Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Vote: collapse my comment, feel free to revert
Line 207: Line 207:
*'''No''' - Infoboxes are getting too lengthy and clumsy. [[User:IM3847|IM3847]] ([[User talk:IM3847|talk]]) 08:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''No''' - Infoboxes are getting too lengthy and clumsy. [[User:IM3847|IM3847]] ([[User talk:IM3847|talk]]) 08:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''No''' Too many issues as described by others, and little or no benefit to the reader. [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 16:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''No''' Too many issues as described by others, and little or no benefit to the reader. [[User:First Light|First Light]] ([[User talk:First Light|talk]]) 16:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''No''', per RP, others. Go one step further... request our coding wizards to take the Indic script fields out of all India-related infoboxes. We have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_deity#Hindu_deities infoboxes] where there are a few randomly selected script fields. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 00:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


====Discussion====
====Discussion====
Line 218: Line 219:
*I want to make a note here, for future reference, that we are talking only about edited text in the ''lead'' and the ''infobox''. The [[Sanskrit]] page could very well have in its infobox a picture of an ancient Sanskrit inscription (such as [[Latin]] does for example.) [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 19:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
*I want to make a note here, for future reference, that we are talking only about edited text in the ''lead'' and the ''infobox''. The [[Sanskrit]] page could very well have in its infobox a picture of an ancient Sanskrit inscription (such as [[Latin]] does for example.) [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</font>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<font color="#708090">«Talk»</font>]] 19:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
*I am fine with that. The problem is [[WP:SPA|SPA]]s (mainly IPs) edit warring over or otherwise adding as much IS ''text'' as they can. In a neverending disruptive cycle. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
*I am fine with that. The problem is [[WP:SPA|SPA]]s (mainly IPs) edit warring over or otherwise adding as much IS ''text'' as they can. In a neverending disruptive cycle. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
:*El_C: Few suggestions: [1] in problem articles where editors persistently add scripts, we add a comment such as <nowiki><!-- Please do not add any Indic script in this infobox, per WP:INDICSCRIPT policy. --></nowiki> (hopefully AGF, such a note will reduce incidences); [2] Clarify in the policy that this only applies to pages that belong to [[WP:INDIA]], it does not apply to articles of other South Asian countries, nor to articles that discuss a particular Indic script, nor to texts composed in a particular script. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 00:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


== Param Vir Chakra recipients FLC ==
== Param Vir Chakra recipients FLC ==

Revision as of 00:16, 21 April 2017

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Click here to add a new section
Article alerts for WikiProject India

Today's featured articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(95 more...)

Proposed deletions

(19 more...)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(10 more...)

Featured list removal candidates

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(36 more...)

Articles to be split

(19 more...)

Articles for creation

(83 more...)

This table is updated daily by a bot
Shortcuts
WikiProject iconIndia Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Wikipedia Meetups edit
Upcoming
none
Recent
Outside India
Past meetups

Are these spellings correct?

47.15.10.143 (talk · contribs) is rapidly going through articles adding what is probably either Hindi or Bengali spelling to them. However, at Burrabazar this edit] doesn't match the Hindi and Bengali in the article. I'm not sure if the IP is just making their own translations up or? Doug Weller talk 17:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are okay or at least they sound the same .They are not vastly different.The IP has used the Bengali pronunciation were the "o "sound is more pronounced.WIZRADICAL (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WIZRADICAL: Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: his/her translations seems to be fine, but edits are not . He is just adding regional names/translations in most of his/her edits such as this one where he/she just added the translation in the regional language at the beginning of the article which is obviously not required or is in wrong format. — Sanskari Hangout 04:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanskari and WIZRADICAL: someone needs to communicate with them. If they can't speak English, that's a problem on a collaborative project. Doug Weller talk 05:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanskari and WIZRADICAL: Sanskari, sorry, I misspelled your name so am repinging. WIZRADICAL, thanks for your help with the IP. Also, pings only work with a new, signed post. You can't fix them, as I found out when I wondered why my pings weren't working. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanskari and WIZRADICAL: The IP didn't respond and is now editing as Shivamj (talk · contribs). And is continuing to add his translations in the wrong place, eg again at Gulf of Kutch after the revert.[1] He's now accumulated several warnings including one from User:RegentsPark and I am of the opinion that a block until he shows willingness to discuss his edits may be required. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller:. Definitely needs a block and soon. The scale of disruption is already quite large.--regentspark (comment) 13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: @RegentsPark: Yes, see also his edits on Sanskrit, India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 31 hours, I expect it won't have an effect. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please help reassess

Dear fellow contributors, Please help reassess the article Maudgalyayana. I have greatly expanded it. Thanks. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Ragging in India into Hazing

There is a merger discussion here you may wish to contribute to.--Obi2canibe (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K. E. Krishnamurthy

An IP tried to change the infobox birth date in the above article but broke it. While wondering what to do I noticed that the article says born 2 October 1938, the old infobox said 9 February 1938, and the IP said 11 February 1938. Also, most of the refs are very dead links. Any suggestions? Perhaps remove the date if there is no source? Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DoB doesn't have any reference. I've removed for now.--Vin09 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibek Maitra

Would anyone be able to help me find out Bibek Maitra's date of birth? Or even just the year of birth? I assume a knowledge of Hindi, which I lack, would make this easier to find. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me back here or contact me on my talk page if you're able to find this out. Also there's a rewards for doing this at the reward board. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare in Hyderabad

Healthcare in Hyderabad can be merged to Hyderabad#Healthcare. Does WP:CONTENTFORK apply here?--Vin09 (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New merger proposal of Ragging in India into Ragging

There is a new merger proposal. Please comment at Talk:Ragging#New_merger_proposal Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming "420 collaboration"

You are invited to participate in the upcoming

"420 collaboration",

which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017!

The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion.

WikiProject India participants may be particularly interested in the following: Cannabis in India (Category:Cannabis in India).

For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We could particularly use help at several tasks:
Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Draft:Bombay Hemp Company Private Limited where a novice editor could use some help! Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rao surname/title/honorific

We now have Rao (surname), Rao (title) and (the latest creation) Rao (Telugu honorific). It all seems very messy to me and I am wary of pov pushing, original research etc being used to distinguish these various lists of people. Should I be? - Sitush (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: If you examine the mid-19th century records of court cases of the Central Provinces, you may notice that Rao is a fairly common last name and is also a title: Rao, Rai, Rao Sahib, Rai Bahadur, Rao Raja, ... But you may also notice that except for some Brahmin names (such as Dubey), some Singhs, some Raos (as already mentioned), some Patels, a few profession/caste-related names such as X Mali, Y Ahir, Z Kunbi, the vast majority of names are only first names. I can't be sure, but I suspect that a large number of Indians have taken last names only in the 20th century. Even Sanskritized Brahmin names such as Dvivedi for Dubey are absent in the mid-19th century records. If my conjecture is correct, then there might be a lot of fluidity in the reconstruction of historical names. In addition, since pretty much all Hindu last names in India have sprung out of caste, the inevitable status marker in Indian society, there is an understandable upgrading in the reconstruction of such historical names, explaining the POV-pushing. In terms of WP policy, I'm not sure what we can do. You could add templates {{example farm}}, {{famous}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{lacking overview}} Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Rao (Telugu honorific) should be merged into Rao (surname). It is not really a surname; it is what Cynthia Talbot calls a "status title", which is now hereditary. It is a surname for all intents and purposes, even though Telugu people have an actual family name somewhere at the front, often omitted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that. For example in that page, an actor appears as Akkineni Nageswara Rao, but he is described as belonging to the Daggubati-Akkineni family. On the family's page, he and his wife appear as: Nageswara Rao Akkineni and Annapurna Akkineni. The family page name and the wife's name shows that it is Akkineni that is very much the surname. The second generation is described as (Nagarjuna Akkineni and Amala Akkineni, second wife of Nagarjuna Akkineni Upon clicking Mrs Akkineni's page, we discover her name to be: Amala Akkineni (née Mukherjee). We surely can't put them under Rao (surname) because the second generation is still alive and there are BLP violations waiting. Like I said, there is a great deal of fluidity in Indian last names. Bigger problems arise, when in biography pages the parents or grand-parents are named and the last name is applied retroactively to them too. So the mother might become a Sita Akkineni, and the grandmother a Laxmi Akkineni and you can be sure that they were never called that in real life or had their name recorded in that form anywhere. I mean, a few might have, but most won't. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In Akkineni Nageswara Rao, "Akkineni" and "Rao" are both hereditary. Which one you want to call family name and which one you want to call surname or whether it makes a difference is up to you. Some people in the younger generation are dropping the endings like "Rao" (good for them), but it is not that common. Putting "Akkineni" at the end instead of at the front could be what you are calling North Indian influence. It could also be western influence.
The point I was making is that there is no difference in the use of "Rao" for the names listed in Rao (Telugu honorific) and those listed Rao (surname). So the two lists should be merged. In fact, you notice that Akkineni Nageswara Rao is listed in both of them. I rest my case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, I think we are on the same page. I made an error, thinking that the children too were listed in the Rao (Honorific) page, but they are not. However, I do have a questionm and it may be a little off-topic. Are we sure that Akkineni is a hereditary name, i.e. that was used in a person's name in some record? I couldn't find it in the 19th century English language records. I tried different spelling, but obviously I don't know the language nor the history of the region, and perhaps the name was rendered differently in English back then. But do you know for sure that there are written records of that name in some language before 1890, say? And as I write this I am noticing the same for others in that list: NT Rama Rao's son is Nandamuri Balakrishna or K. Raghavendra Rao's son is Prakash Rao Kovelamudi. But an advanced Google Books search for books published before 1890 for any of the three names, turns up only "History of the village of Kovelamudi" in this index of records from 1879. Are all three names really village names? If so, do you know for sure that these village names were used as hereditary names of people in any record before 1890? Perhaps there are some in Telugu, or in Urdu or Persian, which might have been used in records in the Nizam's dominions? The names certainly appear in people's names by the 1930s: see here, for example. My suspicion is that the village names were not used in actual recorded names of people until the 20th century. But I admit this is a guess, and I could very well be wrong. Perhaps someone else with knowledge of the region or Telugu might know. Pinging @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: who earlier answered a query about Telugu. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Family names in Telugu are often derived from place names. When a family moved from one place to another, it would have tended to acquire its original place name as its new family name, and the old family name would have gotten lost. Somebody could do research on the faamily names and analyse migration patterns I suppose.
Not all family names are from place names, however. For example, Thota Vaikuntam's family name, "Thota", means plantation. So, some ancestor of his probably lived by a plantation or owned a plantation, and his family came to be called by it. Dwivedula Visalakshi would have come from a family that mastered two Vedas. The family names don't follow any particular principle. Anything that served to disambiguate could have been used.
The Telugu last names, on the other hand, represent status titles. So one could analyse them to figure out social hierarchies. That is what Cynthia Talbot does in
  • Talbot, Cynthia (2001), Pre-colonial India in Practice: Society, Region, and Identity in Medieval Andhra, Oxford University Press, p. 55-61, ISBN 978-0-19-803123-9
The last name "Rao" doesn't occur in her list. So it is of a more recent vintage.
How old is this sytem of family names? The earliest I can remember is that of Musunuri Nayaks (where "Musunuri" is the family name and "Nayak" is a status title) in the 14th century. If you are really keenly interested you can read this highly entertaining paper:
  • Keiko, Y. (2008). "Politics and representation of caste identity in regional historiography: A case study of Kammas in Andhra". Indian Economic & Social History Review. 45 (3): 353–380. doi:10.1177/001946460804500302. ISSN 0019-4646.
See the analysis of K. Bhavayya Choudhry (starting on p.372). Family names (house names) are discussed on p.376. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me into this discussion. As I can see, the discussion has gone slightly out of the context. The discussion initially started with issue of three "Rao"-related articles, and swung into the history of Indian surnames. So put the discussion back on tracks please make sure that you are discussing the about the primary subject. OK, now regarding "Rao", it isn't surname nor a title and definitely not a honorific. The word translates into Telugu as రాజు, which means King. So this isn't a surname, some parents prefix or suffix it to the name of their child. Sometimes just "Rao" amy also be used, example, there is a possibility of "Rao Akkineni" etc. Here "Akkineni" is the last, "Rao" is just the name. Next, in this context, "title" defines as a name that describes someone's position or job. So that isn't a person titled Rao is a king. So Rao isn't a title. Next, coming to the honorific thing, Rao is never awarded to a person as some honorific. So finally I conclude that "Rao" is a name as all other first names. So I suggest merging all the three pages into a single page titled Rao (name), which would the most apt title. If needed I can help out the merging and moving of pages as I hold extendedmover rights. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga told the right thing. Rao is just a part of a name and not any surname, most commonly used by many at the end of their name irrespective of family name.--Vin09 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three questions:
  • How would you compare "Rao" to the status titles listed by Cynthia Talbot on p.57?
  • If "Rao" is neither a surname nor a title in Telugu, then it would seem that those pages should be deleted. They are a non-topic. Would you agree?
  • What problem do you see with the page Rao (title), which seems supported by citations?
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Summing up the discussion thus far for @Sitush:: I am seeing that @Vin09: and @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: consider Rao to be a first- or second name. However, @Kautilya3: considers it to be last name or surname, perhaps originally a title having been absorbed into a surname.
As for the off-topic bit, my view, which doesn't directly answer Sitush's question, is that "surnames" are, for the vast majority of Indians, a 20th century invention as far as the records go, their use perhaps driven by the British censuses, which began in 1871. Talbot is talking about titles in medieval inscriptions, but inscriptions are usually about the elites in a society. The same for the Nayakas. They are rulers, and rulers and their family have lots of names, even today: Charles Philip Arthur George and Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS The inscriptional "status titles" mentioned by Talbot on page 57 and 61, such as reddi or reddy, for example, do occur in English language records before 1870, as does "raju", as does "rao," as already stated. With regards to how widely they were used, Talbot herself says on page 61, that they appled to an elite: "The social typology inherent in the status titles does not encompass all existing social groups. Those of inferior status and occupation do not appear in this scheme, for the simple reason that almost all medieval inscriptions document transfer of property to Hindu temples and hence only record the names of people who owned something of value." As for censuses, she does talk about "caste" as being a response to the census, but I am conjecturing something more: that surnames themselves, for the vast majority, were a response to the census, and that "surnames" such as Akkineni or Kovelamudi etc, mentioned above, are 20th century reconstructions as far as records go. I am now bowing out of this discussion. Thanks all. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answering Kautilaya's questions,
  • Talbot's book is about precolonial India, during the times which kings existed, as I said Rao translated as "king", but now that is not the case.
  • If you feel so tag them for AfD, a deletion discussion should decide their retention.
  • If you observe, both the citations only list names with Rao, and it is never mentioned that Rao is a title and men were holding it as a title. It is just a part of the name. Also I suspect they hardly meet WP:RS.
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the input. I am still confused, although I'm leaning towards a merge of the articles. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Bengal featured article review

I have nominated West Bengal 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. DrKay (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahavira

I need some help at Mahavira about the issues raised. Would anyone here like to review the article? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development Bengalis Article

@Titodutta: Hi, Article Bengalis needs thorough development particularly in Religion, Culture, Bengali cuisine, Festivals, Bengali language sections credible sources are required for development. Please come forward help develop this article. Thanks--Anandmoorti (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Bengali caption

I was rummaging in the attic yesterday and found several old pictures of Famines in India. One such picture is File:BengalSpeaksLastPicture.jpg. Could someone translate it into English for me? (For those interested, the other pictures, which don't require translation, may be found in Timeline of major famines in India during British rule, including two others of the Bengal famine of 1943.) Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can translate the first line, "Whoever does wrong and allow suffering from wrong to happen/take place, then hatred [....]". 16:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple Indicscript in infoboxes are out of control

Just one of the IPs constantly adding multiple Indicscripts to infoboxes. I'm considering opening an RfC on this (wherein we impose a limit to one, or even zero Indicscripts per infobox). Because I thought we had consensus, and suddenly we didn't. Which I actually was originally for. But now I am seeing that we're left with a situation which seems increasingly unmanageable—for those of us in the front line, that is. Or is it not a problem having multiple Indicscripts per infobox? El_C 09:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do start an RfC. Get an admin on board. I really feel there shouldn't be any non-English Indian scripts in either the lead sentence or the infobox. Even in language pages, it is better to have a picture with an ancient, or for that matter, not so ancient, insciption written in the language's script. I say that out of frustration with the India-related pages born of long experience, after more than ten years on Wikipedia. I firmly believe that if you make any exception, the POV-pushers will find a loophole. So, zero for lead sentence, and zero for infobox. Look at Britannica's Sanskrit- or Hindi language; they don't have scripts up top. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am an admin and I was enforcing WP:INDICSCRIPT (see this), including issuing blocks to repeat offenders. El_C 05:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's User:Shivamj again. Pinging @Doug Weller:. I agree. It's time to get rid of this whole indic script thing. India, with its multiplicity of languages and scripts, is not well designed for the inclusion of indic scripts anywhere in our articles. --regentspark (comment) 11:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with F&F and RP. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with the need to curb the exuberance of scripts in certain cases, but I think any overall ban would be ridiculous. – Uanfala (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: How will you curb it, without banning it? Please be specific. "Ridiculous" is no actionable strategy for curbing it. How many scripts will you allow for India? If you say, "Hindi and English," the official languages of the Republic of India, then should they apply only to the official names of that republic? How many scripts for Kashmir, which not long ago had four or five? For Sanskrit, which of the modes of transmission from its 3500 year-old history will you use to represent it in the infobox: oral 1500BCE-500 CE, Brahmi 200BCE to 200CE, Sarada 200CE to (?) or Devanagari (?) to today? For Uttarakhand, a state in India—whose politicians, have made Sanskrit a second official language, despite very few speakers of Sanskrit there—will you render the state's name in Hindi and Sanskrit only, giving no hint of Garhwali or Kumaoni that actually are spoken there? For British Raj whose official languages were English, Persian, and Hindustani, which ones will you allow, and will Hindustani be written in the Nastaliq script or Devanagari? If both, which one will be higher in the infobox, or come first in the lead sentence? For a BLP, such as Raghuram Rajan, whose name is ancestrally Tamil, but who appears never to have lived in South India, and for all we know, might not be a speaker of Tamil, should we allow a Tamil rendering? If not, should we similarly disallow all such scripts in any Indian BLP? If not, when do we allow and when not? In other words, how are people who are looking to maintain Wikipedia—across many pages in whose material they have little expertise—to proceed? Or are you suggesting that in effect we proceed on a case-by-case basis by having thousands of little talk page RfCs and let those who are awake decide where to roll out the carpet for Napolini and worry where his train will stop? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the examples, they'll definitely be useful for testing any future proposals. However, I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. I've commented before on the topic, and I'd be happy to comment again if a new RfC is started. I raised my voice in this thread only to prevent the false appearance of unanimity. – Uanfala (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have said just that, for in any discussion whether an actual RfC or one leading to it, statements that betray displeasure but don't betray rationale, are of little value. You may agree with someone's arguments for reasons that they have already given, but if you disagree, then you need to explain why. But, fair enough, @El C:, why don't you start an RfC? Here, I imagine. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Indicscript in infoboxes

Should we allow for Indicscript/s in infoboxes? (See this). El_C 05:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

  • I came back to read through this in detail when I noticed that everybody else disagreed with me, but I find that I am not changing my mind. The chief argument here is the disruption caused by warring over different languages. This is a very reasonable objection. But we have very many pages for which the choice of a single language is not seriously in dispute. Geographical articles fit this description, but so do a number of biographies. In situations where a single language cannot be established, then leaving them all out makes sense. So why would this help, I hear folks ask (Fowler&fowler asks below). The primary reason I can think of is that in very many sources I have read about Indian topics, transliterations into English vary tremendously, whereas (presumably) there is a single version in the native language. I would imagine this would help the substantial number of readers who do come from the Indian continent. I understand that we need restrictions to deal with the disruption, but this seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. Vanamonde (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can readily accept that there are some pages where a unique INDIC SCRIPT could add value. But allowing that would only be an invitation for others to add them everywhere else. Our editors are not that judicious or discerning.
Secondly, it is not really clear to an average editor when a unique script would serve the purpose. For example, we just had Capankajsmilyo argue below that it would be appropriate for Hindu deities, completely unmindful of the fact that those deities are owned by speakers of every Indian language and even some overseas languages.
We are wanting to clamp down, not because we are against indic scripts, but because we have had to put up with far too much disruption. That disruption would only increase by allowing a single script. Then there will be a single slot for everybody to fight over! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: I get where you're coming from, I really do: god knows I've reverted my own share of indic scripts, and warring over them. All I'm saying is that our fellow editors inability to understand a thoughtful guideline is not, in my mind, sufficient reason to formulate a draconian one. After all, even consensus saying that we cannot add indic scripts is not going to stop newbies from adding them, just as the current indic scripts guideline does not prevent them from adding indic scripts to the leads of articles. I would formulate something like "No indic scripts shall be used in the infobox or the lead of an article to denote the subject of the article, except when the subject has a clearly identifiable native language, in which case this is the only language to be used." We can add corollaries, saying that if the native language is in serious dispute, then the indic script will be removed altogether. I do not see this as being that much harder to enforce than the other system. Vanamonde (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde, I'm hard pressed to think of articles where a single script would suffice. And that holds even for geographical articles. Even allowing for that, I can't really see any benefit in including a local script. Anyone who uses an English language encyclopedia, already knows enough English to parse an English language transliteration of a local name. Add to that the fact that practically everything in India is already spelled out in English (we rarely have to figure out the transliteration ourselves), what's the point in including அண்ணா சாலை for Anna Salai? --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
off the track
Trying to figure out the native script version based on the English transcription of a name requires knowledge not so much of English, as of the respective Indian language. But even then, trying to intuit how something is spelt in the native scripts might work, after some experience, for names of people or organisations, but try as I might, I can never do that with place names. – Uanfala (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uanfala, in most cases we already have existing English transliterations for Indian place names. We don't really need to do any figuring out on our own. --regentspark (comment) 20:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I thought you were referring to the situation of trying to figure out how something is written in the Indic script. – Uanfala (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, none at all, as explained in my comments in the previous subsection, and below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No None at all. If we allow even one there will be battles over which one. Using indic scripts has no benefit whatsoever for our readers so we gain nothing by including them in the first place. --regentspark (comment) 13:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No --Vin09 (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - they are just an absolute pain and pretty much impossible to police, as Fowler&fowler has gone to some lengths to explain. They create edit wars, enable vandals and add nothing. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – there should be no blanket bans on native scripts in infoboxes. I don't see why for India-related articles such content should be any less useful than in the rest of wikipedia. For the vast majority of articles the choice of native script doesn't present any problems at all, and banning its use across the board because of a minority of cases is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However, the minority of problematic articles is still substantial and ways should be found to deal with them. One possible solution is to have the following rule: if in a given article the choice of script becomes contentious, then the native script name should be removed altogether and not brought back until the opposing sides come to an agreement – let the ethnonationalists battle it out among themselves. Another possible solution is to get the native scripts out of the positions of symbolic prominence – the infobox and the first sentence (where they are currently banned anyway). If the native names are enumerated in prose at the end of the lede, it's less likely to get people quarrelling over what's included and in what order. – Uanfala (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why Indic scripts differ from "the rest of Wikipedia" is because of the sheer number of possibilities. This has been mentioned on numerous occasions, including in the original RfC for INDICSCRIPT. There are, for example, well over 200 official languages in India, not forgetting the many local variants. I may be wrong but I cannot think of any other country that comes close to this situation. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Papua New Guinea might, given the hundreds of languages that have evolved in their isolated valleys, but I don't think we have very many Wikipedias in those languages, let alone articles. Vanamonde (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't see how this might have an effect on the usefulness. And in any given case, the "sheer number of possibilities" would hardly exceed one. On a side note, I don't know where this idea about India's special place comes from. Most of the world is multilingual and there's no reason why India should be treated differently from say, Italy or Nigeria. – Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the world doesn't have over 200 official languages. Indeed, many only have the one. On the other hand, the incidence of multiple scripts in Indic articles is significant. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whenever there's conflict in opinions about what to include in an infobox (and such conflicts are the problem that this RfC is trying to solve, no?), the contention doesn't revolve around 200 official languages, it revolves around a small number of choices (rarely more than two). This is not different from what is found in most of the world. India isn't special, it's the US and England, with their monolithic language traditions, that are the odd ones out. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)*I was careful with what I wrote for a reason. I'm in the UK and there are several accepted languages - Welsh and Gaelic, for example. Similarly, Canada has at least two, as does Belgium. But, honestly, I am forever seeing attempts similar to those that Fowler&fowler describes. I am aware of WP:SYSTEMIC but we do have to bear in mind the practicalities. Your experience may be different. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Narendra Modi's signature is in Gujarati. Having his Gujarati name, doesn't cause any harm, it adds to infobox. Other politicians and persons can also have native names based on signature language. Similarly dieties like Shiva, Rama, Krishna, etc, Hindi can be used. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Images are okay—the problem is IS text incessantly edit warred over by IPs. See bottom of Discussion. El_C 12:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking about images. I guess the discussion here is about native_names, transliteration, and similar params. Please correct me if I am mistaken. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the problem with allowing any script. You are already beginning to claim that the "dieties like Shiva, Rama, Krishna" are associated with Hindi. They speak Hindi? Really? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we should get rid of transliterations, I guess? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • I'm open to allowing one Indicscript (IS) per infobox, but couldn't structure the RfC vote to account for that preference. On the one hand, one IS per infobox can be useful—on the other, it does open the floodgates to those (especially IPs, it seems) devoted to adding as many IS as possible. I'm open to persuasion. El_C 05:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with El_C here. There should be a limit of one IS but in extremely rare cases such as when a majority in a state/district speak two major languages, we could allow two. But never more than that. In case, more than two are being called for, we could stick with the one which is used by the majority. I don't want to go with the official languages here as they can keep on changing. Yashovardhan (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree on using even one, if we use the language used by the majority, wouldn't it be biased against the language used by the minority? In my humble opinion, it would either violate WP:NPOV or at least appear as if it is violating WP:NPOV. Ind akash (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • After having battled for upward of ten years POV-warriors of every India-related linguistic-subnationalism there is on Wikipedia, I am firmly of the belief that Indic scripts belong neither to the lead nor to the infobox, not even in Wikipedia Indic language pages. I have not come to this decision easily, as the histories of many pages will show (see, for example, my edit of long ago in Kashmir). I have already given examples in the subsection above this RfC's. Here is one more example. In describing it, I will also attempt to note some of the main issues here. The page in question is Jana Gana Mana. Please look at its last two revisions (at the time of editing): current revision, made 17 minutes ago, previous revision, made 1 hr 20 min ago. Notice the back and forth? This kind of back and forth has been happening for many years. What are the issues here? Well, the page Jana Gana Mana is about India's national anthem. The anthem was written in Sanskritized Bengali by poet Rabindranath Tagore in 1911. In 1950, the first stanza of the song became the national anthem of the brand-new Republic of India (and there are minutes of India's constituent assembly in 1950 that attest to this). Some 50 years later, approximately between 1998 and 2002, a time when a Hindu/Hindi nationalist government was in power in India, a Government portal appeared on the internet, and began to claim that it is the Hindi version of Jana Gana Mana that India's constitutent assembly voted on in 1950. Please see the discussion in Talk:Jana Gana Mana for the evidence. Soon other sources, such as Britannica began to say that it is the Hindi version as well, and Wikipedia had to go along with that interpretation, and we still do. What does "Hindi version mean?" By the expression "Hindi version," apparently, the Government of India does not mean a Hindi translation of the song (such as one called Subh Sukh Chain of Subhas Chandra Bose and the INA); rather, it means "Hindi pronunciation of the song." (After all it is a song and needs to be sung aloud by human beings who need some pronunciation guide.) Some Wikipedians have reasoned that if the Hindi pronunciation is favored, the Hindi script is favored as well, though the government's own web site has the song written out in only its English language (Romanized) transliteration! See here! So, summing up, we have a song, which was written in Bengali, which the government says was accepted as India's national anthem in its Hindi pronunciation, but which the government transcribes in English! Coming back to infoboxes, what scripts does one include? Do we allow the Hindi script, the Bengali script, or both? And most importantly, in what spelling do we render the Hindi script? This is often a problem with Indic scripts—there are many competing spellings of an unfamiliar or foreign word in the same script, in addition, of course, to their being many scripts. I could spend all day giving examples, but the real question is this: How much time do Wikipedians want to spend in futile attempts to bring order to something that has no order, not in the sources, not in official pronouncements, and certainly not in the language affinities of some editors, who will not be going away any time soon? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From an enforcement standpoint, I can appreciate the emerging but clear consensus for none at all. So soon, I will be re-adding the infobox clause to WP:INDICSCRIPT and will be enforcing it... ruthlessly. We had some peace and quiet in Indian-related infoboxes, until Basawala turned it on its head claiming there was no consensus for me adding it—since then, things have been nightmarish, with IPs constantly taking advantage of the one area they could still add IS and get away with it. I like the aesthetic of having one IS, but as was demonstrated above, it may just not be worth it. El_C 15:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find Uanfala's suggestion we "let the ethnonationalists battle it out among themselves" to be highly problematic. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid. El_C 19:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to make a note here, for future reference, that we are talking only about edited text in the lead and the infobox. The Sanskrit page could very well have in its infobox a picture of an ancient Sanskrit inscription (such as Latin does for example.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with that. The problem is SPAs (mainly IPs) edit warring over or otherwise adding as much IS text as they can. In a neverending disruptive cycle. El_C 19:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • El_C: Few suggestions: [1] in problem articles where editors persistently add scripts, we add a comment such as <!-- Please do not add any Indic script in this infobox, per WP:INDICSCRIPT policy. --> (hopefully AGF, such a note will reduce incidences); [2] Clarify in the policy that this only applies to pages that belong to WP:INDIA, it does not apply to articles of other South Asian countries, nor to articles that discuss a particular Indic script, nor to texts composed in a particular script. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Param Vir Chakra recipients FLC

I would like to see more reviewers at my featured list candidate of List of Param Vir Chakra recipients. It has already gained two supports, including the one from the featured list director. It would be of great help if any one of you step in. You can participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Param Vir Chakra recipients/archive1. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I would like to see less raiding, of well-established articles, for the creation of content forks that allow easy FLC runs. Seriously, what is the game here? Look how you have mangled the Param Vir Chakra page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of India - GA

I was thinking if we should nominate History of India for GA. Anyone here, who would like to contribute to make it a pass? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the importance of this article, I'd be willing to help with prose; but I'm afraid I'm not well-versed enough on the ancient history side of the content to do major rewriting, only to offer general comments. It will take at least a little polishing beforehand, though. After a quick look, I can see that it seems to be basically well sourced and structured, but we certainly cannot, for instance, use James Mill as a source in a GA. Vanamonde (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to volunteer fix potential issues that could come up in a GA review. I can't dedicate lots of time though. Given the sheer size of the article, a review is going to take a lot of time and we will need more volunteers I guess. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&oldid=776435658"