Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.

Click here to add a new section

Wikipedia Meetups edit Upcoming none Recent Outside India Past meetups

Circular shortcut

Per wp:Manual of Style, I removed a circular shortcut to Shortcut: Wikipedia:INDICSCRIPT from the Indic scripts in lead subsection of the page., which comes right back (through redirect) to the origin point (page and section) from the Indic scripts in lead subsection of the page. Please do not add that back, as there is absolutely no reason to do so. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? WP:Shortcut says this is exactly allowed, isn't this the usual way we do it? If not, then how else do we display a shortcut like "INDICSCRIPTS" here? How is a new user supposed to be aware of this particular shortcut (redirect)....if it's removed? For example, can we also remove the mention of the shortcut WP:DGF from the main page Assume good faith?

Sorry, but I couldn't find anything besides Wikipedia:Circular redirect#Self-redirects, which I think you're referring to. This concerns only regular links within articles and not shortcuts like this. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It can be used elsewhere, but not here. In this particular instance, the referenced shortcut appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject India in the subsection entitled Indic scripts in lead. The shortcut points to Wikipedia:INDICSCRIPT. "Wikipedia:INDICSCRIPT" is not an article with additional content, but a redirect page—which points to Wikipedia:WikiProject India, subsection Indic scripts in lead. In other words, it points right back to where the user originally clicked on it (circular). These types of links often appear after a redirect has been made and not properly followed-up on. Circular links are not only not needed, they are actively removed as confusing to the average reader (who generally thinks it's not working after they click on it, as the page reloads the same page and section they are already at). Hope that offers some clarity. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I get why we need to be against circular redirects but I still don't see how it applies here. I could say exactly the same for WP:DGF on the main page Assume good faith: "is not an article with additional content, but a redirect page—which points to Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith, subsection 'Demonstrate good faith'...". So tell me, why here and not there? Can we say that on the AGF page, an invalid circular redirect exists for DGF? Shortcuts can be made for specific Wikiproject topics like this as well--not only for policy or guideline pages. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Further research show these are now endemic on many project pages, so I have self-reverted—who am I to go against a community developed convention? They appear to exist for the sole purpose of being copied from the page onto other talk pages or sub-pages of Project pages. I apologize for the original removals. I will make the necessary adjustment(s) to the Manual of Style guidelines so misunderstandings of this sort will not cause future confusion. Thanks and my regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, you too. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The bit you want is wp:SHORTCUT. Ironic, isn't it? I just added {{R from shortcut}} as required. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hasdeo Area

Dear India experts: Here's another of those abandoned Afc submissions. Is this about an actual place name? Should this be kept instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Indeed, Hasdeo is a place in Chhattisgarh. Also an an administrative area for South Eastern Coalfields and houses its Chief General Manager's (CGM) office. Except the first 4-5 lines (including subheading), rest of the texts may be cut-and-pasted at South Eastern Coalfields. The place is prominent only due to the presence of coalfields in and around. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 18:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob School of Biotechnology and Bioengineering

Dear India experts: This old AfC submission is about a school which is part of a college. The college itself is notable, but perhaps someone who is familiar with educational institutions in India will be able to tell if this section of the college is independently notable. If not, the page will be deleted as a stale draft. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Almost every major universities, be it state- or private-funded, has a level-2 administration of such schools. For example, School of Life Sciences will have departments or courses of Plant Science, Animal Science, Biotechnology, Biochemistry, etc.,School of Chemical Sciences will Chemistry and its allied departments/courses. Its like clubbing of similar courses and departments. Some more: Faculties, Schools & Departments of Bharathidasan University; Schools and Departments of Bharathiar University; Anna University departments and many such Indian Universities and higher institutions like this. Hence it is not notable to have stand alone article. Either the concerned AfC may be deleted or redirected to its parent institution, SHIATS. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 19:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, βα£α. I've deleted the draft. I found that there is already a redirect, and it in fact has a previous article attempt in its revision history. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

want to write an article on VIN RANA known as NAKULA in star plus's mahabharat

sir/mam can i write an article on VIN RANA ,though he is just one show old.but have done lots of TV commercials and modelling assignments.be it in renownd magazines or print advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashmi11 08 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Depends on his notability, which is determined to some extent by how many reliable references there are to him. As a rule, appearing in TV commercials and routine modelling would not indicate notability. Imc (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Arjuna - how many socks do you think? SPI?

See Arjuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - do you think an SPI is warranted? I'm tempted to roll it back to - not sure what, and protect. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have settled down at the moment so perhaps leave it to see if it flares up again? The warring parties have both quoted valid references, which may take much reading through to make a judgement on, and probably don't contradict each other significantly. There's too much trivia in the article and it badly needs a cleanup. I'd do it but would rather do it with some confidence it wasn't trashed again shortly after. Imc (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I can probably help with that. Dougweller (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Request: map of Indian states that includes Telangana

Does anybody know of a map of Indian states that includes Telangana? I'll need something similar to the one on the right for List of current Indian chief ministers.—indopug (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Telangana in India

Does this work out? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but sadly no. It's a little too complicated, having latitudes/longitudes and the Telangana districts. These will get in the way when the map is recoloured every few months.—indopug (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I never understood svgs and maps and how they all work and how they have latitudes and longitudes in them and whatnots. Also, these two maps are on different projection planes and hence can't be copied directly from one to another. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just added an outline of Telengana (see Commons), in SVG format, if you are able to work with that. Creating a map of all states will take more time. Imc (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Vishnu/Shiva articles

Quite a bit of argument over these articles, and I blocked one editor for legal threats. Can anyone advise? Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller Where are the arguments? There is nothing happening on the talk page of either of those articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry That's the problem, no discussion, just edit wars. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller The philosophy is that blocking is not a punishment, but a remedy. I feel that your actions are appropriate in this case. A user made multiple legal threats and you blocked them, and if they themselves said that they would quit with the legal threats then I expect that you would unblock them.

The users are not talking on article talk pages, which is again a problem. Blocking is not a punishment, but a remedy to have them slow down and talk things through.

The block seems right. My only further advice would be to be quick to unblock anyone who wants a second chance and who agrees to talk on the talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The block was actually required. But I was really thinking as much of the edit warring that didn't involved the blocked editor. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 19/05

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MEMU Shed, Kollam. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/KNN - Knowledge and News Network

Dear India experts: This old draft was never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. Is this a notable news organization, and should the page be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear @Anne Delong, article about "Knowledge & News Network" was created at AfC and at mainspace simultaneously by an IP 122.160.73.98 and by Indiaknn respectively on same day, the 16th October 2013. Later Fisme, made considerable contributions to the article at mainspace, which i supposed to believe the user may have conflict of interest because of this website. The IP and these two users contributed only to "Knowledge & News Network". Hence the draft at AfC may be deleted. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 12:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into this. It's gone now. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Muchas gracias --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 20:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Rishi

Could someone take a look there? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Bharat Ratna: Article or List?

Should Bharat Ratna be classified as an article or a list? Currently, its a start-class article but it also consists of a list of recipients which cannot be forked into another article of a list class. I have expanded the article in last couple of days and would like to take it up to GA/FA if its an article or to FL, if its a list. Please comment. - Vivvt (Talk) 21:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Vivvt:, A separate List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name exists for the Legion of Honour award. By this example, we should have a separate List of Bharat Ratna recipients.--Skr15081997 (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Vivvt: Bharat Ratna and its receipients should be separate article and list respectively. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 11:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• No forking as I see no reason to do that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Personally, I'd classify this as an article (as the list is not dominant), but then again I'd split the two if possible, and just provide an overview of the recipients in the main article and an overview of the award in the list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Agree with Crisco, he's said everything that comes to my mind on this question. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Split. Even for the Nobels, the award does not define the person or their contribution: that content belongs in an individual's bio. The list should include the same sorts of navigation aids used in other list articles on awards. See wp:CLT for guidance. The article on the award should avoid comparison of the recipients: other than the first and the most recent, others belong at the list. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Some FLs give a little overview of why the person received an award. National Hero of Indonesia (this one wasn't split because I couldn't find enough to do a proper article and list; the Bharat Ratna does not have this issue) gives a very general overview as most readers aren't familiar with the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Support branching off the list as a separate article.—indopug (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm against forking this. The page could be reorganized to look cleaner, but the size of the list is not enough to warrant a new page and we would merely obligate the reader to make another click to find what he/she is looking for. Hekerui (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 43 is certainly enough to be split off. We could have something like

{{main|List of Bharat Ratna recipients}} {{As of|2014}}, there have been 43 recipients of the Bharat Ratna x men and y women, an average of z awards every year. The Baharat Ratna was first given in 1954 to the independence activist [[C. Rajagopalachari]], physicist [[C. V. Raman]], and philosopher [[Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan]]. The first posthumous award followed ten years later, when former prime minister [[Lal Bahadur Shastri]] received the Bharat Ratna. The Bharat Ratna has been given to non-citizens twice, namely to [[Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan]] in 1987 and to [[Nelson Mandela]] in 1990, as well to a naturalised citizen once - Mother Theresa in 1980. ...

• • • Offers an overview of the subject without taking up that much space. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: @Indopug: Would you support FL of such a list with only this much of prose in lead? And would you support FA of the article without the list when only 43 names had to be presented. We should take into consideration the fact that the list does not grow drastically and there is no point in repeating similar prose on both articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Dharmadhyaksha, you missed the ellipses there. That wasn't supposed to be a full lead, just an indication of how one could phrase an overview of the recipients for the main article. How I would write a lead for this award can be see in the Indonesia article linked above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I understood how it was just a trailer. But I still don't see much a point in repeating similar stuff on two pages. Some prominent names will have to be included in prose-format in the article when a list-format is separated out. Now the "prominence" is a different and big issue best solved by mentioning all recipients. Check the article history and you would find various IPs and newcomers coming in and adding their state names, or the languages they spoke or their place of birth and such other associations. With keeping that in mind, it would be a tough thing to mention only few names in prose and redirect to a different page to read the whole list. Also, when list will be separated out, the controversies related to them will have to be included there too. While the list can be modeled in a way to ultimately be at par with FL, i think that would hamper the article and make it tough to qualify FA. (Am just bringing in FL/FAs in here as that should be the aim of all entries on WP.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• It's a challenge, yes, but it's a challenge that will have to be faced at one time or another. Right now the number of recipients is 43, with what looks like an average of 1 person granted the Bharat Ratna a year. So, in 2020, there would be 49 or 50... is that still few enough for inclusion in the main article? What if there are 100? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well...It’s a challenge for the editors of next generation and not us. Call it OR or whatever; but if you observe, 14 awards were given till 1970s, in two decades of 1970-80s there were only 7, in 1990s it rose to 17 and since 2000s it’s been only 5. Majority of the winners have been independence activists which trend probably stopped in 2000s thereby shrinking the eligible pool. While the criteria can anytime get lenient and be open to encompass more personalities, I see that as a rare chance. So reaching a high number in lesser time is against extrapolation as of now. I suppose we need not worry of it getting much bigger. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

My intention was not to have information and references duplicated. With the amount of information collected so far, it would not be very difficult to split and make it as an article and a list. But then readers would need to jump back and forth to read detailed info and list of recipients. - Vivvt (Talk) 00:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah! And at only 56kb+ size we don't technically need to split it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Temple in need of cleanup

Padutirupathi has no independent sources and a vast amount of unreferenced text - someone might like to have a look at it. PamD 22:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Koenraad Elst (serious BLP violations in a BLP article)

Please lend your expertise to a discussion at Koenraad Elst on the serious, long-term BLP/NPOV violations in the BLP article Koenraad Elst at Talk:Koenraad Elst.

The NPOV violations were explained in great detail by the subject of the lemma here, already in 2012 and 2013:

• The wikipedia lemma on "Koenraad Elst": a textbook example of defamation
• Meera Nanda against Hinduism

These links say among other things:

Well, there you have it. The lemma on me has ended up taking this form because some militant among your contributors purposely wanted to “warn readers” against me. Please cite me an instruction for encyclopedists that names “warning” among the legitimate goals of an encyclopedia.

Either you remove the lemma altogether, or you straighten it out and apply the rules of encyclopedia-writing to it. At any rate, in a encyclopedia, I count on being judged for what I myself have said or done, and not for the gossip my declared enemies have come up with.

If Wikipedia wants to live up to its promise of being a reliable encyclopedic source, it will strike this and all sentences resembling it from its article on me. At most, it can use me as an example of how it was fooled by some of its all-too-partisan collaborators. Speaking of whom: the history page accompanying my page proves forever that some Wikipedia collaborators wanted to inflict on me the maximum harm possible, an attitude incompatible with work for an encyclopedia.

The blog post was from 2013, and the previous wikipedia article version was chock full of BLP attacks. Currently the article is more neutral (still contains OR in the "Islam" section) and protected.

Because of the very serious NPOV violations in a BLP article, this requires the attention of neutral editors (and also of reasonable editors, both pro and contra Elst). I hope some of you will have a look and weigh in on the talk page. Thank you very much in advance. --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is probably a very dumb thing to ask, but what does lemma mean here? None of the meanings I've looked up really fit the context.—indopug (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This word "Lemma" comes from the author's own blog, which is extremely fringe as a reference for a wikipedia article. There is a discussion on the talk page curently going on. This article must rely on reliable external sources and not Koenraad Elst's own blog. To my opinion, there is no BLP violation since all that was written in the previous version was acknowledged by external secondary sources. May be some phrasing can be changed, but I don't see any real issue. Well, that's my opinion only. The two links given above are Koenraad Elts's own blog quotations. On top of that, Koenraad Eslt in his response above is referring sometimes to the talk page, not the article itself. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Could we please restrict the discussion to the talk page of KE? It has already spread to three talk pages now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

21st May Traffic Report

Please have a look at how the profile of Narendra Modi has been described at the Traffic Report. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Fiza Ibn-e-Faizi

There is a new article for Urdu poet and writer Fiza Ibn-e-Faizi, and there is quite a bit of confusion about the spelling of his name. If you have a chance to provide input, the question about the name is posted at Talk:Fiza Ibn-e-Faizi. The more I research the more confused I'm getting. Your insight would be very helpful! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

GA article being reassessed: Ahmedabad

Ahmedabad was reviewed and listed as a Good Article in June 2012. It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since Dec 2013. I have done a GAR, and I feel that the article doesn't meet current GA criteria. The main contributors have been notified, though are unavailable or not able to do the work at the moment so there has been no progress. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, interested WikiProjects are being contacted as editing assistance may be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Ahmedabad/GA2 for more details. If no progress is made, and nobody expresses an interest in working on the article, it is likely to be delisted after seven days have passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Which Prime Minister

Is the 15th PM designation for Modi correct? Looking at List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_India, he could be either the 16th or the 14th. If we go by terms (Elections column), then he is the 16th PM. If we go by people, he is actually the 14th (Vajpayee is counted twice in that list) . I've fixed both but figure this is important enough to need review. --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

News have goofed up on this point too. Am reading and listening them call Modi as both 14th and 15th PM; but never 16th. How did you come up with 16? Am of the opinion that Modi is the 14th PM of India. Each person is counted only once. So even if ABV has been PM more than once, he can't be described as the nth and mth PM of India. That would be stupid. Also, ABV was three times PM and not twice; just like how Nehru was four times and not just once. Also, acting PM Gulzarilal Nanda is not to be counted. The article List of Prime Ministers of India until few days called MMS as the 13th PM. Suddenly people have started messing up the numbers counting in Nanda and making Modi the 15th. It would be interesting to see what the official sources have used. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Business Standard, Daily Bhaskar calls him 14th, HT and Times, DD News (official broadcaster; as good as Govt source) so does the Time, Indian Express, CNN-IBN, Yahoo, NDTV call him 15th. Counting Vajpayee twice brings the count to 15; whenever a PM has continuous terms he is counted only once so ABV is counted twice (example; http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/621705/Atal-Bihari-Vajpayee); not thrice. PMO site does not number the PMs. We need to correct List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_India. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I got 16th from the column titled "Election" which, on closer scrutiny, is really just the Lok Sabha number so that's not correct anyway. If we count the people who have become PM, then he is the 14th if Nanda is excluded and 15th if Nanda is included. It is unclear whether Nanda should be included in the list or not. My recollection is that, on the incapacitation of the PM, the President can invite someone from the ruling party to become an acting PM until such time as the party elects a new one. Whether this person is an "Acting PM" or a "PM" is unclear. This definitely needs more research.--regentspark (comment) 18:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• 14th Prime Minister, 16th Prime Minister tenure. Tito☸Dutta 18:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PMO site: [1] Manmohan is 14th. [2] Gujral is 12th. So ABV is counted twice. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, then we should go by that and make Narendra Modi the 15th. It does make sense because an acting PM is still a PM with all the responsibilities that go with the office. --regentspark (comment) 21:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Redtigerxyz If ABV should be counted twice then Indira Gandhi should also be counted twice, she was not a PM from 1977 to 1980so she would be 3rd and 6th PM (If we exclude Nanda) and that would make Modi 16th PM. May be they started to count from zero -sarvajna (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sarvajna: Maybe we should count Congress PMs twice but exclude non-Congress PM. That's more logical than starting from zero. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of work on the PMs list (as well as nearly all the CMs' lists), and I oppose counting Nanda as the second PM and Modi as the 15th. The fact is there is a lot of disagreement and contradiction among sources. Yes you can find Manmohan being called the 14th and now Modi the 15th PMs, but all the sources routinely refer to Shastri as the second. (Even among government sources [3], [4]) Given this inconsistency I believe we can exercise our discretion. And not counting an Acting PM makes more sense than counting him; apart from giving undue importance to placeholders, it's also the logic that is used to number the Presidents of India. As for prime ministers who served discontinuous terms (Indira and Vajpayee), they're rarely counted twice.

TL;DR: List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_India is spot on, and other articles must be made consistent with it.—indopug (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a succinct Outlook blog on the matter.—indopug (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_India did not mention Nanda as a prime minister (corrected now) but in reality he was sworn in as the prime minister twice. 1 former prime ministers PMO 2 personal profile PMOPMO official citations . Please don't make a mockery of this. Counting Nanda we have 15 prime ministers( all counted once ). Admins should take note of this. jthomas91 05:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC) aze0098 (talk)

We must count Nanda as a PM in the list List of Prime Ministers of India. Even current PM's website has mentioned NANDA as a prime minister. So if we include Nanda the list will be like this. 1.Nehru 2.Nanda 3.Sasthri 4.I Gandhi 5.Desai 6.C.Singh 7.R.Gandhi 8.VP Singh 9.Chandrasekhar 10.Rao 11.Vajpayee 12.Gouda 13.Gujral 14.Manmohan 15.Modi. check out http://pmindia.nic.in/pastpm.php for further details. what i conclude is Modi is 15th PM. -user talk:kappatD 08:40 AM, 28 MAY 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Narendra Modi as 15th PM of India. The PMO has confirmed Narendra Modi as the 15th Prime Minister-Modi is 15th PM-PMO. Manmohan Singh is also given as the 14th Prime Minister-PMO- Manmohan Singh, the rest is history. Based on the number of people who were sworn in as Prime Ministers we have 15 in all including Nanda. What's the point of mentioning Nanda in List of Prime Ministers of India but not numbering him. Be practical people and fix this.—jthomas91 (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

jthomas91 and user:kappatD, even the PMO is inconsistent on the matter. I. K. Gujral is given as the 12th PM of India, which is possibly only if they didn't count Nanda as a full-time PM.

Further, making Nanda the 2nd PM, would mean that Lal Bahadur Shastri, the great man who succeeded Nehru, would be the "third Prime Minister of India". Have you ever seen him described in this way? Is it, as you say, "practical" to describe a man who succeeded the first PM as the third PM?!

Lastly, you say "What's the point of mentioning Nanda ... but not numbering him"; I would like to point you to List of Presidents of India, where several acting Presidents are not numbered and there is no confusion over the matter.—indopug (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Modi is the 14th person who served as PM, and Nanda can't be counted as a regular PM because he just acted in that capacity on two different occasions. There're countless lists of officeholders on WP, and there's not a single list where acting officeholders are counted as regular ones. Nanda can't be the 2nd PM, it was Shastri. As for the numbering of Nanda, I can support Indopug's idea to use example from List of Presidents of India - there were several acting Presidents, and they are not numbered in any way. In the end, I can support any compromise on numbering, etc, but not the removal of Nanda from the list and the removal of numbering altogether. --Sundostund (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Confusion is only because some of us seem to be counting Gulzari Lal Nanda as the second PM as he was officially the Acting PM before and after Lal Bahadur Shastri. He was interim Prime Minister on two occasions - after the sudden demise of Pt. Nehru (from may 27, 1964 to June 9, 1964), for 14 days, and again after the sudden demise of Lal Bahadur Shastri (from January 11 to 24, 1966), again for a period of 14 days. Lal bahadur shastri is regarded as 2nd PM of india. Not counting Mr Nanda, who was after all only the acting prime minister, there have been 13 other PMs, and thus Mr Modi is the 14th.

1. Jawaharlal Nehru: 15 August 1947 to 27 May 1964---> (Gulzarilal Nanda: 27 May 1964 to 9 June 1964)
2. Lal Bahadur Shastri: 9 June 1964 to 11 January 1966---> (Gulzarilal Nanda 11 January 1966 to 24 January 1966)
3. Indira Gandhi: 24 January 1966 to 24 March 1977
4. Morarji Desai: 24 March 1977 to 28 July 1979
5. Charan Singh: 28 July 1979 to 14 January 1980--->(Indira Gandhi: 14 January 1980 to 31 October 1984)
6. Rajiv Gandhi: 31 October 1984 to 2 December 1989
7. V.P. Singh: 2 December 1989
8. Chandra Shekhar: 10 November 1990 to 21 June 1991
9. P.V. Narasimha Rao: 21 June 1991 to 16 May 1996
10. Atal Bihari Vajpayee: 16 May 1996 to 1 June 1996
11. H.D. Deve Gowda: 1 June 1996 to 21 April 1997
12. I.K. Gujral 21 April: 1997 to 19 March 1998--->(Atal Bihari Vajpayee: 19 March 1998 to 22 May 2004)
13. Manmohan Singh: 22 May 2004 to 26 May 2014
14. Narendra Modi: 26 May 2014 to

 Dr meetsingh  Talk  15:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

When official PMO site as well as the largest media organizations are calling him as 15th; applying "Wikipedia logic" of counting is pure WP:OR, which violates the principles of Wikipedia.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

We aren't yet doing OR here. LBS has always been historically described as the 2nd PM of India. Thereby NaMo becomes 14th. And i trust older publications more than these sabse tez, sabse pehle (fastest and first) news channels. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha: Exactly. --Sundostund (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should either go with 15th or just drop the whole numbering thing. First, as redtigerxyz says, we shouldn't be doing any calculations ourselves. Any math at all, even 2+12=14, is borderline OR. Second, assuming we can do some math, many of you are confusing Presidents and Heads of State with Prime Ministers. A Prime Minister is a head of government and the office doesn't come with the same pomp and circumstance trappings as does a head of state. Numbering of heads of governments, mere functionaries in titular terms, is in and of itself an exercise of elevation that is quite unwarranted. But, if we do have to go with numbering, then any person who has held the office should automatically be included in the list. He or she is just another head of government. My suggestion, do what the Brits do and drop the numbers. If you want to stick with numbers, count every person who has been a Prime Minister. --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with redtigerxyz, we just cannot use our own logic here. Modi has become a PM now and the latest sources suggest that he is the 15th PM so we will have to call him 15th. Most of the sources call him 15th. Either we call him 15th or drop the idea of numbering like RP said. -sarvajna (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind dropping the number. But that should not be restricted to just the lists but also all biographies except Nehru's where there is no doubt on him being the 1st PM. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha I agree, Nehru was our first PM for sure -sarvajna (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Fingers crossed for that. BTW, do we have any RTI activist here who can file a question on whether NaMo is 14th or 15th? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I can try to file one, have done it before but for a different purpose. I will do it if time permits. -sarvajna (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone seen the list as it is currently numbered? Nanda not numbered and Shastri as 2nd, so the numbers leading sequentially to Gujral as 12th following Dr Meetsingh's numbering; NO 13th PM, Manmohan Singh 14th, and Modi 15th. NO 13th PM. This is ridiculous. Whichever way we resolve this, any numbering should at least be sequential.

Most news sources seem to number Manmohan 14th, and Modi 15th. This numbering is consistent if Nanda is numbered as a full PM. The list from the PM's office (although not numbered) seems to regard Nanda as a full PM, listed without mention of any "acting" status. As for Shastri as 3rd PM, there are some sources supporting this. LookLook36 (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That's the point. There is no such thing as an "acting PM" because he/she is a head of government appointed by the President. For this reason, there is no such thing as a "line of succession" when a PM dies in office (unlike when a President - or a King/Queen dies in office). The President merely appoints a new head of government on the advice of the cabinet. That choice could change in 13 days as it did with Nanda if there is a stable party in power or could go on for months if the parties are factionalized and no one is able to form a government (in which case the country would have to go to the polls). --regentspark (comment) 14:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, I have filed a RTI awaiting for reply. Procedure says that I will have to wait for 30 days. So will inform everyone when I get the reply. -sarvajna (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Good Sarvajna. Tito☸Dutta 15:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• If Modi is 15th PM then we must change Shastri to 3rd PM of india and make Nanda as 2nd PM! Dr meetsingh  Talk  16:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Indian women in war category

Hi. I've been trying to improve the articles of the women in war category, and I've been focusing primarily on increasing visibility for women of color. I've noticed that Category:Indian women in war contains a lot of poorly-written articles that are in serious need of improvement, and I was wondering if anyone wanted to offer help or at least point me in the direction of English-language sources I could use to work on them. Also, I'd really like to add pictures but I'm having a hard time finding portraits of these women. I'm presuming that public domain portraits exist as most of the individuals in the category lived prior to the 20th century and were royalty, but I cannot locate them. Does anyone know of a website that contains public domain artwork of these women? Thank you very much. Asarelah (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Ram Pyari Gurjar really needs improvement. The only source I can find about her life, is the book The royal Gurjars: their contribution to India, and I can't access it from the Internet. If anyone has that book or other reliable sources about her life and could improve the article (at least to the point of including dates, a better sense of historical context, and inline citations) it would really be great. Asarelah (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)