Talk:Khandelwal Vaishya: Difference between revisions
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:::::Adroit, read [[User:Sitush/Common#Castelists]] and find me a single reliable source that says the name "Khandelwal" is used only by members of this caste. But don't give up editing Wikipedia while you do that otherwise we'll never see you again ;) - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 09:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC) |
:::::Adroit, read [[User:Sitush/Common#Castelists]] and find me a single reliable source that says the name "Khandelwal" is used only by members of this caste. But don't give up editing Wikipedia while you do that otherwise we'll never see you again ;) - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 09:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
Sitush, wouldn't it be better if you could provide reliable sources for the contrary. As far as editing is concerned, rest assured I am not faint-hearted. --[[User:Adroit09|Adroit09]] ([[User talk:Adroit09|talk]]) 09:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:56, 1 March 2014
![]() | India: Rajasthan Stub‑class Mid‑importance ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Hinduism Unassessed | |||||||||
|
Brief introduction of Khandelwal community should be given here.
Prominent Khandelwal Section
Dear Fellas,
Please refrain from adding any Person to Prominent List without any reference or External Links. Wikipedia requires sources & references for information displayed here.
Gradually, the Prominent people without the links would be reviewed and if no credible evidence is visible, the entries will be removed.
The Prominent section is to display prominent people & not to make any one Prominent :)
Thanks for your Cooperation.
Goutam
--Goutam (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Goutamkhandelwal (talk • contribs) 03:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nicely phrased, Goutam. I'm going to follow your lead. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Merge with main article Khandelwal
This should be the content for main article. Other pages like Khandelwal Brahmin or Sarawagi should link from there. Adroit09 (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but you can't just do it unilaterally, as you tried to do (very poorly). - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for at least now trying to comply with WP:MERGE. Now, please explain how you are going to merge this into that disambiguation page, which currently has Khandelwal (surname), Khandelwal Jain or Sarawagi, Khandelwal Brahmin and Khandelwal Vaishya. On the face of it, these are not synonyms. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose What's the use of turning a disambiguation page into a mainspace article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please see the reasoning on the appropriate page. --Adroit09 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is the appropriate page. Having said which, your rationale at that page is plain wrong. How are you going to merge the surname article into this? How on earth is Sarawagi going to be merged into it? - Sitush (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- It would have been better if you had a look at the page before reverting the changes. Sarawagi is a predominantly Jain sub-community among Khandelwals who are both Hindus and Jains. There is no separate page for it. Khandelwal surname is used only by members of the community and hence disambiguation isn't needed though the page could be part of the See also in the main article. Also, per WP:MERGE the discussions should be held on the destination page and hence I'll copy this response on the appropriate page. I would request you to carry forward the discussion there. --Adroit09 (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- The discuss-link in the merger-tag redirected to this page and section. I've corrected it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Adroit, read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists and find me a single reliable source that says the name "Khandelwal" is used only by members of this caste. But don't give up editing Wikipedia while you do that otherwise we'll never see you again ;) - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Sitush, wouldn't it be better if you could provide reliable sources for the contrary. As far as editing is concerned, rest assured I am not faint-hearted. --Adroit09 (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Stub-Class India articles
- Mid-importance India articles
- Stub-Class India articles of Mid-importance
- Stub-Class Rajasthan articles
- High-importance Rajasthan articles
- Stub-Class Rajasthan articles of High-importance
- WikiProject Rajasthan articles
- Wikipedia requested photographs in Rajasthan
- Wikipedia requested photographs in India
- WikiProject India articles
- Unassessed Hinduism articles
- Unknown-importance Hinduism articles