Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject India (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Article alerts for WikiProject India

Today's featured articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(45 more...)

Proposed deletions

(3 more...)

Categories for discussion

Templates for discussion

Redirects for discussion

(1 more...)

Files for discussion

Miscellany for deletion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(9 more...)

Featured article reviews

Good article reassessments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(137 more...)

Articles to be split

(11 more...)

Articles for creation

(147 more...)

This table is updated daily by a bot

Wikipedia Meetups edit
Upcoming
none
Recent
Outside India
Past meetups

Babri Masjid[edit]

Hi, could any of you please check if the image on the Babri Masjid article is actually the image of the named masjid? I am quite unsure. I have attached the image here. --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Tamravidhir The image seems to be genuine. I found it on https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/12/10/ayodhya-the-battle-for-indias-soul-the-complete-story/ and http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/AyodhyaFinalSeries.pdf where is says "COPYRIGHT: THE BRITISH LIBRARY BOARD". The same image is also available in https://www.thequint.com/news/politics/babri-masjid-demolition-hearing-supreme-court-lk-advani with the caption "The Babri Masjid in early 1900. (Photo Courtesy: The British Library Board)". However, I don't think the image is in public domain, so I have send a deletion request on commons.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Kolkata review[edit]

I have nominated Kolkata for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

West Bengal article fixation[edit]

Hi guys can someone address the West Bengal article issue. The first thing which caught my eye in the lead is the number of references. Though some may be necessary, we could, perhaps, reduce the number of references in the lead, given the same information is covered elsewhere in a section with apt citations. The lead provides excessive details, which is not required at all it would be better to mentioned in the main body. It should be as per WP:SS and WP:Lead fixation. There are information cited in the lead which does not appear in the body of the text. The article has been copy edited by GOCE editors, after few fixes the article is ready for its GA review. Thanks--Aakanksha55 (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:WikiProject Kollam[edit]

Template:WikiProject Kollam has been nominated for merging with Template:WikiProject India. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PC78 (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A spree of dubious edits[edit]

An editor, ‎पाटलिपुत्र (talk · contribs) has been on a spree of edits that sometimes appear to be borderline POV, borderline OR, borderline UNDUE—edits that in my view violate the spirit of Wikipedia rules even if they don't always violate the letter. (See, for example, her/his caption of the infobox image of the Kushan Empire that I've recently corrected.) She/he does so on many South Asia-related pages, though sometimes more generally, and in the past, has copied (without paraphrasing) content from sites such as PLOS, or from other Wikipedia articles. Although this is allowed, s/he has not only not acknowledged this in the manner required but has also done so with such prolificity that it begins to border on the unencyclopedic. See for example, Talk:Neolithic#PLOS_citation_and_image_spamming and here. S/he has been sloppy in her/his characterization of images s/he has uploaded by the hundreds, uploading, for example, an image of a smaller copy of the Sarnath Capital in the National Museum in New Delhi, but labeling it the Sarnath Capital. We all make such errors now and then, but when someone does this on a scale as this editor seems to have done, it becomes a community concern, in my view, that is. I'm reticent about posting on ANI as this is not a black and white violation, but perhaps editors here who work on ancient India related pages have some ideas. The main issue for me is that cleaning up after her/him can waste an inordinate amount of community time. Pinging some editors and admins who work on ancient India: @Kautilya3:, @Ms Sarah Welch:, @Abecedare:, @Doug Weller:, @RegentsPark:, @Joshua Jonathan: for ideas. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Pinging @पाटलिपुत्र: formally as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

So @Fowler&fowler: you have already harassed me for having an Indian user name [1] or [2] (I added initials to my signature to humour you), accused me of "dumping a usual Indian smoke and mirrors" [3], not to mention your talks of "Hindu carbage" [4] (although I was not your direct target here), and now... image captions and use of Creative Commons texts which are not to your exact liking? I am fairly systematic in attributing CC text properly as Diannaa has already recognized, but errors happen. We're all just trying to do our best for this Encyclopedia. Let's cool down a bit, don't you think? I do not intend to respond further. Have a nice day. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: Please don't play the victim. Not because of an Indian user name, but a user name in another script that most editors cannot recognize, that most editors have to copy in order to communicate with you. I know Wikipedia allows it, but why should you have this special dispensation which causes inconvenience to other editors and the rest of us have to make do with simple English language user names. You are pushing the boundary of what is collegiality in the same way as you do with what is encyclopedic. As for "Hindu garbage," if you are so sure I was being racist, please open a thread at ANI, and allow others, per boomerang, to examine your edits. The other editor who initially accused me of it, is now topic banned from India-related topics. Don't ask me to cool down. I am calling you out for repeated violations, and am inviting others who might have dealt with you more than I have, for advice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@पाटलिपुत्र: my full edit summary of an edit on the Indus Valley Civilisation page, from which you have only partially quoted above, was "Reverted good faith edits by पाटलिपुत्र: This map is neither better nor more modern. We have been with great courtesy to each other discussion discussing maps on the talk page; in you come riding into the Indus city like some lone ranger and dump a usual Indian smoke and mirrors show which insinuates that IVC was really in modern day India. We too could have been lone rangers. (TW))" I did make one error: discussing-->discussion. What do you think I meant by "Indian smoke and mirrors show?" I meant the POV that keeps trying to prove that IVC was really based more in India than Pakistan. How is calling that out anti-Indian? My edit was made in response to this out-of-context map which you had added to the "Geographical extent" of the IVC page: File:Harappan settlements.jpg. Looking at it, an average reader who reads Wikipedia, would never know that IVC has anything to do with Indus or Pakistan. Rather, they would expect an Indus artifact to lie underfoot, half-buried, at every step taken in Haryana and Gujarat. If I were anti-Indian, I would not have added this quotebox at IVC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Sorry for the slow response, some RL commitments have kept me away. There is indeed a problematic editing pattern by पाटलिपुत्र and this problem is a long-standing one. It goes beyond the poor choice of words in some wikipedia article or an occasional misreading and poor summary of a source, something that can be discussed and easily fixed. The images-related issues, in particular, are serious and I concur with your observations. Kautilya3 had expressed some concerns a while ago about पाटलिपुत्र too (e.g. and elsewhere). पाटलिपुत्र: your response to F&f is not constructive. We need to collegially correct the issues or escalate this for a formal review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

reporting on massive vandalism on certain articles[edit]

Architecture of India, Coinage of India, Kosambi has been brutally vandalised and massive content has been removed which were properly cited using academic sources, i have tried restoring those contents which have been present in the article since months. The user ‎पाटलिपुत्र (talk · contribs) has been solely responsible for that and some other senior editors have backed up that vandalism without providing convincing arguments.

content which has been removed are as follows

EUCCC coin section/ Early uninscribed cast copper coin
satavahana coins section
ujjain coins section
pala empire coins section
chola empire coins section
Kausambi palace section
Kausambi stone palace and images
Kausambi palace four centred pointed arches
pataliputra voussoir arch section
pre mauryan hindu temples section
tens of images from rock cut indian architecture, circular dome temples
early medieval indian fortifications Zombie gunner (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


Most of Zombie gunner's images (as well as those of his multiple IPs) are probable copyright violations. He has been removing Deletion requests from nominated images in an attempt to block the evaluation process [5]. We have been having severe editorial issues through IP jumping on these few India-related article which have been damaged beyond recognition. There are many copyvio issues, falsification of sources, dates (For example change of image description at Commons false date then changing the description of Wikipedia [6]) etc.... And it is impossible to correct as IPs keep returning without accountability (apparently same user, from two alternating places, now Zombie gunner since today). There have been several efforts at blocking the user [7], but this is never ending. I have asked for article protection here and I am attempting to clean up.पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Voices[edit]

are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silence Day (2nd nomination). I will be interested to see, if anyone can dig secondary coverage of the event in contrast to the bunch of primary sources from in-house-presses, which are currently being added, in bulk. WBGconverse 15:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism of user: Fowler&fowler in the article Architecture of India[edit]

Hi, a user called ‎Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) is now vandalising article Architecture of India, has reinstated a version from 2017 and cut down massive chunks of info without having any discussion, his particular target seems to be pre islamic/ non Islamic architecture which seem to show the user's agenda (please read his comments in the history tab), i request senior members to intervene and stop this user from doing so. Zombie gunner (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have commented at Talk:Architecture_of_India#Issue_of_UNDUE_and_OR. I would like to assure you that this is not vandalism. When a lot of contentious content is added, it is normal to have editors try to remove it first. We then discuss and proceed. Please also read WP:AGF about assuming good faith and not commenting on editors' motives.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Copying my post at the Talk:Architecture of India, page: "Consider the textbook: Harle, James C. (1994). The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-06217-5.. This is a widely used textbook. A reader of the Wikipedia article Architecture of India should see the same broad organization as in the book (the architecture part, that is). They shouldn't be waylaid with OR sourced to dubious sources, such as that added in this remarkable edit by पाटलिपुत्र involving copying from the Stupa article and adding to the 37 citations in the article to the source: Buddhist architecture by Le Huu Phuoc, published by Grafikol, a personal website of Le Huu Phuoc. And who is Le Huu Phuoc? According to his Amazon website, "Le Huu Phuoc had an extensive education and practice in architecture as an architectural CAD draftsman and architect of his own house. Over the years he has been immersing himself in photography and writing with three published books" Again, he had 37 citations. In contrast, James Harle, Keeper of Eastern Art at the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, and author of The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, Yale University Press, has 2 citations. Now you know why I reduced the article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Point taken Fowler&Fowler. Ironically, I was trying to clean up the article myself from the falsification and copyvios added over many months by a jumping IP [8], now calling himself "Zombie gunner" above. Regarding my edits on the architecture of the 500 BC-500 CE period, I was not aware that Grafikol was Le Huu Phuoc's own publishing house. His book "Buddhist architecture" is actually quite good, I have owned it for a while... he references extensively traditional scolarship, so I have the possibility go into that to get proper referencing, and there is your source above. So the onus is on me to get proper references for the pre-500 CE part, I'll see what I can do. Of course, I do not object to your removals for the time being. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Individual reassessment of Pitru Paksha[edit]

Pitru Paksha, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Tamravidhir (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Working on article on Durga puja[edit]

Greetings to all. I have been working on the article on Durga Puja for the past few days. It would be of great help if those interested in the topic amongst you could provide with respective inputs to improve the article. --Tamravidhir (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Roopmati - needs source describing it as folktale[edit]

Or legend, whichever is appropriate. I haven't reverted the new editor who added unsourced material at the top of the lead. I spent 5 minutes searching but only found snippets. Thanks.Doug Weller talk 15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: This clearly appears to be disruptive. Reverted. --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It is concerning that that edit was live since 30 July 2019, an instance of how such edits may go unnoticed. Thank you bringing this to notice! --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It was a good faith edit, not disruptive. The editor is correct, Roopmati is a fictional character and her story appears in books of folktales. The article should make that clear. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure that may be the scenario User:Doug Weller. I am open to WP:RS, but as far as my limited knowledge informs me Roopmati did exist but with time she became entangled in popular regional folklores, thereby mingling history with local folk traditions. Such mingling of popular folklore has also happened with other women such as Jodha Bai (standing disputed as wife of either Akbar/Jahangir) and Chand Bibi. --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Possibly, but in any case the article portrays her story as historical ad thus violates NPOV. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I won't say it violates NPOV but the section on her life is certainly unreferenced. I will look for source. --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I have been preoccupied with a few other articles and have not been able to devote attention and time to the Roopmati article. I have added a bibliography section with sources however, which have good enough content to rework the article. If meanwhile any user wishes to look into the article and rework it, the same shall indeed be helpful. --Tamravidhir (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)