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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:57, 29 April 2009

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

Shortcuts

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Noticeboard for India-related topics page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by .

India Project‑class

	India portal This 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
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Notes and References

Please maintain this Reflist section as the last section in this page; do not add a section below this one -->

Request for comment at 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot

Please see Talk:1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot#RfC:_High-ranking_followers. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR on Mumbai

I have nominated Mumbai 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

INCOTM

Mumbai article is now one of those selected for Collaborations of the month. Lets work together to improve this page, so that it does not get demoted from FA-status. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Election provisions in gujarat panchayati raj act

This article appears to be a trainwreck. Someone else put it up for Speedy Deletion, anyone see a way to improve this article or best to just let it be deleted? Election provisions in gujarat panchayati raj act. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what else we add in flour mill for improve quality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.116.101 (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

Please see Talk:Rajneesh_movement#Merge_discussion. Cirt (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Government of India Act 1935

Hi guys 'n gals. I came across this article, which seems rather interesting but is blighted by a massive lack of sources. However as this isn't my area, all I can do is try to cut out some unnecessary text, re-write existing sections, etc. I would hope some of you, who have access to decent texts, could look to improve it. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wanted categories

I notice that there are a lot of wanted categories associated with this WikiProject. I'm happy to create these, but I wanted to make sure that they're really wanted. Here are some choice examples:

Opinions? --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess these categories are not needed immediately. These fields like school, railways, religion etc. are used, so that if some people are interested to form a subproject under WP:India on these topics, then it will be easier to mark the articles that should be of interest for that subproject. But, then the exact name of required category will change.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the archives related to this kind of task group creation. We should check with Tinu Cherian before we start on this task. Also, please note that these settings come from the Template {{WP India}}, when we set field=sports, field=railways, etc. They are currently for gathering statistics and then deciding which ones need separate task groups, as per the template documentation. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said: 'not needed'.--GDibyendu (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... And there was a discussion long before and some steps were taken... but not completed, reason not known. Of course, not all of above may be in that list. It is better for people to view that as well. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know the reason. Basically, if at least some 4-5 people are not interested, for example, what is point in making a task group for Indian schools? A lot of people (and ip users) update their own school info etc., but a task group should try to improve all articles under that subproject. If people show interest, then such groups can be formed. But then these category names will be changed: no brackets will be there. Then, as categories cannot be moved and the old unused ones has to be deleted and all. That is what I tried to mean. For now, even though category page is not there, one can see the pages listed under that cat by clicking the red link. So, once such a project is formed, it won't cause a problem if these category pages are not created now (the info formed using the 'field' parameter can still be used to find out the articles which should be under the project for that particular field).--GDibyendu (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the situation. I'll leave these uncreated for now. I encourage the project to decide which task groups have adequate interest and then disable the remaining parameters. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK or US English for India-related topics?

Apologies is this has already been discussed, or discussed elsewhere.

Having browsed the article on Kerala (a featured article), I noted that it had been written in American English - which slightly surprised me as a UK malayali myself. Would UK English be more appropriate? It is the form of English used in India, and the form of English most appropriate to the country.

Should all India-related topics be written in UK English?

Discuss. :)

Macarism (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The India project guideline says "All authors editing India related topics are requested to use Indian English per Wikipedia conventions for India." But I confess I never knew that until I looked it up just now. Also see WP:ENGVAR. Priyanath ^talk 22:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't know much about UK or Indian English, it would be fine if I wrote in American English? Deavenger (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Manual of Style, yes: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used." I'm personally a big fan of this quote from the same place: "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than another. Editors should recognize that the differences between the varieties are superficial." Priyanath ^talk 00:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though id argue that some poor soul should convert all pages to Indian English for consistency (and get a star for it!) Macarism (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside - since Indian English is derived from British English, I think it would be a better idea to stick to Brit rather than American. BTW, Deavenger, feel free to contribute in American - one of us will gladly convert it for you. After all, isn't style incidental to substance? ;-) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian English please, which is derived from English English (with our own nuances, of course), then that's what we should follow.Jasepl (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have talked about this earlier too. Delhi has been written completely in American. I wonder what happened to the Wikiproject:India policy of using British English for India articles. Maquahuitl^talk! 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translation/gist of post request

Over at the help desk a user has posted a topic in Punjabi. I was hoping someone could tell us the gist of the post. You could reply here, there or at my talk page. Thanks in advance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 :::::Just an aside - since [[Indian English]] is derived from British English, I think it would be a better idea to stick to Brit rather than American. BTW, Deavenger, feel free to contribute in American - one of us will gladly convert it for you. After all, isn't style incidental to substance? ;-) Regards, [[User:SBC-YPR|SBC-YPR]] ([[User talk:SBC-YPR|talk]]) 10:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 ::::::Indian English please, which is derived from English English (with our own nuances, of course), then that's what we should follow.[[User:Jasepl|Jasepl]] ([[User talk:Jasepl|talk]]) 10:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
+:I have talked about this earlier too. [[Delhi]] has been written completely in American. I wonder what happened to the Wikiproject:India policy of using British English for India articles. <b><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:green">[[User:Maquahuitl|Maquahuitl]]</span></b><sup><i>[[User talk:Maquahuitl|talk!]]</i></sup> 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 ==Translation/gist of post request==