Jump to content

Talk:Indian painting

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

Good

[edit]

I believe the "Lady with a Lamp" painting is by Raja Ravi Verma and is housed in a museum in Mysore, India. If there is another "Lady with lamp" painting by Mazumdar the article should clarify this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.165.27.182 (talk) 22:59, August 27, 2007 (UTC) The woman with a lamp is by Late Sri.A.L.Haldankar and not by Raja Ravi Varma or Mazumdhar vide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_of_Hope

The contents have grown nicely. It require as 


little bit of re-arrangements. --Bhadani 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Rajput and Mughal painting needs to be under miniature paintings section. Or just all together remove the miniature painting section. Also, isnt what you call Rajput called Rajasthani in academic references to art? --Kaveri 18:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from main page

[edit]

I removed this from the main page, as it needs significant reworking (for grammar, sources, removal of [[WP:PEACOCK|peacock terms):

Since the 1980s Indian artists started showing more vitality and variety in their work. Many of the new generation of artists have come from various fields in to art world and thus they bring with them newer concepts and styles. Devajyoti Ray had introduced in the early 1990s a new ism of art called Pseudo-realism. Again Jitish Kallat mixed graphic art with prints to develop a mode of expression which was hitherto not been used. vagaram choudhary work in new experimenting medium with 3D visuals. The other famous artists like Prakash Karmokar, Jahar Dasgupta, Bihon Choudhuri, Jogen choudhuri, vagaram choudhary and many others are enriching the modern art for India and their journey is still going on.

freshacconcispeaktome 12:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian painting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs copyedit

[edit]

Moved comment by another user from main page: "Dear wikipedia reader If you are a NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKING person, and if you have some spare time, please take a look on this article, machine translated from French (fr:Peinture en Inde). Don’t hesitate to log on as user, and make the needed language corrections. Best regards User:Andershus.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelbird (talk • contribs) 10:48, February 23, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Travelbird, for removing this addition by Andershus from the article, and adding it to the proper location, here on the talk page.
Andershus, after Travelbird moved it, you reverted, inappropriately adding the material back again, until it was once more removed by another editor. Do you understand why it does not belong on the article page? If you have questions, feel free to ask; preferably on your or my Talk page. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translated from French?

[edit]

There is a {{translated page}} box at the top of this page indicating that the article was translated from French (but without any version parameters, hence vague about the timing), as well as an {{expert needed}} box at the top of the article page claiming the article was machine-translated from French. However, at least for the history of the French article, the reverse appears to be the case, as it appears to have been created as a translation from English.

The en-wiki article was created July 5, 2005. By October 13, 2007 it had grown to 14,925 bytes and contained thirteen sections including eight regional H2 headings from 'Madhubani painting' to 'Samikshavad'. The French article Peinture en Inde was created from scratch at 14,428 bytes on October 20 2007 with twelve sections and eight regional H2 headings, from 'Peinture de Madhubani' to 'Samikshavad', and is manifestly a translation of the en-wiki article of that date. (The required translation attribution was found neither in the French article's edit history of the time, nor in the Talk page, so I added required attributions there.)

Since then, the articles diverged. It may be there were translations in the other direction, from the French to the English article, but these should be substantiated by proper attribution using the {{translated page}} template at the top of this talk page, with all parameters filled in, notably version and insertversion along with an edit summary explaining in detail what portion(s) of the French article are alleged to have been translated and added to the English one. Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see now why you added the French-to-English translation box now; it's because of the hundreds of MT edits added in the last month. I will address that in a separate section. Mathglot (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to roll back one month to remove MT

[edit]

Requesting feedback from major contributors on a proposal to roll back the Indian painting article one month in order to remove a series of raw machine translations dumped into the article.

Starting on February 9, 2018 one user has made hundreds of edits to Indian painting, copying raw, unedited machine translated text from the French article fr:Peinture en Inde into the English article. This user has left "Dear Reader" messages asking people to fix up the edits after him; both on the article page itself (!; since moved to the talk page, above), and also at the Help desk.

In my view, these raw translations from the French are not helpful to the article, leave unverified text in place, and are disruptive of other editors' time. The community view about machine translations in general can be found here. In my opinion, the article should be rolled back to version 824774041 of 11:55, February 9, 2018 just before the series of MT edits (562, by my browser's tally) began. There are only a handful of edits by other users since then, and if the rollback proposal is accepted, I volunteer to reinstate any independent edits myself, after the rollback.

I don't doubt the user's good faith in making these edits, and any comments about user behavior should be confined to the user's talk page. This Talk page section is strictly about discussing how to improve the article, and in particular whether it should be rolled back to February 9; and if not, what, if anything, we should do with the auto-translated material added since then. Thanks in advance for your feedback, Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping top 10 by edits: @Jyntprasad, Johnbod, Mandarax, Ekabhishek, Frietjes, Johnkishore, Apparition11, and Rigmahroll:
Ping top 10 by text: @Andershus, Tyrenius, Johnkishore, Joy1963, Diptiprakashpalai, Syajnik, and Legend india1:
Note: a link to this discussion has been added to Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English.
Note: a link to this discussion has been added to Wikipedia talk:Translation. Mathglot (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, somewhat reluctantly, as the old version is pretty poor. Andershus has tried to get the English improved, leaving messages in many places a month ago, but little seems to have happened - I think it would be tricky to do without a) knowing French and b) knowing something about the subject. But nothing much has been done. So back we should go (Tyrenius has left, btw). Johnbod (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you; it's too bad, and I'd work on it myself, but am spread too thin already on various other projects; perhaps one day. Otoh, I could maybe help in rounding up other folks with knowledge of French (and English) to assist. But there's no hurry, so let's give it some time and see what others think. Mathglot (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have both a and b sufficiently, but what the article really needs is a new expansion from sources, which I may do one day, but it won't be soon. The French version isn't so great, or so well-referenced, that even a good translation is optimal. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree, translating articles is something that should be done with great care. dumping large amounts of machine translated text into an article does not help, since frequently the machine translation does not translate the parts that need translating (prose), translates the parts that don't need translating (citations or direct quotes), or incorrectly translates parts that need translating. Frietjes (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Better to have smaller article, than one with machine translated text. May be someone with knowledge of both the languages, plus with time and inclination can take it up later. My response is late however. --Ekabhishektalk 15:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rollback has been carried out. If you are on the ping-list: @Bonadea, JJMC89, Rodw, ClownTracker, Mark the train, Tribe of Tiger, B--aAa AaA aAa--b, Frietjes, and বাক্যবাগীশ: then some of your edits may have been inadvertently removed by this rollback. I will re-apply edits you made subsequent to version 827234097 of 15:08, February 23, 2018‎, unless:

  • you'd rather I didn't; or:
  • you'd rather do it yourself (whether the same as before, or differently).

After waiting a decent interval for responses, I'll start to reapply changes (or not) as you wish. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same old problem? 40KB added over a day or two.

[edit]

User:Andershus again. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, time to roll back again? Frietjes (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes:, I’m mobile for a while, but will try to have a look as I can.
@Andershus:, J’espère que vous êtes au courant du fait que si vous êtes en train d’ajouter le même genre de traduction que vous avez fait la dernière fois, vous risquez de perdre tout le travail que vous avez fait déjà, ainsi que toutes les éditions que vous aller faire encore dans cet article. Veuillez arrêter de faire des changements dans cet article, s.v.p., et plutôt discutez ici sur la P.d.D. avec les autres utilisateurs, avant de changer l’article encore. Merci, Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andershus: I am looking at your recent edits, and if it’s anything like last time, I will recommend that your last 600 edits to the article, including over 100kb of added content be removed. Please talk about your intentions here first, and please do not make any further edits to the article without discussing with other editors first. I will also add some additional notes at your user talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frietjes, Johnbod: Andershus was warned about this here, in May, and now again at this Talk page and also at his user talk page again, about the likely outcome of further disruption of this nature. Let’s give him a week to respond, and if there’s nothing, we can just do the rollback; no need to disrupt other editors further by getting them involved (although everyone is welcome to comment, of course). If he keeps it up after the messages on his TP, I will probably seek a TBAN or a BLOCK at ANI. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If he actually said where he was taking it from, some of it might be savable, after a bit of copyedit. User:Diannaa has been doing her usual valiant best, but much remains unclear. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod:, I respectfully disagree. It’s *not* about whether we know where it came from, and it’s *not* about whether any of it is salvageable. It’s about disruption and consensus, and whether a single editor, who has already tied up several serious, good-faith editors on a previous occasion trying to get him to respond, and trying to figure out how to deal with his actions, has the right to do exactly the same kind of disruption again, oblivious to multiple requests here and on his User talk page to communicate with other editors.
The reason that it is not worth trying to copy edit his additions is because they are pure WP:MT. He is apparently adding these manually, but I’m a coder, and I could add MT additions to French wikipedia such that in a few weeks, French wikipedia would also have 5.8 million articles, just like English wikipedia. Of course, about 3 million would all be MT and need lots of copy editing. If it took five French editors to discuss whether to roll back my changes per article, that would tie up 15 million French editors for the foreseeable future. Just because he’s only using MT on only one article, and manually adding the MT content in hundreds of sequential edits, doesn’t make it okay, in my opinion. It’s disruptive that we’re even here having this conversation, instead of adding good content to articles somewhere.
Since your message User:Andershus has added a few hundred more edits to the article. I am now in favor of a rollback, and of a TBAN from this page, and an administrator warning to communicate with other editors, and perhaps a short block to get his attention and get him to Talk to us. Consensus is, after all, absolutely core to the way Wikipedia works. Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of Diannaa's edits like this show that he is copying (without of course saying so) some of it from other en:wp articles as well. Then there's this edit summary - not sure what to make of that. But I don't really disagree. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent disruption by Andershus and another Rollback

[edit]

Andershus (talk · contribs) has continued his one-man band addition of original research and automatic translation to this article, against consensus and ignoring all attempts to contact him here, and on his talk page, and at User talk:89.94.87.52.

Absent any objection, I am planning rollback to revision 907143849 of 20 July 2019 by Mandarax. This will remove approximately 122kb of content and 678 revisions by User:Andershus and 89.94.87.52 (talk · contribs).

As we already have a consensus about Anderhus’s disruption on this article subsequent to the previous occurrence, as well as having left advice on his Talk page after the last rollback informing him what was likely to happen if he resumed the same behavior again, I don’t think a new consensus is required. That would be more disruption, if he can tie up multiple editors with a discussion every time he decides to take another run at it.

So this is more a courtesy notice to let any editors who wish to do so, to respond before the next rollback. If there is no objection from other editor, I’ll carry out the rollback after a few days, giving Andershus one last chance to justify his edits and interact with other editors here. Mathglot (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Andershus (talk · contribs) of this discussion on his Talk page, in case he has notifications turned off in his preferences. Mathglot (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andershus continues to blithely go on as before. Shall we start the countdown to rollback, say, in five days? Any objections? Mathglot (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
T minus two, and counting... Andershus, any comment? Mathglot (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following anons have no recent edits on articles other than Indian painting; most have [re-]appeared in the last couple of days:

These and any other IPs that appear on this article with a similar pattern of SPA edits should be monitored as well. Mathglot (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback to 20 July

[edit]

In view of this section above, and absent any response from Andershus here or on his User talk page, now about to carry out a rollback to revision 907143849 of 20 July 2019. This will remove 126,283 bytes of content, and over 800 revisions by Andershus, and a hundred or so by five IPs editing in the same pattern.

There are almost no other edits by other editors during this interval; those few that exist are about fixing up minor issues in the content added by Andershus, so these are moot after the rollback. I don't believe that there was even one edit in this interval that was applicable to the pre-July 20 version, but if there was, it will be inadvertently removed by this rollback. If such an edit exists and was yours, I will take responsibility for restoring your edit if you {{ping}} me below and point me to it. You can, of course, restore your own edit yourself, if you'd rather. Mathglot (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Rollback completed. Mathglot (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward

[edit]

After two occurrences of the same type of disruption by the same editor, followed by rollbacks in each case, my feeling going forward is that any future editing in the same pattern by Andershus (talk · contribs) at this article followed by silence when attempting to contact him about his edit(s), can be considered disruptive editing. I'm of the opinion that any editor should feel free to revert or roll back any future edits of his (or by his IP posse), if your good-faith edits to contact him here are fruitless. There's no need to have another long discussion and waiting period like this one again; we've offered him all the good faith in the world, and gotten nothing for it.

If such reverts start to take up too much editor time, I'll look into going to WP:ANI, and requesting a WP:TBAN or WP:BLOCK. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_painting&oldid=1202943008"