Talk:Dras

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Added Pictures[edit]

I have added 2 pictures : War memorial andf Dras Velley Please help editing this page if you have any other information. Rohan (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added new topic[edit]

I have also added a new topic ; Places Of Interest Rohan (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second coldest place?[edit]

This claim seems fairly preposterous - looking at the climate chart, there are loads of inhabited places far colder than Dras. Pretty much every place in Canada, Alaska, Northern Russia, Northern Scandinavia, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.185.150 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--> Agreed, this is a preposterous claim and should be removed. For instance, Yakutsk, a city of 250,000 in Siberia has much, much colder *average* temperatures in the winter. Recommend this assertion be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.168.35 (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---> If you people have read it carefully : Dras is the second coldest inhabited place in the world So now you get the difference? There is offcial board which also says Dras is the second coldest inhabited place in the world in Dras. 220.224.6.102 (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's wrong no matter how you look at it, and so I've removed it. If you object to that please post on my talkpage. Soap Talk/Contributions 14:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source authenticating Dras being second coldest. The reference Link was just a self-creation Thetomcruise (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drass or Dras?[edit]

This isn't consistent in the article, is there an established translation or is the number of s's up to the author? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.139.226 (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Officially it is Drass[edit]

It is only here where I see 'Drass' spelt as 'Dras'. Please check with the tourism section of the official website of Kargil. We shall add that additional 's'. Shall we not? ~ A n w a r a j انوراج 20:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ladakh peoples protests[edit]

It is so shame full situation that any coverage of Ladakh peoples protest against Shortage of drinking water, Lack of teachers in Indian Govt schools, erotic power supply, High air fares, Students rights, Killing of people in neighbouring Kashmir, Quota issue against Indian state Government and High court is forcefully being denied.

Is it your neutrality WP ?

I am disappointed with this cherry picking article which is just a no value article on current Ladakh population centres situation.

Every thing was sourced with 12 sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by LehPeople (talk • contribs) 12:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indic Scripts Removal[edit]

Please have a look at Indic scripts first. There is no such mandate that it should be replaced or not removed because it is useful. Feel free to add it somewhere which does not interfere with WP:INDICSCRIPTS. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala I am happy to involve an administrator who wrote WP:INDICSCRIPTS if you don't understand it. I have edited under this guideline before and I am not sure if you have. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry for the revert: didn't see this thread on time. So, Indicscirpt was created so that we have something to cite when stopping people from warring over scripts, it's not intended to sow contention where none previously existed. It's your choice if you want to remove them from the ledes of articles, but I don't think you should rely on other editors to clean up after you and reinstate the non-controversial part of the content (e.g. the pronunciation derivable from the native name) in a form that you would find acceptable. I will have no objections if you move that to a different place within the article, or if you replace it with a phonetically accurate representation for all the languages concerned. Also, if we really must go into technicalities, Indicscript is only for articles primarily related to India, and Dras is in the Dardic/Tibetan cultural region, which is outside the bounds of India, as understood in the context of the script issues. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have correctly stated the initial motivation behind the creation of the mandate that was to avoid people edit warring but it was also extended (during the extensive discussion that went behind it) to avoid clutter which was cause by non-English scripts at the top of the page. Thus, many Indian articles have seen removal of all non-English scripts from articles. I have myself been part of removing it from quite a few articles. To clear your misconceptions away, I am under no obligation to replace it with anything. If you wish to do so that is completely your prerogative and that should not stop the removal of the script since it is currently causing clutter. Second, it extends to all non-English scripts on all articles which either come under WikiProject India or articles that are pre-dominantly under WikiProject India. Other editors who also use it quite frequently do so under these guidelines. Again I am happy to involve an administrator if you think differently. There are a few exceptions to this and this article does not come under any of those exceptions. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to involve anyone you wish to. Regardless of whether the letter of the guideline applies here (I contend that the topic is far enough from the Indian sphere for the guideline's application to be at best problematic), the fact is that the rationale behind the guideline is absent. If you would like to remove the scripts for purely aesthetic reasons, then this is entirely subjective (I don't see the clutter that you seem to perceive), and it's generally odd to delete useful content entirely out of stylistic considerations. Again, I will not object if you make your stylistic change in any way you see fit as long as it preserves the information content. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is very much within the Indian sphere since Dras is a city within India and thus falls under the purview of WP:INDICSCRIPTS. Second, the application of this is not subjective but is applied on all articles under the stated guideline. If you wish to preserve any information (this completely your view here) then you should do so without violating laid out guideline. I am pinging @RegentsPark:,@MikeLynch: two admins who have dealt with this topic in the past and an editor @Arjayay: who has also used WP:INDICSCRIPTS across numerous WikiProject India articles. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to enforce the style guideline for the sake of enforcing the style guideline, but if in a particular case this is meaningfully challenged I don't see how "because the guideline says so" can continue to be a valid argument. And when I said I wouldn't mind you involving other people, I wasn't expecting you would choose someone who's !voted on your side in the RfC an another one who shares your script-removing hobby. – Uanfala (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can discredit other editors who have a clear understanding of the guideline (which you call a hobby) but the opinion of the administrators matters here. Wikipedia is based on guidelines and we need to follow them. I don't see this as a meaningful challenge but a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dras is a city in India therefore WP:INDICSCRIPTS applies to it and there should be no indic scripts in either the lead or the infobox. If someone removes an indic script from an article, it should not be reinstated. --regentspark (comment) 14:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamgerber80, this is clearly a contentious matter, so it will be really appreciated if you for a moment stopped removing the native scripts from articles about places in Ladakh. – Uanfala (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uanfala I think the guideline is pretty clear and has been clarified by RegentsPark. It might be contentious in your mind. If you wish to change the guideline or contest it, this page is not the place. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've given plenty of reasons why the guideline doesn't apply here. If you want to argue otherwise based on the opinions of other people, then please don't rely on those who have previously been so heavily involved on your side. And again, I won't raise any objections if instead of outright removing that content, you re-arranged it in whatever form you feel is aesthetically acceptable. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uanfala, Indic scripts is a reasonably clear guideline and you're unnecessarily trying to obfuscate matters. I suggest you stop. --regentspark (comment) 16:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Style guidelines aren't divinely ordained commandments. If in a given case these guidelins apply only in their letter, while none of the rationales behind the guideline are actually relevant, then I really don't see how it can be acceptable to continue refusing to listen and simply thumping the Bible. – Uanfala (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But the only reason you seem to be giving is that the guideline doesn't need to be followed. That's what I mean by obfuscation. If you have a good reason, please state it, succinctly and see if you can get consensus. --regentspark (comment) 17:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated it several times above. To avoid going back into that circle, it can be summarised as: "1) the problem that the guideline is meant to solve, is absent here; 2) the enforcement of the guideline creates problems that weren't here before." – Uanfala (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't reasons by any stretch of imagination and can only assume that this is either sarcasm or a joke of some sort. --regentspark (comment) 17:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a loss now. What would in your opinion constitute "reasons"? – Uanfala (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't a joke. You should explain the why of "is absent here" and the how of "creates problems"? Merely stating that a guideline is not suitable at a point is a non-reason. --regentspark (comment) 18:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for having to repeat what I had already stated twice above. So, the two factors that led to the adoption of Indicscript are 1) ethnonationalist newbie editors regularly fighting over which scripts to include and in what order; 2) regulars not liking native scripts. Both are absent here: the first one because you don't get the ethnonationalist movements that could make the choice of scripts controversial, the second one because the population of editors here is different. This is simply a different cultural region. And even if we absolutely want to go legalistic about that and take the geographic limit of the application of the giudeline to correspond to the current border of the republic of India (not that there's anything in the guideline to warrant that), then we end up in the bizarre situation where we zealously remove native names for Shina– or Balti-speaking settlements on this side of the Line of Control, while we add such names to the Shina- and Balti–speaking settlements on the other. And then if we use a border, do we go for the Line of Control, or for the boundary of one or the other of the claimed territories?
And even if choose to ignore all that go on pretending that the guidline applies here, then again I will have no issue as long as content is not removed. If the guideline says that native names don't belong in the lede, then how much effort does it take to simply move them out of the lede and place them somewhere else? – Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it was implemented was to avoid this kind of argument across all Wikiproject India pages. We don't have to get into argument whether an ethnonationalist editors here are warring or not (don't know how do we decide this) and the guideline tries to preempt this. Similarly as I have stated before as well another reason was to avoid clutter which currently exists here with more than one language. On the implementation of the guideline, I think the wording is pretty clear and it is being obfuscated by you by bringing in another conflict about WikiProject ownership which is beyond the scope of this discussion or even WP:INDICSCRIPTS. Lastly, if you wish to preserve information (this is you view on what constitutes information) then it is your responsibility to preserve it without violating the guideline. It is not the responsibility of the editor who is enforcing the guideline to do so and this is very clear. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uanfala, neither of your arguments make an independent case for deviating from the guideline. The second one, regulars not liking native scripts, is completely incorrect. A like or dislike for native scripts has nothing to do with the guideline. The first one, the conditions that you describe, are not a good reason at all. The reason we make guidelines is because we don't want to debate, in every case, whether a particular edit does or does not meet the spirit of the guideline (otherwise, we would simply eschew guidelines and just debate everything). If you want to make an exception, please point to a content based reason why this article must deviate from the guideline. --regentspark (comment) 22:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to make of your request for a content based reason. All content-based reasons you can think of are against the guideline (we would all agree that native names do constitute encyclopedic information, no?), the guideline is only there to deal with behavioural problems. Here we have a well-defined topic area where the guidline's raison d'etre is absent (and, as I've argued, even its literal application is problematic). Again, I don't understand why we should pretend that we don't know what specific issues the guidelines are there to solve, and simply treat them as absolute truths. – Uanfala (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If people keep gaming the system I will see them at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, I hope you don't take it personally, but you've recently been telling several people about taking them to ANI. As this might be perceived as a threat, I think it will be more helpful if you either simply took people to ANI, or didn't talk about ANI at all. Cheers! – Uanfala (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have? Just you, I think. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush This has also happened across many other pages. Here are a few of them Wagoora, Tral, Uri, Jammu and Kashmir, Kunzer, Khan Sahib, Jammu and Kashmir, Demchok, Bandipora, Ganderbal, Ganderbal district and others. I believe that these edits will cause more problems down the road. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've simply restored recently removed native-script names to a dozen or so articles, moving them into sections of the articles where they won't violate the guidelines and fixing the occasional formatting and content errors introduced by their prior removal (more care next time, please?). – Uanfala (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they will. I've not checked those articles yet but if it is Uanfala that is doing it then I will consider it to be disruptive editing. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush Yes it is Uanfala across all those articles immediately after we had this discussion with RegentsPark. There is another edit which is another sort of gaming the system on Shyok River where he adds Wikiproject Pakistan (which was not present earlier) and then reverts the indic script removal claiming that is now across multiple WikiProjects. Now this does seem fine but will lead to another sort of problem where editors will start adding random projects and claiming the project is not predominantly India, add native scripts and then argue over the order of scripts and which scripts to include. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the article genuinely relates to Pakistan then INDICSCRIPT only applies to the, erm, Indic scripts. So, they could add the Urdu name because that would be acceptable to the Pakistan project but they couldn't, for the sake of argument, add the Hindi name. At least, that is how we have been doing it for years and if Uanfala wants to challenge that then it will need yet another RfC the outcome of which I think is a foregone conclusion. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, I see that the native scripts have been removed from the first section of the article as well. We might disagree on whether WP:INDICSCRIPT applies to this article, but I hope at least we'd agree that it only applies to infoboxes and lede sections. – Uanfala (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As I said, you are gaming the system. Three people here disagree with you so I suggest you leave it well alone. Start a new RfC on INDICSCRIPT if you must. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, a new RfC would be a good way to go forward if there continue to be disagreements. My own feeling is that adding scripts in the body would be appropriate if there is a linguistic discussion of the name and the scripts add to the discussion. Just trying to add scripts to an arbitrary sentence of the body, as if it were the lead sentence, is neither here nor there. The lead itself can have IPA, IAST or ISO romanisations in order to aid the pronunciation of the name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Indic scripts are replaced with accurate transliterations, then I'll be willing to refrain from objecting to their removal. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Places of interest[edit]

Wikipedia is not a tourist guide. I am concerned that most of the places listed in the "Places of interest" section are some distance from Dras itself and also not even linked. Should the list be pruned? - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see such borderline content as particularly troubling. The region is sparsely populated, so 20 km isn't much of a distance. If there's anything to be said about these places then probably this is the article that should say it. – Uanfala (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dras&oldid=1198779442"