire content is now protected by the publisher. FYI, ECI's website itself has a copyright notice for all contents taken from them. Although the Information on [the] Website is protected by Copyright ... since this information has been put in public domain, it may be quoted in print/electronic/other media subject to the condition that the source "Election Commission of India Website "http://eci.nic.in" is clearly acknowledged. Cheers --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Official depictions

I am starting a new section to discuss the second issue in regard to electoral symbols of Indian political parties. How stringent are these symbols in terms of depiction?

My understanding is that they are very flexible. That is, if a party has been allotted Elephant as its symbol, it would freely use any depiction of elephant and does not restrict itself to how Election Commission of India might be representing it. So all these depictions are in fact used as the party’s electoral symbol. I am not without reason to believe so.

1. DMK and its versions of rising sun: Party’s official page and its chief’s official page 2. AIADMK and its versions of two leaves: Party’s official page and [http://www.puratchithalaivi.org/ its chief’s official page

All these are markedly different from each other AND with ECI’s. Comments are welcome. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

bot needed to wikify

The constituencies need to be wikified to their respect pages, if they exist that is. Bihar legislative assembly election, 2010#ScheduleLihaas (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a forthcoming meetup - in case you missed the announcement!

Wikipedia–Wikimedia Meetup
Mumbai, India

Meetup - 26
विकिपीडिया मिलन,
मुंबई-26:उद्घोषित
4 p.m. ,
Saturday, 21 November 2015

(view .edit .changes)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AshLin (talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)