Talk:Bikram Singh (general)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

File:Genbikramsingh.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Genbikramsingh.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Genbikramsingh.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

25th, 27th etc[edit]

People have been playing around with the issue of whether Singh is the 25th, 27th etc CoAS but seem never to source it. A similar thing has gone on at his predecessor's article, where I queried the issue some time ago and was told that it was "common knowledge". Well, it will not do. I realise that most Indian news sources are not reliable sources but when, for example, NDTV reports him as being the 25th and Mid-day reckons him to be the 27th then we have a problem.

Sure, we could show both versions but that seems ludicrous for a simply issue of ordinality. My suggestion is that we try to find out what The Hindu says about the issue, since that is the only Indian news source that is generally agreed to be reliable. Alternatively, we look to the BBC or similar. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

V.K.Singh was 26th and Bikram Singh is 27th thehindu] sarvajna (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
That will do me! Thanks for finding it. If no-one objects, would you like to do the honours of fixing the two articles? - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I have made the changes, do check it sarvajna (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Change of Article Name[edit]

The Article Name must be Bikram Singh (General) not Bikram Singh (general) .The first letter of the word General must be a capital Krishna Chaitanya Velaga Talk 07:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The current title is acceptable, the only question is whether the general is the primary topic and we have no agreement there. Jenks24 (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bikram Singh (general)Bikram Singh – In the current the rank-General is suffixed to name Bikram Singh which should be present.The article name must be just Bikram Singh Krishna Chaitanya Velaga Talk 06:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If this leads to disambiguation then The word General must be prefixed.Military Ranks should not be suffixed to the name of Person Krishna Chaitanya Velaga Talk 02:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@User:Innotata I moved Bikram Singh to Bikram Singh (Musician) .Move this page to Bikram Singh to General Bikram Singh Krishna Chaitanya Velaga Talk 02:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not how we title articles. The current title is fine and meets our disambiguation guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
But Military Ranks must not be suffixed to a name .They must only be prefixed .Since Bikram Singh is moved to Bikram Singh (musician) .Then we can move this article to just Bikram Singh of General Bikram Singh Krishna Chaitanya Velaga Talk 03:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we all know how military ranks are used. If the article was entitled Bikram Singh General then I would agree with you, but it's not. It's Bikram Singh (general). That means his status (not really his rank, since it would be used for any general officer) is being used as a parenthetical disambiguator - he's a general instead of a musician or any other occupation. His rank isn't being suffixed; it's being parenthesised. This is always how we do it on Wikipedia. See Category:British Indian Army generals, for instance. Do any of them have their ranks prefixed? No, they don't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank You for Clarifying Krishna Chaitanya Velaga 13:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.