Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 76

Sarvaiya

Hi all, I'd like to direct this WikiProject's attention to Sarvaiya. For the past 12 months there appears to have been a lot of edit warring between IPs and users, sometimes new or inexperienced users. The core of the edit war seems to come down to whether or not the sources in question are reliable. As this is not my area of expertise I thought this WikiProject would be best positioned to determine how this article should be shaped, which sources are reliable, and which version of the article should stand. — Czello 12:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the article could do with someone taking a close look at it. There has been reversion back and forth between two versions: one that described the Sarvaya as a Rajput clan, and the other – as Koli group. The sources for the latter seem to be better, but that side isn't help by the fact that the IPs that have consistently been pushing it appear to be socks of a banned Koli ethnonationalist. – Uanfala (talk) 12:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

There's also a question around whether sources from the British Raj are reliable. My gut says they need to be taken on a case-by-case basis, while an IP seems to want to blanket disqualify them. Again, I defer to this WikiProject's experience in such matters. — Czello 13:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

New parliament building

Input requested at Talk:New Parliament House, New Delhi#Name change, again to build consensus for an RM. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 06:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Villages in India

I've noticed that sometimes Indian villages are created in the format "Name Village". Some examples can be seen at Category:Villages in Amritsar district. So are the villages called "Village" or is it just the name any any necessary disambiguation. Using a couple of examples. Should Abdal Village remain at that title or should it be Abdal, Amritsar or Abdal, Punjab? (Ah. Bad choice as Abdal Village and Abdal, Punjab are duplicates. I'll redirect the first to the second for now. Should Hamja Village remain as is or become Hamja, Hamja, Amritsar or Hamja, Punjab? Should Chande Village remain at that title or should it be Chande, Amritsar or Chande, Punjab? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Afaik, unlike US, there is no consistent naming guidelines for living spaces of India. Every time, every village gets a disambiguator seen most appropriate by the creator, leading to several duplicates, some of which I fixed myself. When the same name/word is used for a town, sub-division (tehsil), and district, it is often unclear what one article is about. Often, the distinct information on the district and town would be merged together because it is unknown what the article is about. That feels like NYC & NYS merged together because the scope of article is unclear. Further issues arise due to variations of spellings, official spellings generally follow a (semi-)IAST system (but not always), while unofficial spellings arise due to pronunciation or other reasons, and then there is one British spelling that they created due to their inability to pronounce Indian words. So, it is very common for a town to have 2 or more articles, each based on the different spelling. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. My biggest concern is that "Village" disambiguator. I looked through the archives and saw some discussion but no real conclusions. There was a guideline at one point but it got deleted due to it be created by a banned user. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that is quite common in Indian media and perhaps official-speak to include "village" as though it were part of the actual name, but really it isn't - unlike say the UK, where "Village" often designates the older part of what are now sprawling suburbs or small towns (Wimbledon, Hampstead etc). Afaik, the smallest official divisions are the tehsil and mandal, but these are larger than "village" typically means. I'd say we should not include "village" in the article title, unless that seems to reflect actual usage. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Here in India, village is just any rural area. Horizontally, the more urbanised & larger version would be a town, and then a city. Vertically, it is the lowest level of governance through the Gram Sabha. A large village or cluster of small ones may have a Gram Panchayat. Several Panchayats together form a Community development block. Horizontally, blocks are on the same level as city governments (nagar panchayat, municipalities, municipal corporations) and no city is ever inside a block. Blocks and cities combine to form Sub-division (aka tehsil, circle, mandal). Sub-divisions are smaller administrative units of districts. Many districts together make up Divisions. Divisions are units of the state. Cities may often lay across multiple sub-divisions or even districts, but not states. All other units mentioned above typically are wholly contained within the larger administrative unit. I've never ran into exceptions on this statement, but I won't rule out the possibility. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but, again, this doesn't really address the question of naming. How often is "Foo village" actually the official or WP:COMMONNAME? Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

More often than not, "Foo village" is not the commonname. Even if there are multiple villages with same name, we would know from the context which one it is about, typically the one that is in the same district. To refer to a village in other district, we use "village, district" format. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 03:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I doubt Foo village is the COMMONNAME. Sometimes Village Foo is used, but this is not a rule. The articles in the cat above should probably be renamed. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 11:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I think a reasonable guideline to follow would be [[<Village>, <State>]] generally, and [[<Village>, <District>]] for cases where there are multiple villages of the same name in the state. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 11:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That seems to be the standard in other places I have seen. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 09:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, <village>, <district>, <state> would be a better option, as many village names are repeated over different districts of same state, and for consistency, but I'd take any uniform disambiguation. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:S. Jaishankar#Requested move 18 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:S. Jaishankar#Requested move 18 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment in India

Calling for your input at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 20#Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment in India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It has been relisted here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Extortion by eunuchs in India

Does someone want to have a look at this new article (as yet unreviewed), regarding scope, factuality, and whether the content could sensibly be merged somewhere? At first glance this seems like an unsuitably broad-brush topic to me, with a number of peripheral issues thrown in. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elmidae: I'd say that's an accurate characterization; the article is stitching together news stories into a far broader topic than it is reasonable to use those sources for; note also that while the sources do use the term "extortion", it is not an accurate characterization of the phenomenon even as they describe it; harassment, and begging, are more accurate characterizations. I'd say such an article needs to be built around at least a couple of sources that are overviews of the topic, rather than isolated news reports. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

At best it merits a paragraph in Hijra, or in an overview article on extortion/harassment in India if there is something like that. In its current state, I'd label it a POV fork of Hijra. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Copying this from my talk page:

• I have read Vanamonde93's reply that he/she mentioned. I have linked artivcles where Eunuchs killed two newborn babies, and also killed a man for not paying money. I don't understand why he says that is not extortion but harassment, begging. Most likey they don't check all sources properly. I have also mentioned about arrests, public protests.

I didn't mention vernacular media as I found English media.

These are the articles I didn't mentioned, but linking here.

Why eunuchs are allowed to extort money? asks Lokayukta-https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/why-eunuchs-are-allowed-to-extort-money-asks-lokayukta/articleshow/35749004.cms Lokayukta is government.

As I have linked many articles, where the name of the topic is extortion, here the word extortyion is used within the article not heading.--India's estimated 50,000 eunuchs are at a crossroads of survival in their shadowy half-world of superstition and extortion. --https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1983/08/07/indias-eunuchs-have-fallen-in-esteem/7779c281-15a0-4fac-8b7f-69db60d4d17c/ Rambo XTerminator (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• The problem, as before, is synthesis. The sources are not providing an overview of "extortion by eunuchs in India", they are examining specific instances of extortion. They cannot be used for a general article. The Washington Post source is better, but the content therein belongs at Hijra, not at the title being discussed here. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• I would agree that the take on the topic is too synthetic. Pulling together all kinds of news reports on "crimes done by group X" has historically been treated very carefully on WP (also for obvious WP:NPOV and sometimes WP:BLP reasons), except where the topic has already been synthesized for us by 3rd parties. Even if that is the case, the necessity for splitting off from an existing article needs to be demonstrated, which I am not seeing here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
• Draftified. I will go as far as to argue that anybody who writes "Hijras are Indian eunuchs who extort money from passengers on trains" needs to be topic-banned either for trolling or for incompetency. The line is a blatant misrepresentation of source, and close to hate-speech. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Pls review & approve draft article on Dungti

I submitted a draft article Draft:Dungti. Please review, approve and move it to the main namespace. Thanks. 218.186.168.177 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, no. Much of the information is inaccurate. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Please people in the pro article on Mahe in Ladakh

I have just created a draft article Draft:Mahe, Ladakh as an IP. I registered users to please review, edit, approve and move it to main namespace. Thank you. 218.186.168.177 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Will approve. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL on Andhra Pradesh+

Due to an announcement from CM Jagan that he wants to move capital to Visakhapatnam from Amaravati "in a few months", The Hindu article, people are assuming it's done and are flocking to edit Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Visakhapatnam, List of capitals of Andhra Pradesh. Appreciate some more watchers for the time being — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox film has an RFC

Template:Infobox film has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

FAR

Nathu La has been nominated for a featured article review, please see here Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nathu La/archive1 Desertarun (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Uttarakhand

Over 300 articles use the spelling "Uttrakhand" (missing A). Is this a valid alternative spelling, or do they need to be corrected? Certes (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is not a typo, but a spelling that is probably somewhat reflective of the Hindi pronunciation. I don't know how acceptable it is in Indian English, but I believe it should be avoided on Wikipedia, because it may be confusing for international readers. Still, I would like to hear what others think. This issue isn't confined to the spelling of Uttarakhand though, it's a wider phenomenon, which for example also gives variants like Gujarati/Gujrati.

I'm not sure if mass replacement will be a good idea: in my experience, this spelling on Wikipedia is usually a hallmark of hastily (and often sloppily) written text, so there's a case for keeping it as an indicator of potentially problematic content. – Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that it should be avoided. Also agree that a mass replacement is not necessary because we have a redirect from Uttrakhand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. The links via redirect Uttrakhand can be seen as NOTBROKEN, but I was more interested in the displayed spelling, whether in a wikilink or as plain text. The large number of appearances suggests that it may be an acceptable spelling; if so then I'll leave it and move on to the many other, more clear-cut typos. Certes (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ik Jind Ik Jaan#Requested move 20 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ik Jind Ik Jaan#Requested move 20 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Government Polytechnics of Odisha has been nominated for renaming

Category:Government Polytechnics of Odisha has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. This nomination also includes categories of "Government polytechnics in Uttar Pradesh", "Polytechnic colleges in Karnataka", and "Polytechnic colleges in West Bengal" to bring them in line with the parent category Category:Technical universities and colleges in India. Please help me figure out if this is the right course of action. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hoshangabad#Requested move 5 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hoshangabad#Requested move 5 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Kalash people‎

Could someone take a look at this article? There is a low grade edit war in progress as to whether the Kalash are Indian or Indo-Aryan people and I can't figure out which one is correct. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Let me have a look! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

They are Indo-Aryan people, not at all Indian! Ekdalian (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello RegentsPark, since the article is now a part of my Watchlist, I shall monitor the changes. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Sarayu river

Can anyone take a look at Sarayu - apparently there is confusion over what exactly "Sarayu" river refers to, and the article is largely an unsourced mess. utcursch | talk 09:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The actual page of the river is Sarju. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The Sarju page is much newer (2016) than the Sarayu page (2005), so Sarju is the fork. CMD (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. But in terms of the content, it is the other way around. Sarju is a proper geographical article, while the old "Sarayu" page didn't know what it was talking about. (Well, it is mythology and tradition, but even that wasn't sourced to any reasonable extent.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

POV editing at articles involving India/Pakistan issues

I've reverted these 3 contributions by new user XI8Z (talk · contribs) at List of administrative units of Pakistan by Human Development Index and List of Indian states and union territories by Human Development Index. I don't have time to deal with this right now, can someone monitor and do what's needed? Please don't bite, and AGF, but if this is a SPA/RGW account then we have to be vigilant and act accordingly. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a wider problem here, which is that very many users use maps produced by the Indian government (or the Pakistani government, which is equally troublesome but less frequent) rather than ones reflecting internationally accepted boundaries; that makes revert the first of such edits difficult, because while an inaccurate map is better than none, you're still reverting to an inaccurate version. I can't help but feel we need wider standards here, similar to what we apply on Kashmir-related maps; but I certainly don't have the stomach for starting it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point; and extending that, iirc Commons has no (or fewer/different kind) of reliability/NPOV policies, and I think you can upload pretty much whatever you want. Not sure how to address that here, but seems like it is a factor. As for reverting to an inaccurate map, that's no better; maybe we just shouldn't have a map then; or at least, not until we an find or create a better one. One doesn't need map skills; the WP:Graphics lab is an excellent resource, and can help come up with new maps upon request (within the contraints of availability and volunteer editing there, as everywhere on the project) so if you know what kind of map is needed, just formulate a request there, and it may well be fulfilled. Mathglot (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Since it seems like this project has a pretty cool infobox, could anyone share the code with me of how you guys made the collapsed tabs like workgroups because I am currently a member of an inactive project which I would like to revive and a good infobox is a great way to start. I just need the code and I am not so at it, I tried looking at the source text but it gave me a migraine so hopefully one of you can help me out Crainsaw (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you link the box you are talking about? Mathglot (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

RSN RfC on reliability of The Wire

There is an ongoing RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard regarding The Wire. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: The Wire (India). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:AN § Procedural quirk in WP:GS/CASTE

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AN § Procedural quirk in WP:GS/CASTE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gujarat under the Mughal Empire#Requested move 15 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gujarat under the Mughal Empire#Requested move 15 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 06:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Waris Panjab De

Waris Panjab De is in the news [1]. Calling for volunteers to expand this draft article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Reverting spammy edits

Can someone revert the edits made by this user Lastmanwor. He/she has been spamming many Bihar-related articles adding a wikilink to their favourite MP, which in almost all the cases have no business of being there. Since there have been too many edits, I hope someone can help in reverting their edits. Thanks, extra999 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done I had noticed that too. I thought of asking for help at ANI (some people have scripts that can mass revert a given editor's edits), but I reckoned it would be less bother to do it myself. It took me about 10 minutes to revert the 60 or so spam edits. – Uanfala (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this one Wikipedia:Kill-It-With-Fire — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:39, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Fort (Precinct)

This article Fort (Mumbai precinct) deserves more than what it currently holds.

Also there appear to be few inaccuracies as well. The area of Fort, is essentially area of old Bombay Fort and not fort George. It also houses, variety of important buildings in city of Mumbai.

This are is essentially original Bombay - that was the seed of the current city. Chirag (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move for Medieval Kangleipak

See Talk:Medieval Kangleipak. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 18:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Need Assistance for Infobox Indian state or territory.

Hi! As I am currently working on the {{Infobox Indian state or territory}} template ( pretty close to complete ), greatly appreciate your help in developing and improving it. I am particularly interested in identifying any errors or inaccuracies in the code or the information displayed, as well as suggestions for how to make the template more useful and informative for readers.

If you have experience working with templates or are familiar with the topic of Indian states and territories, I would greatly appreciate your input and feedback. Please review the code and parameters of the template and let me know if you find any issues or areas for improvement. Additionally, if you have any ideas for how to enhance the template or make it more user-friendly, I would be grateful for your suggestions.

Thank you in advance for your help and support in this project. Also I would like to know what should be the next step after RFC. Tojoroy20 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge Hindola and Jhulan Purnima Articles

Inviting users to join in discussion on Talk:Hindola - about merging Hindola and Jhulan Purnima articles. Chilicave (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Avoiding deletion on Bot (caste)

Hello. I have recently been looking for articles in need of expanded sources and have come across Bot (caste), which has multiple tags related to quantity and reliability of sourcing as well as notability since 2020. I do not really have any experience in this area so I decided to bring it to the attention of this wiki-project. If these issues are not addressed it is likely that I or another editor will nominate the article for deletion. Since the article seems important to Indian culture, I was hoping that some of the editors over here might be able to save the article. Good luck! -- Lenny Marks (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

List of battles involving Jats

This article is in severe need of clean-up as according to Wikipedia's manual of style and formatting. ThethPunjabi (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• Should it be reformatted to resemble an article like List of battles involving the Ottoman Empire? It seems to be the only "list of battles" type article that pertains to an ethnic group, rather than a distinct political group or era, so I wonder if the article really needs to exist at all? Evansknight (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Evansknight True, this article may need to be deleted. I put an AfD request in. Please vote on it and share your views. ThethPunjabi (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi

The merge discussion here Talk:Ayya Vaikundar#Proposed merge of Historical Vaikundar into Ayya Vaikundar. Ayya Vaikundar is about the 19-century founder of Ayyavazhi, a new religious movement in India, but you cannot make head and tails of what the article is even about in the first place if you come across it. It appears COI editing has ensured this article remains split into a hagiography versus a historical account - Historical Vaikundar. Should this not be the other way around? With the primary article being about the person, i.e., something like Jesus and Jesus in Christianity or a merger as proposed above. Help is needed here, the current articles appears completely unintelligible to an average reader. Gotitbro (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oh wow, I just did a little looking around those articles and the associated ones, and tbh it seems like all of the articles having anything to do with Ayyavazhi are 1. not very clearly written and need a serious overhaul 2. rely almost entirely on sources internal to the faith rather than academic sources. definitely needs work, and the merge would be a good place to start. Evansknight (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, there are tons of stubs for this topic, most of them non-inteliigible to the average reader. The problem is even the main topic i.e. the founder is not upto scratch. Gotitbro (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chronikhiles, Dāsānudāsa, Redtigerxyz, and Kpddg: Further inviting WikiProject Hinduism members for a comment. Gotitbro (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree that the article presently called Ayya Vaikundar should be the historical account of the religious leader. An article perhaps named Ayya Vaikundar in Ayyavazhi would be suitable for his religious account and role within Ayyavazhi mythology. Chronikhiles (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Ayya Vaikundar, the main article should be the historical account of the founder of Ayyavazhi similar to Jesus or Muhammad. The hagiographic details can be mentioned as a sub-section with a main article on Ayya Vaikundar in Ayyavazhi mythology. Ayya Vaikundar and many articles of Ayyavazhi mythology, suffer from POV pushing. Certain editors, especially one, has been reverted by the community, however continue to push POV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Should we replace Infobox settlement with Infobox Indian state or territory in Indian states and union territories pages ?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus in favor of replacing {{Infobox settlement}} with {{Infobox Indian state or territory}} in Indian states and union territories pages. (non-admin closure) Levivich (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Should we replace Infobox settlement with Infobox Indian state or territory in Indian states and union territories pages ?

As India is a federal state ( arguably quasi-federal ), Indian states and union territories should have a wrapper for infobox which represents the democratic individuality, distribution of power and authority as well as the demographic, economic and political features of the division.

This infobox is customised for Indian states and union territories. It gives more specific, constant, described  and dedicated information about the federal subjects and union territories.

Template:Infobox Indian state or territory Tojoroy20 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Unless I'm sorely missing something, this makes sense, since an entire state/territory is not a "settlement" (a town/city).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Why? What does the wrapper do? There is no explanation here or at the documentation as to what the changes are, and as to why they necessitate using other code to call what is in the end infobox settlement anyway. CMD (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  @CMD, Thanks! for your comment.

  Things that are changed and more usable ( I think ):-

  > State legislative assembly, Legislative council and national Parliament's type , name and total number of seats, are added (more describe) and already Wikilinked.

  > More description and specific information on joining or formation dates and events.

  > Symbols of state are now customly added, which makes it very easy to provide or add the values.

  > Assembly seal, largest metropolitan area, parameters for whether the capital and largest city are the same, Coastline, HDI, Literacy and sex ratio with their year , rank and values are added. It suggested adding and providing the values in all uses.

  > As per the vast diversity of states and territories, it leaves some space to add other particular information.

  > The wrapper has many other small changes which make it more usable for INDIAN states and territories.

  > Also, it provides a similarity as well as an appearance among the Indian states and union territories.

  - Tojoroy20 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Is an RFC necessary for this? Only 36 pages would be affected, wouldn’t it? Perhaps can you create a sandbox for a state, that'd be useful — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay.. 36+ (as there are defunct ones like Andhra Pradesh (1956–2014) etc) but still very low numbers — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@DaxServer, I Appreciate your comment. But I don't understand exactly what you mean. Whether the infobox settlement should be replaced, there was no need for RFC, or there is no difference between replacing or not replacing. Tojoroy20 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Per SMcCandlish above, I do not see a formidable obstacle. An example might help to assess the magnitude of the change and its impact. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  @ Peter Southwood,You are correct that having an example can help to better understand the magnitude of the change and its potential impact. It maybe can provide a visual representation of the change and it can help us to determine if there are any unforeseen challenges that need to be addressed. I will make sure to provide an example in the documentation subpage, to assist in the assessment process.

  - Thanks for your suggestions, stand by. Tojoroy20 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Why confine this to states and territories? Articles on lower-level administrative units and populated places could also benefit from a dedicated infobox. I know such a conversion would be a lot more work, but it's ultimately better for the project. These articles all use {{infobox settlement}}, and that's basically a meta-template that leaves a large number of layout, linking and formatting decisions to the individual article, with the end result that each infobox instance will have to contain a lot of wikicode that's sometimes difficult to edit, and consistency between articles is practically impossible to maintain. – Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for your suggestions. Yes, it is a very nice proposal to have an Infobox for all other state/UT sub-divisional regions-like divisions, districts, sub districts ( Tehsil, taluk, mandal, circle, sub division ).

  According to me, we can make a separate Infobox for sub-divisional regions instead of making an integrated one. It would be easier to make and use, according to every type of subregion. Using a dedicated Infobox for sub divisional regions would help standardize the layout, linking, and formatting decisions across these articles, making them easier to edit and improving the reader's experience. It would also make it easier for editors to maintain consistency between articles.

  We can discuss further on this, creating a separate or integrated Infobox for the sub-divisional regions.

  Although creating an integrated Infobox using a wrapper can be complex and problematic. For an integrated one, we can create an entirely new. Tojoroy20 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Aman.kumar.goel -- B. R. Ambedkar

Rewrites made by user:Aman.kumar.goel to the Constitution of India should be examined. Manojarorap (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Gangtok

I have nominated Gangtok for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 18:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sanskrit search please

Hi all, please can someone assist with searching in Sanskrit regarding Pushpavati, Tarinidevi, Shubhapradha (Rashtrakuta Queen) and Jayalakshmidevi? I have no knowledge of Sanskrit and the creator has not provided any sources. All 4 are at AfD currently and, previously, 4 very similar unsourced articles by the same user had already been deleted for WP:V issues. The only reason I am asking is because another user has commented on the AfD that there definitely will be significant coverage in Sanskrit but, without evidence, I don't feel comfortable withdrawing the AfD and allowing the unverifiable information to stay in mainspace. As far as I am aware, these may even be hoaxes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Based on a cursory search, there seems to be almost no English-language reference work on any of the queens named, although there is plenty on their kingdoms, husbands, and sons. I am loathe to assign the label of "hoax" without obtaining more information, but it seems unusual that so much scholarly work would exist on topics like the Chalukya dynasty, but no mention at all be made of known, named, queens. The problem is that there are no sources listed in the Marathi version of the article, and the sources listed in the Bahasa version of the article are, if you take a look at them, utterly bizarre. While the individuals may in fact be real and noteworthy, it is the responsibility of the person who created the article to provide the sources, and if none of forthcoming, then unfortunately I'd say the articles should be deleted until such time as sources can be found to support them.Evansknight (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Searched for Tarinidevi and Jayalakshmidevi with several variants as well as IAST/Devanagari spellings (e.g. Tāriṇī and तारिणी): unable to find anything. Given the article creator's history, at least these two likely to be hoax. Will check the others when I get some time. utcursch | talk 08:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Utcursch and Evansknight thank you so much for your diligence! :) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I've reasons to believe that the creator (and User:Shravani Chatterjee) is a sock of User:Kairakairav. Will add some evidence to the SPI case once I get time. utcursch | talk 10:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Utcursch: do you know what the Sanskrit forms of Shubhapradha (Rashtrakuta Queen) and Pushpavati are and can you assist please? I'm quite keen to establish whether or not these are hoaxes as I am concerned that they are going to be merged and redirected to their husbands, however, if the articles are hoaxes, I really don't want this to happen as it will ruin the husbands' articles. I'm happy to do some searching in Gbooks myself. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Shubhapradha is शुभप्रद and Pushpavati is पुष्पावती, I believe Evansknight (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I'll see if I stumble upon something. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

These are obvious hoaxes. Added my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pushpavati and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shubhapradha (Rashtrakuta Queen). Also updated my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayalakshmidevi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarinidevi. utcursch | talk 20:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this. I'm so sorry that this vandal has wasted so much of your time on this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Translate?

User talk:Rahul Jadaun might need someone to translate into Hindi.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Help verifying Indian places

hello, I'm working on trying to verify pages that have had no references for many years. I have a particular problem trying to find basic information about Indian villages - can you help me understand what would be a reliable source for verification? For example Chekurapadu has not had references for many years. What would I use to verify that it exists, please? JMWt (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @JMWt I've added the refs for this village. You can use Census data, ex- https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q42501043 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur with using census data. I was able to create pages for Punjabi villages using census data. You can also try looking for notable news stories online relating to the locality, try searching in the local language/script if nothing comes up in English (perhaps consider installing the Google Translate browser extension to make your life easier in this regard). Happy hunting! ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bhandara (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bhandara (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Indian state or territory has an RFC

Template: Infobox Indian state or territory has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Tojoroy20 (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:COMMONALITY vs MOS:TIES vs WP:LAKH

There is a discussion concerning which variety of English to use - MOS:COMMONALITY vs MOS:TIES with MOS:LAKH as a central point. It started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#MOS:COMMONALITY but has now moved to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_clarifying_whether_commonality_or_ties_should_be_preferred_when_choosing_terminology. Please feel free to comment there.  Stepho  talk  09:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Lt Colonel George Meares Farmer

1842 marriage to Anna Maria Michael in Ludhiana looking for children if they had any He was returned to Great Britain around 1849/1850 wounded and on his own started over i Llanidloes Montgomeryshire and there after married Sophia Parkinson and had a son Charles Tempest Farmer 1855 ad and a daughter Eda Louise in 1857 and another son in 1860 Herbert Theodore?death 1863 2001:8003:EC23:AD00:2894:87ED:6296:DBE2 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

yeah... this isn't really the appropriate forum for this. Might I suggest a genealogy message board? Evansknight (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Varna system in SI castes articles

As per modern sources, in South India Brahmins, Shudras and Dalits only. Some low castes successfully got Sanskritised and got their preferred Varna status during the British Era. SI Upper castes have been classified as Sat-Shudras to differentiate from the lower caste Shudras. Brahmins' population is approximately 6%, and the rest 94% are Shudras and Dalits. Do we still need to mention shudra classification in the SI castes articles instead of creating an article to describe the issue? Because most SI castes articles have been using the same duplicated content. Practically, the 4-fold tier did not exist in SI and they (Except Brahmins and Untouchables) technically became shudras in the classification. I welcome your opinions and thoughts regarding the matter. Kautilyapundit (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If authentic scholarly sources say something about the varna, we include it. Otherwise, we don't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Shall we create an article for this topic? South India's social system is far way from the North. Btw, I like your name, Kautilya! Glad to meet you... Kautilyapundit (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Glad to meet you too :-) I am not confident of finding any good sources for such a topic. Even the Caste system in India page doesn't have good sources for describing the present state of affairs. (It covers up for the failing by discussing a lot of "history".) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The article looks good. But it focused more on the caste system. The Varna system is the biggest topic. We do have sources to develop an article. The sources are already existing in many SI caste articles. The sources were talking about why South Indians' priestly (Similar castes of Ambalavasi), Military (Similar castes of Nair), and Merchant (Similar castes of Nagarathar) castes have been classified as Shudras. Some talk about the Sanskrition process of some castes (Arya Vaisya and Vanniyar). Moreover, NI Shudras are not the same as SI Shudras as per the source. I assume you do know that the 4-fold system didn't exist in SI but practically. Lemme know your thoughts. Kautilyapundit (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Assembly constituency intro style

Hi, can someone suggest me a phrasing for intro of Indian assembly constituencies....

Also to add does the intro on Visakhapatnam West Assembly constituency looks fine so that I can proceed with ce works on other assembly constituencies too for Andhra Pradesh. I was guiding to here from the Wikipedia Teahouse. Thank you. 456legend(talk) 15:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I like "XYZ is one of the 123 constituencies of the ABC Legislative Assembly, in India". Don't put the words "Assembly constituency" in the bold section. For the other sections of constituency articles, see MOS:INDCONST. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 Oh sorry, I haven't noticed your message here. So you mean for example it should be named here as Visakhapatnam West Assembly constituency instead of Visakhapatnam West Assembly constituency. 456legend(talk) 14:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That's what i meant, but that's a minor issue. I agree with removing the other assembly constituencies of the same LS constituency from the lead. That information should be present in the LS constituency article. P.S. you should consider subscribing to this section or watchlisting this page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox for members of former princely states

Hi all, as you might know that princely states of India under the British empire were all merged into India or Pakistan upon independence, but their members retained the royal titles. However, later on royal titles were abolished in the 1970s but members of those families retained their hereditary titles even though unrecognised by the government. Now, I've seen a multitude of templates used for such persons: {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox officeholder}}, {{Infobox royalty}}, {{Infobox pretender}}. I believe that each class of royals, the pre-1970s, and post-1970s, should have a consistent set of infoboxes. So, we must decide on one of the 4 alternatives available to us, or find a better suited 5th infobox. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

tbh, I think {{Infobox pretender}} is overkill, there seems to me no reason the {{Infobox royalty}} can't be used as long as it is clearly indicated on the infobox, as it is for Mukarram Jah. that the position held is titular only. Evansknight (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I just saw an editor switching over to {{Infobox pretender}} at Ajeya Pratap Singh, and honestly the infobox looks very much unwarranted there. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I mean, based on the length of that article and the lack of information on him, I'd argue that the notability there is borderline. why not just put a list of the titleholders on the page for Manda? In fact, that seems like something that most of the former princely states/zamindari articles might benefit from, having a list of titleholders, if they don't already. Evansknight (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Draft

Can someone have a look on this Draft Draft:Muzamil_Mahmood_Dar and provide the suggestions. KashmirValleyEditor (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election § Candidates

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election § Candidates. 103.197.115.107 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ahimsa in Jainism

Ahimsa in Jainism has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Infobox Indian state legislative assembly constituency

Template:Infobox Indian state legislative assembly constituency has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Lok Sabha Constituency. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tojoroy20 (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Indian state or territory has an RFC

Template: Infobox Indian state or territory has an RFC for possible consensus. Interested editors are invited to participate in the discussion by providing their comments on the discussion page. It should be noted that the discussion remains unsorted unless a consensus is reached. Therefore, we request all concerned editors to contribute their valuable insights and participate in the discussion. Thank you. Tojoroy20 (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Mumbra article

Could people take a look at the article on Mumbra? This is a suburb of Mumbai. Various users have taken to adding what look like wildly inaccurate population numbers, and to the usual arguing about the languages, scripts, etc. Abductive (reasoning) 02:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sanket Goel

I need some help with this draft (Draft:Sanket Goel) which has been declined several times. I've worked on it and improved citations and stuff. Need advice on what to do next. Thanks. Shashy 922 (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Atique Ahmed#Requested move 16 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Atique Ahmed#Requested move 16 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 10:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Operation Blue Star

Can somebody look into the discussion regarding figure of casualties during the Operation Blue Star for its Wikipedia page. The discussion is active on the talk page. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Can someone look into the situation. It has become a stalemate of an other editor and I arguing unable to reach a consensus. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Requesting help for expanding Dumal

Hi all, I figured this would be a good place to start to see about expanding the sourcing for Dumal, an article about a rural caste in Odisha. If you have any leads on references for this article, please share on the talk page (or add to the article yourself). I've also been discussing this article with User:Ashutoshkalta823, who has lots of knowledge on the topic. Thanks! Wracking ^💬 05:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Article contribution

I urge all editors, especially those who are interested in political articles, to write and develop liberalism in India, conservatism in India, and socialism in India articles properly. These three articles are poorly written. Kindly write these three articles properly. 2405:201:800B:6079:18E:2861:F214:9CD7 (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

West Bengal and Kolkata For GA or FA Status

Hi Editors, I noticed that West Bengal and Kolkata lost their FA nominations. These articles were FA status few years ago but unfortunately both these aticles lost that status. I humbled request editors to contribute these two articles and make them GA or FA status back. Thank You! 2405:201:800B:6079:5932:2986:EBA6:3A48 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

4th battle of Panipat

There is no historic proof of this nor do the sources in this articles themselves ever site that something called Fourth Battle of Panipat ever occurred. They don't describe a full fledge battle. Just a mere conflict of interest, not even a battle. What has come now is anyone can claim something has occured and use selective lines from some source to claim that something that never happened has actually occured? This is totally historically inaccurate and fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:Notable and should be deleted. The term Fourth Battle of Panipat isn't used in any WP:RS or historical context either but a 2023 joinee (no PA just saying) User:Ronnie Macroni is making up fictional battles related to India like this all across Wikipedia and they don't meet the basic requirements of being encyclopedic historic articles and all meets criteria for deletion. Please prevent fictional battle from becoming Wikipedia articles, this is Wikipedia not wikia/fandom also Fourth Battle of Panipat lacks any credibility unlike the First Battle of Panipat, 2nd and 3rd ones and should be deleted! Dilbaggg (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn’t a fictional battle. It happened. It just wasn’t that big of a battle like other battles of Panipat. A better name would be Sack of Panipat. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no mention of a battle, let alone a full fledged battle at all and it describes a mere raid and conflict of interest, non of the sources in the article describes any battle or siege , nothing supports non WP:Neutral statements like "Sikh Victory", it is purely WP:OR and the article writer has written other inaccurate articles such as Shafi's Campaign against the Sikhs and a lot more (72 articles here): [2] all of which are drafty. If we go like this anyone can post an article without consensus and misrepresent a few unrelated sources to make any article they feel like making Wikipedia totally unreliable and leaving a lot of mess to clean up later! Hope neutral project members help out. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Love Jihad has an RFC

Love Jihad has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 71.201.78.227 (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Collab?

Hi, I am currently working on cleaning up articles under this Category:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh. Interested users can approach me on my talk page to collaborate, and you can also view the current status of the cleanup here: User:456legend#Cleanup Drives - Current. Thank you. 456legend(talk) 07:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

There are currently 73 unreferenced BLPs of people from India. It's important that all content in BLP articles are cited to reliable sources, and any help in adding citations is appreciated. A full list of unreferenced BLPs from India can be found here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The Kerala Story

Mayday! The Kerala Story is set to release in five days. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

A brief introduction to the issue, along with a TV discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

So are you trying to popularise it or defame it?-2406:7400:98:E812:74A9:7C4D:D340:976C (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Love jihad

Please add instances of Love jihad to that article as mentioned here.-2406:7400:98:E812:74A9:7C4D:D340:976C (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Someone please start an RfC for the same. I have no idea about it-2406:7400:98:E812:641B:4F0D:329D:B41C (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I've started an RfC here now about some instances. Please take part in it.-2406:7400:98:2CA:E0DB:17F5:DF16:6A7F (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Andhra Pradesh is revamped for improved collaboration

I am happy to report that the project page is revamped to show the Hot Articles list, Article alerts and Popular articles by signing up on respective bot configuration pages. First two are already active and the Popular articles will become active when the bot refreshes the page in a week's time. Apart from this Top active editors information on weekly, monthly, yearly basis is available through Quarry queries. For more information and links, please see the project page. I hope these updates will help improve the collaboration of contributors to Andhra Pradesh Project pages. Arjunaraoc (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Great work. Keep it up. All the best.. :)

Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@AshLin, Thanks for your response. Based on my study, I did not find any WikiProject India coordination activity. Are there any departments of the project that are still active? Are there any proposals to increase the activity? Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@ Arjunaraoc, not sure, I have just got back to editting after a really long Wikibreak. No issue. Tag me, if you need my participation. Presently, I am undertaking cleanup of all unassessed or ??? class articles on the Wikipedia 1.0 summary for WikiProject India. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on Draft

Hi! Just curious what you think of what I've drafted as a revised version. I think all the sourcing should be good, do you think the subject is notable for inclusion here? Please see Draft: Aditya Tiwari I'd appreciate your feedback. Plushwiki21 (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

@Plushwiki21: The poetry collection is self-published and hardly reviewed; so the subject is not going to qualify as notable under WP:NAUTHOR. Going to be borderline under WP:GNG too since most of the biographical coverage is along the lines of "what was it like growing up queer in a small town in India?" rather than dealing with his poetry or activism. Abecedare (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! There is coverage for other work that the poet has done. Can you please help me with proper sourcing? I'd really appreciate your help. Plushwiki21 (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Asian Australians

Hi,

I am looking for members to join WikiProject Council/Proposals/Asian Australians.

I figured that some members of WikiProject India might want to help contribute to the proposed WikiProject.

Let me know if you are interested!

Thanks, AverageFraud (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Khalji_dynasty#Indo_muslim_nobility?

I'd like some experts to have a look at this section--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan

@Kautilya3: or anyone else, on 8 May 2023, Googleguy007 has removed a lot of content from the Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan article - please restore everything if it is as per the rules. I believe he is trying to push a POV by removing sourced content that was undisputed for a long time and which was brought up on the Love jihad conspiracy theory talk page some time ago.-1Firang (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

He has removed content from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article also recently which may need to be restored.-1Firang (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@1Firang: Firstly: the place to discuss the change would be at Talk:Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan, where you have not even raised the issue. Secondly: if you want to use this noticeboard to draw attention to an existing discussion, please do so through a neutrally worded notice. Thirdly: do not canvass individual editors to make an edit you desire while "noping" the editor you are complaining about. Abecedare (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

So, can I ping both?-1Firang (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Not if you don't want it to be used as further evidence of your relentless POV-pushing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: so how do I get someone to restore sourced content without being accused of POV pushing (I don't want to do it myself as that may also invite a POV pushing accusation)?-1Firang (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@1Firang: Please re-read my comment above carefully. All three points. And more broadly: your voluminous posts on the topic are getting to be disruptive. I'd advice that you gain experience by editing less contentious areas of wikipedia since currently you have a flawed understanding of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and several other policies and guidelines, and articles related to 'hot-topics' that you are editing are not the best place to learn by making errors. Abecedare (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare: How do I restore this, this, this, this and this without being sanctioned for doing so?-1Firang (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@1Firang: You don't. You instead present your policy and source based arguments on the article talkpage on why those edits, individually or collectively, should be reverted or modified. Again, I don't believe you are the right person to make the case and you'd be better off editing less fraught areas of wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Commentmy actual changes include; removing a paragraph long quote from a highly POV op-ed engaging in religious hatemongering from the lede , removing BLP violations targeting small local officials from the lede, removing information about 100 hindus willingly converting to islam from the lede, and removing a massive list of "incidents" which serves literally no purpose aside from scaremongering about muslims. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tamannaah#Requested move 4 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tamannaah#Requested move 4 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Ajit Mohan updates

Hello! On behalf of Indian technology executive Ajit Mohan, I've submitted a couple edit requests to update his biography, which was accepted via Articles for Creation in 2022.

More specifically, I've proposed a few additions and text relocations related to Hotstar and Meta India. Those requests are posted here and here.

Are any noticeboard followers willing to review and update the article on my behalf? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:R. Sundarrajan (director)#Requested move 4 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:R. Sundarrajan (director)#Requested move 4 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Manoj Mitta

I recently created a draft for Indian journalist and author Manoj Mitta. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023 Manipur violence/Archive 1#Requested move 6 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Manipur violence/Archive 1#Requested move 6 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Filmcompanion.in

Opinions are welcome at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Filmcompanion.in. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion articles on EPW

How reliable are these commentaries on Economic and Political Weekly? Ex: Kothari, Rita (2006). "RSS and Sindhi Hindus". Economic and Political Weekly. 41 (52): 5414–5415. ISSN 0012-9976. (from Sindhis article) I think these amount to author's opinion, wouldn't they? (Perhaps @Abecedare you know of these?) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The EPW publishes two types of articles: (1) standard research articles, which can be treated on par with others of their kind, and (2) commentary by academics, which, depending upon exactly what they are being cited for, would require in-text attribution. At a quick glance at the style of writing etc, the RSS and Sindhi Hindus appears to belong in the second category altough that should be checkabale since IIRC EPW does have explicit labels for the two categories. Abecedare (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Per their About Us page: Where other reputed journals publish either only comments on contemporary affairs or research papers, EPW is unique in that every week it publishes analysis of contemporary affairs side by side with academic papers in the social sciences... A unique aspect of EPW is that it is the only publication in the world that publishes both research in social sciences (in the "Special Articles" section) and informed comment on current affairs (in the "Commentary" section). @DaxServer: If you have easy access to the issue's table of contents, can you confirm that the Discussion section is part of the Commentary section, as seems common-sensical? Abecedare (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Setting aside the particulars of how EPW labels its research articles vs commentary, having now read it, I am struggling to see how RSS and Sindhi Hindus supports the wikipedia claim "Sindhi Hindus were an economically prosperous community in urban Sindh before partition" it is being cited for. The closest the article comes to saying something similar (afaict) is the single sentence, "It so happened that most of the wealthy in Sindh were Hindu", which is not the same and, in any case, that sentence is explicitly stated as an aside rather than a central point of the piece. The claim may well be true (I don't know either way) but it needs stronger sourcing in order to be retained. Abecedare (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis @Abecedare. I don't have any physical copies but just the index on EPW and JSTOR. Discussion section is separate from the Commentary section. A similar image also confirms the same. Thoughts? Are these the debates between the academics?

Thanks for looking into the citation for that statement. It confirmed my doubts on the verification. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 09:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaxServerEverywhere (talk • contribs)

@DaxServer: Yup, it's a (pretty snidely worded) debate between two academics. But since the cited ref does not (afaict) support the statement it is cited for, the rest of the analysis above is moot. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Farsh-i-chandani

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Farsh-i-chandani—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for feedback on keeping or removing image parameters in "{{Infobox Indian state or territory}}" template

Greetings,

As an important matter of discussion, there has been an ongoing debate on the inclusion of image parameters in the "{{Infobox Indian state or territory}}" template. Despite an extended dialogue on the template's talk page, a consensus was not reached regarding whether or not to keep the image parameters. As a result, an RfC was initiated to resolve the issue, however, due to a lack of comments, a conclusive decision could not be reached.

Therefore, we have transferred the discussion to this page and request the editors to provide their valuable opinions on the matter. The parameters in question include "image_skyline", "imagesize", "image_alt". We urge the editors to consider the previous discussions and comments made on the talk page and the RfC before expressing their views.

For further details, we recommend referring to the "Talk Page" and "RfC" discussions and comments. Thank you very much. Prarambh20 (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Remove, As states and union territories are federal administrative divisions and not cities or regions, I do not believe that the image parameters would be particularly useful in providing informative value to the infobox. It is worth noting that the location map of the state already fulfills the image needs of the infobox, replacing any additional images that may not add any significant value or census data. Moreover, in my experience, these image parameters are often misused, leading to cluttered and aesthetically unappealing infoboxes. Therefore, I strongly suggest removing the image parameters from the infobox altogether. If however, some editors deem these images essential, we could consider placing them elsewhere in the article while ensuring that the infobox remains clean and concise. I believe that removing the image parameters from the infobox would not negatively affect the quality of the article while simultaneously streamlining the information presented. Thank you. Prarambh20 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. We don’t need to fix something that is not broken. But removing the image parameter will create a problem: Delhi and Chandigarh. Both are cities as well as union territories. As cities their articles need images like all articles about cities of their level. But the modified template will not allow that. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's important to acknowledge that just because something is not broken, it doesn't mean that it should not be improved or changed. Sometimes It's essential to make decisions based on the importance of current needs. For instance, when considering cities like Delhi and Chandigarh, we can use a "Switch" that specifically tailors parameters to those two cities. Prarambh20 (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Frankly, I fail to see how it would be an improvement; there doesn’t seem to be a site-wide consensus regarding this. Some countries’ administrative divisions tend to not have them, but others’ do—and the ones in India’s immediate neighbourhood do (therefore, a decision here also affects contested areas like Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Aksai Chin etc). So that’s another problem that will be created, apart from Delhi and Chandigarh. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

  Firstly, it is important to note that the intention of this discussion is to gain consensus against or in favour of keeping the Perametares, that's why it was created. Secondly, while other countries may use similar parameters in their info boxes, it is important to acknowledge that each situation and context is unique, and decisions may vary accordingly.And lastly, this particular infobox cannot be used on Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh pages, as per an old discussion. I have discussed above my point of view on why removing the image parameters would be good for the info box.Prarambh20 (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Phoolan Devi

Hi WP:India, Talk:Phoolan Devi/GA1 is currently open and as nominator I wondered if anyone could give an opinion on the naming conventions for Phoolan Devi and her partner Vikram Singh Mallah. Currently after first mention Devi and Vikram are used respectively, which is perhaps inconsistent. The sources give a variety of options so I wanted to check what is best. I also have a couple of further questions (which go beyond the GA review), they are should there be more detail on caste politics and was her political career significant for anything in particular, since at least in English-language sources there is very little about it. Thanks for any help, Mujinga (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It passed as a GA and is now at Wikipedia:Peer review/Phoolan Devi/archive1 in case anyone is interested, thanks Mujinga (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible edit war

I restored this edit to the Mahesh Bhatt article as I believe it is important information (it was removed by Atlantic306) but I don't want an edit war. Is what I added fine or does it need tweaking?-1Firang (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Discuss on the article talk page. And don't make unfounded claims of edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I have been told here that what I restored does not comply with the rules. Please help in making it comply with the rules.-1Firang (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, well I'm telling you that your relentless canvassing, asking other people to edit for you, and refusal to actually engage with people who have issues with your edits continues, you are liable to find yourself blocked. Quite possibly indefinitely, since Wikipedia can manage well enough without single-purpose accounts who do nothing but look for ways to stir up religious enmity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I have now removed unsourced content with this and this edit. I hope it now complies with the rules.-1Firang (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Abecedare has now copy edited it to make it comply with the rules.-1Firang (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Arvind Kejriwal:Request for assistance

Requesting users to have a look @ the article Arvind Kejriwal (recent article history). Edit difs by @Kridha checkout edit history of user kridha . Seems stripping the article of all the well sourced critical parts failing WP:NPOVHOW* , the response from other side looks like WP:STONEWALL effectively leading to obscurantism. Requesting inputs and help in sorting out the issues so as to WP:ACHIEVE NPOV

• WP:NPOVHOW:

  .. Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. ..

@Kridha isn't replying in consensus.he didn't participate in DRN consensus also.checkout discussion on talk page and DRN request.

@Kridha is removing controversies or negative parts from the article and he is giving reason for removal is general format of article for politicians.

He is trying to justify again and again. there are many criticism section examples of politicians like

Public image of Narendra Modi#Criticism and controversies, Amit Shah#Criticism, Lalu Prasad Yadav#Criticism, Mamata Banerjee#Public profile and controversies, Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar#Controversies, Abhishek Banerjee (politician)#Controversies, T. Rajaiah#Controversies, Mulayam Singh Yadav#Controversies, Manohar Lal Khattar#Controversies, Pinarayi Vijayan#Controversies, Yogi Adityanath#Controversies, Himanta Biswa Sarma#Controversies. 

And @Kridha's past activity in this page also mostly removing negative views. checkout edit history of user kridha

• edit 1 - in which he removed from lawsuits section on 06 September 2022
• edit 2 - in which he removed on 6 September 2022
• edit 3 - in which he removed on 16 September 2022
• edit 4 - in which he removed whole criticism section on 4 may 2023
• edit 5 - in which he remove whole lawsuits section on 4 may 2023
• edit 6 - in this he remove
• edit 7 in which he remove

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy that requires all content to be written in a way that is unbiased, accurate, and free from personal opinion or advocacy. This means that controversial or negative information about a subject should not be removed solely because it is unflattering or inconvenient.criticism with various different sources and if it is notable, it shouldn't be removed. Nyovuu (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Communications from government of India to Wikimedia Foundation regarding content about maps depicting the borders of India

See discussion at NPOV Noticeboard. Project members may wish to weigh in. Abecedare (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Reducing infobox photo montage images on Andhra Pradesh

Please see the discussion and weigh in. Arjunaraoc (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Tau Devi Lal duplicates/confusion

Tau Devi Lal Stadium / Tau Devi Lal Cricket Stadium / Tau Devi Lal Stadium (Panchkula) help needed, appreciate 93.141.235.19 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Tau Devi Lal Cricket Stadium. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ilaiyaraaja

Ilaiyaraaja has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

CfD for Indian subcontinent descent categories

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_23#Indian_ancestors_by_region —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Help for improving History section of Andhra Pradesh

I made an attempt to revamp History section of Andhra Pradesh, as it was not in a good shape. I request other history buffs to review and provide feedback or help improve it further. Arjunaraoc (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Statue Junction

The article Statue Junction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet the notability criteria, and hasn't been properly sourced since at least December 2009 according to the unreferenced template

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Suntooooth (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment on source reliability

On the talk page of 1978 Sikh Nirankari clash [3]. This is regarding Ranbir Singh Sandhu's book. Kindly provide any comment or feedback on the reliability of his work. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Manipur pages

This article appeared in The Quint today:

• Suanmuanlian Tonsing, Manipur & Wikipedia: How Kuki-Zo's Digital Inequity Has Caused a Narrative Shift, The Quint, 1 June 2023.

It complains that the Wikipedia pages are getting filled up with majoritarian Meitei narratives, dominating the discourse about the Kuki-Zo people (traditionally tribal). The current violence is between these two groups.

I would like to request more editors to edit/vet the content of these pages and participate in the talk page discussions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Haoreima: since this article makes accusations of misconduct against them. I don’t know to what extent, if at all, these accusations are true—or whether the behaviour even qualifies as misconduct—but the editor should be aware of their existence. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. I will go through his edits, sometime in the next month; have a feeling that mass-reverts are in order. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Shunga_Empire#Requested_move_5_June_2023

Please comment there. Johnbod (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Venkateshvara#Requested move 10 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Venkateshvara#Requested move 10 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Standardized Spelling

One issue I've come across again and again on articles about India/Indian subjects is that there is often no attempt to maintain anything approaching a standardized spelling, and it seems like an issue that should be addressed. Obviously, transliteration from Indic languages into English can be tricky because there are sounds that don't exist in the Latin alphabet, or that can be represented by more than one letter, but even so, I would hope that at least WITHIN a single article, there be some semblance of cohesion, if not across Wikipedia. For instance, on the Gaur Brahmins page, the word is spelled at least three different ways within the article itself, and I am reminded of the old Gurjar article, which has been substantially improved, but still needs work. Do you all think this is something deserving of a task force, or at least some form of concerted effort to remedy? Evansknight (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

We place Template:Use Indian English at the top of the articles, some use User:फ़िलप्रो/script/EN-IN user script to assist with basic spellchecks. Transliterations are quite beyond the scope as they're not "[Indian] English". I'd say it's up to editors to investigate the correct usage or reach a consensus if there're multiple variations in use. Both the examples you mentioned fall into this. But yes, I believe MOS, don't remember which, recommends to use one variation across the article — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree that a single article should use standardized spelling, and if anyone wants to undertake this thankless task, more power to them. However, we're hamstrung on the broader issue by regional and temporal variation in transliteration (Mookerjee vs Mukherjee, for a well-known example). Attempting to standardize across such variation is not, in my opinion, a productive use of editor time. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment to get consensus

I have run into some people who don't understand my point of view at Help_talk:IPA/Sanskrit#Consensus? and will appreciate your comments there (I am trying to build consensus).-1Firang (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Exceptions to WP:INDICSCRIPTS RFC

There is a new RFC on carving out some exceptions to WP:INDICSCRIPTS that is likely to be of interest to project-members. Abecedare (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Rewriting city tourist attraction lists in an Encyclopedic manner.

Majority of the articles in Category:Lists of tourist attractions in India by city seem to be written in a travel guide rather than the accepted Wikipedia format. Is there a way that they can be rewritten while the contents transferred to Wikivoyage and the contributors pointed towards there

Nkb 21 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Districts of Arunachal Pradesh

The List of districts of Arunachal Pradesh claims that the state of Arunachal Pradesh has 26 districts. Same is seen here. It seems that Itanagar is the latest district created in 2022. But am unable to find any RS for this. Can anyone help? Or are there only 25 districts? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Chola Empire#Requested move 12 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chola Empire#Requested move 12 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Request on choosing which paragraph is more suitable for the 1983 Dhilwan Bus massacre

[4] or [5]. Please consult the talk page as well [6]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Kadu Makrani

Is it SOP to include a random "imaginary drawing" of a deceased historical figure of whom there are no photographs? Like, I get using contemporaneous portraits tat may not be entirely accurate, or even later depictions that have entered into the public consciousness of that figure, but a random drawing by an actual Wikipedia editor based on, presumably, nothing, seems very strange to me. Thoughts? Evansknight (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Evansknight

I can't say that I deal too much with images, but when looking at the WP:Image use policy under the Diagrams and other images subheading,

"user-made images may be wholly original. In such cases, the image should be primarily serving an educational purpose, and not as a means of self-promotion of the user's artistic skills. The subject to be illustrated should be clearly identifiable in context, and should not be overly stylized."

Seems like this image does lean toward the more self-promotion aspect. Chilicave (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC on reliability of pinkvilla

Editors may be interested in this RfC on reliability of pinkvilla.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Sanity check on Bhushangad history

Hi all, spent a bit of time tidying up the article on Bhushangad fort since it had a bit of leftover bumpf from the Nimsod State hoax, and I'd appreciate a second opinion on matters.

Basically the article as written gave a definitive claim that it was built by Singhana/Simhana of Devgiri linking to a no-longer available article. I've gone through the original sources linked, cleared out the dead links, removed one that was probably a third-hand online list and dropped in the probable attribution to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, but the only reference I can find to Singhana (and I suspect this is the origin) is an article from 1898 that is essentially 'well I read somebody claiming it was an old legend and it sounds plausible.'

So I've reworked as 'local legend attributed to' but I'm honestly uncertain whether to give it even that degree of credibility because it feels very much like 'yes it's a primary source, but it's a primary source of complete Hearsay from 130 years ago'. If anyone can read Marathi and can find the article in the Vividha-Dynan-Vistar in 1893 that it's referring to (or has a more recent source) obviously that would be great, but as stands I'm a tad uncomfortable as to whether this is just perpetuating a complete fiction.

(Side note: honestly the whole article, and a few others in List of forts in Maharashtra feel like they should just be one paragraph descriptions in the main list article rather than separate articles themselves, but that's a separate issue).

ImperatordeElysium (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Lets try here

Indian Super League, remaining part has several space/comma/grammar errors. Besides, see also has multiple overlinks. I tried but its locked and users careless, act as private article. Many thanks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1161570920 93.140.148.242 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes#Requested move 21 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes#Requested move 21 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 06:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dholera Airport#Requested move 21 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dholera Airport#Requested move 21 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 20:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Sikh diaspora

Sikh diaspora has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

How many Indians here have their IPs caught in range block?

The IP address I'm using is caught in a range block that prevents me from creating new accounts when logged-out or even a simple password reset. My current ISP is Airtel. This has happened to me last year also (I was on a different IP of Jio). Apparently all my IPs are caught in range blocks. A year ago, I was looking at my then-blocked range, and it seemed to have editors from across the country. I'm trying to check how much of the country is actually affected by these range blocks. To check if your IP is blocked, try editing something while logged-out. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

filmcompanion.in...

I have removed filmcompanion.in from the title blacklist, post consensus here. This is just for information. Thank you, Lourdes 09:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation @Lourdes — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Dax. Lourdes 04:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Aapki Nazron Ne Samjha § Incorporate some elements of Indonesian-language version?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Aapki Nazron Ne Samjha § Incorporate some elements of Indonesian-language version?. The Indonesian-language version of this article contains potentially valuable information that is absent in the English version. I would appreciate the assistance of anyone who is familiar with the topic of this article. SmileySnail (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Jayadeva birth controversy and Jayadeva

See for instance Talk:Jayadeva birth controversy#Revert on recent edit with proper citations and the weird changes here [7] One source Reddy, in a book discussing the period 900 to 1200 CE, went from not sourcing the text in one way to being used as a source for 16th century works(don't you just despair when people change the text without changing the source?) . The two editors involved seem to misunderstand WP:RS and are doing original research. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• I agree, this edit war is messy, but also, wouldn't it make more sense to merge the articles? Have a controversy section in the main Jayadeva article rather than its own?Evansknight (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure it's fair to the other editors to call it an edit war. One problem that I just mentioned on the talk page is that the controversy article was already heavily skewed to the Odisha side, and their edit greatly increased that bias - besides copyvio and other issues. Also se [8] where more Odisha origin is being argued in the biography article I think that this may also be a problem[9] - this editor is obviously pushing the Odisha side of issues.

  I don't think merging would be a good idea, but if you want to make a merge request I wouldn't object. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Now at NPOVN: There are 457 words supporting the Bengali position. The text before you edited had 919 words, you almost doubled that to 1688 words. That seriously imbalances the article .Doug Weller talk 09:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:States Election Commission (India)#Requested move 12 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:States Election Commission (India)#Requested move 12 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Shunga Empire#Requested move 5 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shunga Empire#Requested move 5 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 13:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Kiran Nadar Museum of Art

Eyes are welcome at Kiran Nadar Museum of Art - 1. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Koyi Thampuran or Koil Thampuran

I will acknowledge that I don't speak Malayalam so I don't know if there is a specific linguistic reason for this, but I am confused about the use of these two terms. The article is titled with Koyi, but even WITHIN that article, the word Koil is used, and Koil seems to be the most commonly used transliteration in names of individuals in other articles related to the Travancore Royal Family as well. Is there anything approaching a standard transliteration of Malayalam, or is this another instance of there being no set rule and to much work to justify doing anything about it? Evansknight (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Opinion on WP:RAJ

I'm looking for opinions on the essay and in particular whether it should be moved to WP:IN scope or perhaps to an WP:RS scope. cc @Abecedare @Sitush — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean here. Looking at the essay, it has a lot to say about British efforts to understand Indian society, generally given a suspicious spin, but nothing about the decades of effort by post-independence governments to downplay, deprecate or ignore caste, despite it still clearly being regarded as important by a large proportion of Indians. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It is a widely accepted essay and a convenient link to provide to new editors in the caste/history area explaining why some sources that they can easily access only are not acceptable for direct citation on wikipedia. And note that while "Raj" is a convenient alias, the essay does deal with similarly flawed (post-independence) GoI efforts in the area such as the newer The People of India project. I am personally indifferent to where the essay is located since for me all shortcuts like WP:RAJ serve the purpose of being able to make the arguments made at the linked page w/o having to write out those argument afresh each time. But I can also see some institutional benefits to moving it IN project space and so if Sitush and others prefer such a move, I'd support it. Abecedare (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC) Minor ce. Abecedare (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare. @Johnbod I was just checking the current acceptance levels as there’re an ongoing edit wars focused around it — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · e · c) 18:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not WP:IN because it does impact on Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. To be honest, I'd rather it stayed where it is. It was always intended as more of an aide memoire and is by no means comprehensive in delineating the issues with the old sources. It is widely accepted, I think, but skates over things & I'm not in the mood to improve it while using the mobile app. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Good point about the essay (naturally) covering content outside the strict scope of WP:IN. And the edit war DaxServer mentioned, centered around Sindh(i)-related articles, would be a specific instance of this being relevant. Abecedare (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Sitush. The essay was meant to suggest that 19th-century or early 20th-century Raj sources on caste should be used with an abundance of caution, usually only when a modern reliable source, preferably a scholarly one, is using them. The issue was never the recording of census data, which the British supervised with exceptional rigor, only the categories that were used for classification.

Thus, the fact that the Kashmiri Pandits never constituted more than 5% of the population of the Kashmir valley in every census of India from 1871 to 1941 is widely considered to be reliable and used by modern sociologists, historians, and political scientists, except of course the fringe Hindutva brigade.

But when the 1891 census got into the business of describing so-and-so to be a clean shudra from whom a Brahmin could accept water and also/but not cooked food, etc. it got into details that the upper-caste Indian informants were feeding the British ethnographers. This in of itself is not as harmful as it sounds, as the British hardly every made those judgments themselves. They may have been racist, but they were hardly ever caste-ist. By the 1911 census the categories had changed. But Indian society itself remains riven by caste a hundred years later and it is not unusual for an upper-caste person in India to needle the lower castes using the categories of the 1891 census. The British did not invent caste in India. It had been an inescapable reality of Indian life from the mid-first-millennium BCE. For those at the bottom, it really has been inescapable.

Finally, let's move on to Macaulay. It is common to blame him for the Indian Penal Code and by implication for the "outmoded" colonial laws against LGBTQ that was finally overturned by the Indian Supreme Court in 2018. But the Indian Penal Code was Macaulay's simplification of English Common Law. The British changed their own laws with respect to legalizing homosexuality many decades ago. So, what prevented Indians from doing the same? The reason has always been Indian society's deep discomfort. I would wager no more than 5% of Indians accept gay people, especially in their own family, no matter what brave talk you hear about the long history of trans-genders in India. It is the same with caste. No more than 5% reject it; otherwise, 95% would not be marrying in arranged marriages within caste. That was the state in 2014, and it is hardly likely it would have changed much since. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I should have said: they reject caste if it involves economic discrimination against them, but they do not reject endogamy (marrying within ones caste). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

PS These statistics are about Hindus in India, not Muslims or Christians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Hindus are less accepting of diversity, including the LGBTQIA+ community, compared to other religious groups? And why are you advocating for an increase in "inter-caste" marriages? Isn't that infringing on individual freedom? Are you proposing the creation of a government-operated marriage agency that uses an algorithm to match individuals based on specific genetic traits and merits? This approach would certainly eliminate any non-scientific forms of discriminatory endogamy. In some societies, such as in India or Pakistan, endogamy means that marriage is restricted to the same caste, the same village, the same religion, and the same race.[10] Fayninja (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

PS2: Same-sex marriage, which is up for a judgment by India's Supreme Court soon, is a different matter. For if the Court accepts it, it will deal a big blow to caste, maybe not a death blow initially, but a blow all the same. For the parents of gay or transgender people are hardly likely to arrange their marriages, and if 10% are arranging their own marriages, the remaining will ask, "Why can't we?"

If arranged marriages go away from Hindu society in India, so will caste and all its ill-effects such as female infanticide/fetucide, dowry, the taboo against widow remarriage, and the rest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Guidance on Indian new sources

There's a proposal on WP:RSN to create an entry on WP:RS/P to caution about paid / sponsored articles on Indian news sites with some suggestions on how to spot them, plus some examples of sections of major sites that should not be used. The topic is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Proposal:_Yellow/warning_triangle_for_"Various_India-based_websites". Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• There is now a related RFC at the WP:RSN board. Inputs welcome. Abecedare (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Peer review request for Phoolan Devi

On behalf of User:Mujinga, I'm posting a peer review request for Phoolan Devi. It is currently a GA and they are hoping to get it to FA-standards. They had posted about it before but hadn't got much of a response. All they are looking for is checks on the naming and caste conventions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that MPGuy2824! I think I'll close the peer review soon in case anyone one wants to comment. Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Syed Ahmad Khan#Requested move 11 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Syed Ahmad Khan#Requested move 11 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Indian media

@Board Regulars: Do you know of any significant scholarship from the recent past which documents the total devolution of English and Hindi TV media in India, perhaps with the sole exception of NDTV, into brazen Hindu nationalist circus? TrangaBellam (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC on capitals of Kashmir-region related administrative subdivisions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What should be the introductory sentence of the capital cities of Kashmir region related first-level administrative subdivisions? UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

A uniform format for the introductory sentences of six articles (Gilgit, Jammu, Kargil, Leh, Muzaffarabad and Srinagar) is sought. The following are the proposed versions:

Version A:

____________ is the (summer/winter/joint) capital of __________ (name of larger region), a portion of the disputed Kashmir region administered by India/Pakistan as a union territory/nominally self-governing entity and claimed by Pakistan/India.

Example: Muzaffarabad is the capital of Azad Kashmir, a portion of the disputed Kashmir region administered by Pakistan as a nominally self-governing entity and claimed by India.

Version B:

X is the (summer/winter/joint) capital <and largest city> of the Indian/Pakistani-administered (subdivision-type) of Z. [(in note)Z is part of the larger Kashmir region which is the subject of a long-standing dispute among India, Pakistan and China. X lies in the part of the region administered by India/Pakistan and claimed by Pakistan/India.]

Example: Leh is the joint capital and largest city of the Indian-administered union territory of Ladakh. [(in note)Ladakh is part of the larger Kashmir region which is the subject of a long-standing dispute among India, Pakistan and China. Leh lies in the part of the region administered by India and claimed by Pakistan.]

Version C:

Muzaffarabad/Gilgit/Srinagar/Jammu/Kargil/Leh is the capital/summer capital/winter capital/joint capital of Pakistani/Indian/Chinese-administered self-administrative territory/administrative territory/Union Territory of Azad Kashmir/Gilgit-Baltistan/Jammu and Kashmir/Ladakh/Aksai Chin in the disputed Kashmir region.

Example: Jammu is the winter capital of Indian-administered union territory of Jammu and Kashmir in the disputed Kashmir region.

Survey

• Version B for the following reasons:

•It takes into account WP:DUEWEIGHT as reflected in WP:TERTIARY sources like Encyclopaedia Britannica for the dispute wrt the cities.

•It also reflects how these cities are generally described in wide-ranging recent scholarly sources.

•This proposal includes all the required context of the dispute vis-a-vis the cities, in the explanatory note prominently placed at the end of the introductory sentence. It highlights that there are three parties to the conflict—India, Pakistan and China—but also makes it clear where the city lies and who claims it (none of these cities lie in China or are claimed by it).

•It also allows flexibility, the dispute/conflict/the larger region/non-administering countries can, ofcourse, be mentioned elsewhere in the lead and body wherever relevant and due.

•It takes into account regional differences of the various cities. For example, Ladakh—whose two capitals are affected by this uniform format—has long asserted an identity distinct from "Kashmir" (a term which is associated with the eponymous Kashmir valley).

—UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest not proceeding on this RFC as is (invited by the bot) There is apparently a complex contentious issue involved including debate history and a previous TFC. In order to give a thoughtful quality response to it as currently worded, someone arriving to participate in the RFC would need to do a very large amount of reading including of the debate and history. Such is not likely to happen. IMO one idea would be to add a substantial neutral summary of the background. Or, if the previous RFC was on the same topic and had substantial participation and nothing has significantly changed perhaps you should just follow what was decided then. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comment. I’ve added notes that point to the source of each version. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  Pinging @North8000: should’ve pinged when I responded above. If you prefer the previous wording, it is version A. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Version B:

> It is crucial for us to prioritize the accurate and balanced representation of information by giving due consideration to reliable tertiary sources (@UnpetitproleX). While it is reasonable to address the Kashmir dispute within articles discussing broader regions such as union territories, it becomes inappropriate when we extend this focus to smaller divisions like districts, cities and villages (@Chipmunkdavis). Similarly, we should not label Taipei as disputed solely based on China's claim over Taiwan. The article on Taiwan itself does not mention any dispute in its introduction, especially considering the historical context of the nation's past civil war. As I had cited in the discussion,

While Pakistan seeks to internationalise the issue and pursue a solution at a multilateral level, India strongly resists external involvement in what it sees as an internal matter, and will only consider a bilateral solution. The ‘international community’ has come to accept India’s position on Kashmir, with the United Nations Security Council removing the Kashmir issue from its agenda in 1996.

On the basis of international consensus, we cannot use Wikipedia and all Kashmir-related articles (@Fowler&fowler) as a promotion ground for Pakistan's campaign.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayninja (talk • contribs) 04:33 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest not proceeding with this RfC The previous RfC had the exceptional participation of Wikprojects India and Pakistan, including by half a dozen admins. This one has been undertaken in a hurry. Frankly @Abecedare: I'm perplexed that you would have even obliquely suggested it. It is malformed, as none of the three options refers to what is being is being debated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Explanation: There are five large subregions of the disputed region of Kashmir. These are Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh administered by India; Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir administered by Pakistan, and Aksai Chin administered by China. The last one does not have a capital city.

  I note, @Abecedare:, your own excellent argument had pulled the rug from under the footnote idea in version B. Said you, in as many words, that we can't say for example: Gilgit is the capital of the Pakistani-administered Gilgit-Baltistan.<<Footnote: Gilgit-Baltistan is in the disputed Kashmir region>> instead of what it says in the current version (which is neither version A, nor C): Gilgit is the capital of the Pakistani-administered Gilgit-Baltistan in the disputed Kashmir region," for as soon as a reader sees "administered," they will ask, "Why is it only administered?" and where is Gilgit-Baltistan? (Could it be an island in the Arabian Sea off the Pakistani port of Karachi?) and therefore the question will make it imperative for us to supply more information, which we can do in no other way than in the current version. For we can't say "Gilgit-Baltistan is in Pakistan" (neutrality will prohibit us).

  So, why did you then let an editor dishonor your argument and hurry on to a malformed RfC? When an admin gently but with great perspicacity offers an argument against an idea, and an editor, nevertheless ignores it, and rushes into something, what does one call it? There must be some WP rule against it. In my book it is not kosher. Pinging also @Chipmunkdavis: who had seemed to favor version B, but very likely did not have full information. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Version B, as this description reflects what is used in similar projects, such as Encyclopedia Britannica, and per User:Chipmunkdavis' comment below. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
• Note for @Abecedare: Can you please close this? As I had predicted the RfC is foundering, if not already run aground. Not a single editor from WProject Pakistan has participated. I request that this be ended and I (as the original proposer) of the consensus of 2019 be allowed to formulate an RfC outside of this travesty. Or at least I be allowed now to begin another RfC in parallel which I'm sure will receive a much bigger response. Pinging @Vanamonde93, Johnuniq, El C, and RegentsPark:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#A_proposal_for_Kashmir-related_pages_on_this_notable_day_for_India_and_Pakistan of August 2019 had the participation of 15 editors a third of whom were admins. This RfC is barely breathing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I view it to be nothing but a delaying tactic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  I have previously commented on the general issue, so I'm WP:INVOLVED and not the right editior to close this RFC. It is indeed unfortunate that this discussion has not seen high enough participation to (IMO) update the previous consensus. But I am not in a position to blame the other non-participants either since I too haven't had the time or motivation to do the required reading needed to provide an informed opinion. Would recommend holding off on starting a parallel RFC though till, at least, this one is closed; it's close enough to the typical 30 day period. Abecedare (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  OK, thanks @Abecedare: and apologies for my impatience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Abecedare: Please do ask anyone you consider to be uninvolved to close the RfC. The low participation is unfortunate, though I note that the RFC was sabotaged in its very infancy by the above editor with a WP:WALLOFTEXT that constituted WP:ASPERSIONS (and some insulting comments) against me, which several editors (including you) advised them against. Anyway, as you already said on Talk:Srinagar, the 2019 version (A) is the status quo if a discussion fails to land at a version, but I leave it to the closer. It seems a new RfC will begin immediately after this "travesty" is closed. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Closure requested. Be aware that it can take several days for someone to take up the task. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Abecedare:. I had not seen your note when I replied, but a few days even a week for the offer to be taken up is fine. As long as I'm aware that this RfC is not hanging over my head, I can finish the work outlined in said user page (above). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I mean below Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  My impatience has been generated by the RfC being stuck in the quagmire of not meeting the barest of quora for any legitimacy in a topic as important as Kashmir. Kashmir has been the bane of India and Pakistan issues on Wikipedia. It is one of the main reasons for ARBIPA to have been put in place by Arbcom.

  I have instead been creating a record not just of lead sentences, but also info box maps (yes, two, one of which is interactive and both of which are impartial). See for example: Jammu district, Mirpur district, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu division, Kashmir division, Jammu, Gilgit, and in general:

  • User:Fowler&fowler/List of Kashmir-related pages in NPOV format

  I won't begin a new RfC until all the red cross signs in the last sub-page have been changed to green check signs, so people have the proof of a pudding, not just words. I had completed a large number of the pages in and around June 16. So, they've stood the short-term test of time already.

  So, the new RfC won't begin immediately, but only after the pages are finished, i.e. after a buffer of a couple of weeks at least. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  The focal point is not Kashmir itself; rather, the issue arises when territorial claims over the involved countries are emphasized excessively, going beyond the articles on broader regions. It is also important to acknowledge that India and Pakistan have full jurisdiction over the regions they administer. Therefore, kindly also provide an alternative version in your RFC that avoids using terms like "Indian-administered" or "Pakistani-administered," though you may mention the dispute in the lead of articles on broader regions such as UTs and Azad Kashmir. Note that such a version will also herald the return of national emblems/maps and the removal of "settlement" infobox templates from their respective articles. [11]https://www.britannica.com/place/Jammu-and-Kashmir [12]https://www.britannica.com/place/Ladakh-union-territory Fayninja (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Furthermore, kindly refrain from citing any resolutions from the powerless United Nations body. US is not a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), specifically its Article 3. India does not handout land on the principle of "first come, first serve" or "the early bird gets the worm". Fayninja (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Version B is better balanced as users above stated; also fine to mention dispute status in lead sentence in broader regional article like region or UT but for same to apply to every city/district/village/ghost town is kind of giving Undue weight.PersianV (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  A closure based on the nominator's request has already been put in by admin Abecedare, who is on record saying, "The point of this centralized, and hopefully well-attended, RFC is to avoid having to read tea-leaves to determine if the previous consensus needs to be updated or clarified" This one doesn't meet quorum. Most Kashmir regulars haven't bothered commenting. They have not even answered the pings of the nominator. The 2019 consensus involved a long discussion with nearly 15 editors and 6 admins. Kashmir can't be taken lightly, nor its fate on WP decided in a hurry. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  This RFC also has had 6 editors and opinions so far including you @Fowler&fowler. I don't know why in your opinion our vote appears of less value than 2019 version. Everybody is equal on Wikipedia.PersianV (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  The 2019 consensus was only ever applied to the top-level pages, and its application to lower level pages has been actively opposed by many editors including some who participated in the 2019 discussion. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Version B : I may be late to this discussion but I like @Fayninja point. Similar to how Taiwan is claimed by PRC we don't say "Taipei is capital of Taiwan in disputed territory claimed by China" blown up in first line. Also how South Korea is claimed by North Korea there also we don't go on saying "Seoul is capital of South Korea in disputed region claimed by North Korea" blown up in first line there too. To mention overlapping claims of countries against each other in footnote is very neutral and way to go– "Muzaffarabad is city in Pakistani-Administrative Territory of Azad Kashmir<disputed status in footnote>" and "Leh is a city in Indian Union Territory of Ladakh.<disputed status in footnote>. –JayB91 (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• Close without resolution I've been mulling over this for a while and I think Fowler has a point here. This is a complex situation and the ideal way to go about it would be to, through an open discussion with wide participation (for e.g., here on WT:IN with notifications at WT:Pakistan), arrive at an acceptable set of alternative formulations for the lead. UnpetitproleX, perhaps, started this RfC as a good faith attempt at resolving the dispute but, without a wider discussion on the alternatives, this is an incomplete RfC. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Why is a uniform version sought? Such text should be part of the wider lead, which may be structured in different ways. In principle however, B seems to be the best, but the note is unnecessary. The early lead sentences should be establishing what the place is, which in these cases seems to be a city. That these cities function as capitals, which is something which reflects on administrative role and relative importance in its region, seems like useful context. The legitimacy of the area they administer etc. drifts off that topic, and there are likely better ways to address it. CMD (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
• Some background links:
  1. The 2019 RFCs that led to the current consensus

     An annotated description of the related discussions.

  2. Recent discussion at Talk:Srinagar that led to this RFC.

Pinging @Fowler&fowler, Gotitbro, Johnuniq, Fayninja, Kashmiri, and RegentsPark: who had commented in the recent discussions, in case they miss the start of the RFC. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Is it current consensus if editors who were involved in that consensus (such as @Gotitbro:, @Kautilya3: and @Uanfala: have reverted it? The first two have also explicitly said that the consensus stands limited to the first-order administrative divisions, which were the only pages that it was applied to until the past month. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverted what? I would have only reverted POV edits that labelled selected parts of Kashmir to be "disputed". Any formula that uniformly applies it to all parts of Kashmir is ok by me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This revert from Jan 2020, where you said in the edit summary "The current WP:CONSENSUS is to mention the dispute only for the top-level pages of territories."

Ofcourse, a formula uniformly applied to all parts is OK by me too, and such a formula must also be formed per WP:DUEWEIGHT. That’s the objective of this RfC. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

And this by Gotitbro, where they stated "The original consensus was limited to lvl-1 administrative divisions (in the sense that it attracted no opposition), … Whether it has evolved in practice beyond that I cannot say but this is what I was clearly in consent back then [during the 2019 discussion] for." UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@UnpetitproleX: The point of this centralized, and hopefully well-attended, RFC is to avoid having to read tea-leaves to determine if the previous consensus needs to be updated or clarified. Editors can speak for themselves explicitly here, if they so desire. I haven't commented on the substance of the RFC yet because I haven't had the time to analyze the options and sources carefully enough; hope to do so before the RFC closes. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• This is what happens when editors with no history in the topic area rush into an RfC and then get all the versions wrong. There is only one version, the one that already appears in Srinagar, Jammu, Leh, Kargil, Gilgit, and Muzaffarabad. Consider Srinagar for example. The reason that the disputed status needs to be mentioned in the first sentence is that editors will routinely add sentences such as, "It is the 31st-most populous city in India, the northernmost city in India to have over one million people" soon after, without a thought. In other words, the arrogation of sovereignty will appear, innocently creeping into the prose. Without the initial disclaimer, a reader would fail to understand why Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and a couple of other countries boycotted the recent Indian government G20 meeting in Srinagar, and even the US, UK, Australia, Germany, .. sent only their local reps. Besides, the nominator had not even granted the lead sentence that footnote whose cause they are now so ardently championing; in the version of the Srinagar article that I had reverted on the day before the G20 meeting began (May 22). Their version had said: "Srinagar is the largest city and the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, India. It lies in the Himalayan Kashmir Valley on the banks of the Jhelum River, and Dal and Anchar lakes, between the Hari Parbat and Shankaracharya hills. The city is known for its natural environment, various gardens, waterfronts and houseboats. It is also known for traditional Kashmiri handicrafts like the Kashmir shawl (made of pashmina and cashmere wool), papier-mâché, wood carving, carpet weaving, and jewel making, as well as for dried fruits. It is the 31st-most populous city in India, the northernmost city in India to have over one million people, and the second-largest metropolitan area in the Himalayas (after Kathmandu, Nepal). no different from an Indian tourist brochure. No sooner had I pulled the rug from the effort, than the prelude to the RfCs and whatnot began.

• Response to the objections raised by @Fowler&fowler in the survey:

Robert G. Wirsing in their book Kashmir in the Shadow of War: Regional Rivalries in a Nuclear Age alternates between "Indian Kashmir", "Indian-administered Kashmir", "Indian-controlled Kashmir", "Indian-held Kashmir" and "Indian-occupied Kashmir". Here, only the first term implies absolute sovereignty. I believe Wirsing uses all these terms to achieve true neutrality by incorporating all perspectives on the dispute. If this is the case, Wirsing's position is neither for nor against Indian sovereignty over her union territories within Indian Kashmir.

"Why is it only administered?": The footnote is enough and if the reader wishes to dive deeper, a link to the Kashmir region and the Kashmir conflict can be embedded in the note.

"Where is Gilgit-Baltistan?": A darkened interactive map has been provided to readers. There was no need to circulate the altered Kashmir dispute map under a false "CIA" banner on all Kashmir-related pages. Thank you, Fowler, for your time and effort in redrawing and renaming the regions of that map, although it was not necessary as I found this version to be clearer for use in the Kashmir conflict article.

If Gilgit-Baltistan is not in Pakistan, then which country is it in? Is it an independent state? To hold neutrality, mentioning the Kashmir dispute in the lead of such broader regions is sufficient. Fayninja (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Off topic discussion. Editors (mainly f&f here) are reminded to focus on the topic and not on personalities. UnpetitproleX, you should declare your previous accounts on your user page. If any useful comments are included here, please make them again (impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff!)

I recommend that this RfC be closed immediately and that I be allowed to do this properly if there is a need for it. I have maintained that there was consensus for the wording already in the August 2019 proposal. I mean was I busting my behind and the other discussants (Kautilya3, Saqib, Vanamonde93, El_C, RegentsPark, Winged Blades of Godric, Sitush, MilborneOne, Chipmunkdavis, Abecedare, Drmies, Joshua Jonathan, Tamravidhir, DeluxeVegan, Gotitbro, Lingzhi2, Ceoil, SlimVirgin, Bbb23, Bishonen, Ms Sarah Welch, Moonraker, DuncanHill, Doug Weller, Philip Baird Shearer, Mar4d, Rjensen, HLGallon, Ragib, and Titodutta) theirs for nothing? Besides: The nominator is known for their anti-Muslim and pro-Punjab-north-India-Hindu bias in articles (I can cite some instances: they were peddling the image File:Woman at Gate of Mosque (No Ladies Allowed) - Hazratbal Shrine - Srinagar - Jammu & Kashmir - India (26770523561).jpg on some WP article(s), making fun of Muslims; after I called them out, they turned it into an image that showed what Islamic feminists were battling! Then recently they made: this POV edit that I have not reverted, for it involves the textbook example of the use of WP:SYNTHESIS to engage in one-upmanship in the promotion of hate.) They had given me and an admin a hard time under a different username (that they acknowledged was theirs only a few days ago when their hand was forced and have still not fessed up on their user page as requested by the admin, only blanking the old account both in WP and Commons) On the Himalayas page; they took umbrage at the sentence: "The sovereignty of the range in the Kashmir region is disputed among India, Pakistan and China." in both their incarnations So, lo and behold is there any surprise that in their third incarnation, they would like to stuff the "dispute" bit into a tiny footnote as they have been arguing ad nauseam on the talk page? What will editors from WP Pakistan (who had taken part in the 2019 Consensus) think of this benighted inequity? Kashmir, remember, is disputed territory. It can't be reduced to a cloistered discussion in WT:INDIA initiated by someone who has no history in the topic area nor the most meagre goodwill in WP:PAKISTAN. Why would Pakistani editors touch this with a ten-foot pole when the nominator has a tainted history in their portfolio? I mean look at the care with which I have written the lead sentences and drawn the two maps in each of the articles Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Gilgit-Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu, Leh, Kargil, Muzaffarnagar, Gilgit, Kashmir division, Jammu division, Gilgit Division, Diamer Division, Baltistan Division, Anantnag, Anantnag district, ... the discussions I have had with editors at MapFrame about the interactive maps, only so an editor can trip me in this fashion? I'm sure they'll have an answer, but I'm sick to my stomach. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC) And the new normal on WP is to play gotcha with longstanding competent editors. If you catch them using "his," instantly assume a new gender identity and claim that you have been misgendered. I showed the nominator's writings to some of my female colleagues, all academics, and they said the arguments didn't have a feminine bone they could discern. We have three adult daughters, none is a pushover, I have worked with quite a few women on Wikipedia. I can think of SandyGeorgia, Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Femke, Karanacs, Bishonen, ... SlimVirgin, Awedewit, that I've worked with, argued with, talked with at FAC, FAR, by email. You'd think I'd know a thing or two about when the exchange is sincere and when I'm being conned. From one set of genders I receive:this. The other trolls me. Look at their talk page, where they've posted something I haven't read, but that was hatted by an admin on this page. For some reason this bizarre perversion seems to be happening on India-related pages more than elsewhere on WP, kind of like high-school high jinks. But we are all helpless. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC) The bottom line is that Kashmir is disputed territory. It has been disputed from 1947 onward; it is the oldest dispute before the UN; it is disputed for all the ten reasons given in footnote 1 in the Gilgit-Baltistan page. It means every inch of Kashmir is disputed, that we don't have the luxury to reason that big cities, small cities, big towns, small towns, even villages don't need the disputed label, because that would be unseemly, for it is often there that the rubber meets the road, that the dispute shows its ugly colors. The idea that the characterization of a dispute is good for big region, but over the top for villages, towns, and cities, grist to be tucked away in a tiny footnote, goes again every notion of neutrality on Wikipedia that I know of. The Indian government has long avoided using the word "dispute," preferring "conflict" instead. But the reasons have been known to everyone for a long time: Hill, Kenneth L. (2007), "India:War with Paksitan, 1965", in Ciment, James (ed.), Encyclopedia of Conflicts Since World War II, London and New York: Routledge, p. 718, ISBN 978-0-7656-8005-1, The Kashmir Problem: Kashmir is located on the northern borders of India and Pakistan in the Himalayan Mountains. When the 1947 war ended, India controlled about 65 percet of the disputed area even though more than 70 percent of its population of 5 million were Muslim. At the time of independence, Kashmir was one of 600 princely states that had to choose to become a part of India or Pakistan. The leader of Kashmir, Hari Singh, was a Hindu, and he opted to integrate Kashmir with India even though most of his subjects were Muslims. His decision was supposed to be ratified by a vote of the residents, but no vote was ever held. Military forces representing India and Pakistan raced to occupy as much of Kashmir as possible. Indian forces won control of most of Kashmir. The New Delhi government would not allow the people in Kashmir to vote, knowing they would undoubtedly vote to unite with Pakistan. ... The problem of Kashmir was placed on the United Nations agenda during the 1947 war. In January 1948, the Security Council created the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. Its function weas to monitor a cease-fire once the beligerents agreed to stop fighting. It was also responsible for investigating alleged violations of the cease-fire. In April 1948, the United Nations Security Council approved a three-part resolution. It called for a cease-fire, a truce between India and Pakistan, and the establishment of machinery to determine the will of the Kashmiri people. The Security Council hoped that during the truce both sides would substantially reduce their military presence in Kashmir. Many Pakistani leaders though the best way to determine the will of the people in Kashmir was to hold a plebiscite. Those parts of the resolution dealing with truce, demilitarization, and creating the machinery to determine the will of the people were ineffective. There was no progress on demilitarization or the holding of the plebiscite because of India's opposition. There you have it. So just because there is a preponderance of Indian- or India-POV editors on WP and very few from Pakistan or China to prosecute a defense, does not mean that the WP keel over and forswear neutrality. The thing to keep in mind is that we agree with the general principle that a disputed region is disputed everywhere. But we can't really lay down the syntax for saying this. The bigger problem is belling the cat when the number is so large. Anantnag district has a dozen-odd subdistricts; one of these is Kokernag. It in turn has 51 villages. Most, I wager, have no WP pages. We can agree on a general principle of equity (that a dispute be mentioned whenever possible), but we can't really lay down the phrasing when the phrasing can't be applied in a uniform fashion, nor monitored with any reliability. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC) It is imperative to recognize the multitude of compelling reasons why these cities should gain global recognition, surpassing the mere label of "disputed". @Fowler&fowler's actions seemingly reflect a biased stance against India, aiming to use every inch of Jammu and Kashmir into a promotional platform for xenophobic Kashmiri separatist factions (her recent spree of edits on Kashmir-related pages are a testimony to this). These groups bear responsibility not only for the forced displacement of religious minorities but also for the ongoing killings of those who have chosen to stay, as well as the tragic loss of migrant workers' lives. Why does Fowler insist on perpetuating the flames of conflict and promoting its presence within Wikipedia articles? I can only suspect... In response to @Fowler&fowler's assertion regarding the United Nations' objection to India's sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir (UT), let me state this: "The ‘international community’ has come to accept India’s position on Kashmir, with the United Nations Security Council removing the Kashmir issue from its agenda in 1996". Rest assured that Pakistan and China will be treated impartially and without any prejudice. Fayninja (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Fayninja (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Allowing due time for Fowler to reply, I shall make my decision in a few days. Fayninja (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC) The contentious topics notice on your talk (diff) is intended to let you know that attacks such as the above are not permitted. You may be topic banned if they are repeated. Comment on article content and do not offer your opinions about contributors. Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Ahhh...exactly what I had waited for and anticipated. Quite biased don't you think, that this comment, "The nominator is known for their anti-Muslim and pro-Punjab-north-India-Hindu bias in articles " failed to initiate the same kind of response from your being. Hate is hate, there is no exuse for it. Fayninja (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC) @Johnuniq: Are attacks such as those by Fowler right above allowed? Are editors allowed to bully, hound and misgender other editors despite being repeatedly requested to not do so? And to continue this behaviour even on RfCs? UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Where have you announced your gender on your use page? If characterizing it correctly is important to you, you should proclaim it upfront. Where did you mention your gender in any edit on WP before you did to me? So, what is your gender? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC) I explicitly told you here, responding to which you asked me to "please read Carol Gilligan before you shunt garbage." Then you did it again and I asked you again to not do it here to which you responded by asking me again to read Gilligan, and that you "have three adult daughters and none are slouches" implying that I am a slouch and thus cannot be a woman. You rudely repeated this here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC) I'm sorry but if you misinterpret idiomatic English, it is not my fault. Ask next time if you don't understand. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Jeff Bezos's grandfather once told him, "It is much harder to be kind than to be clever. I recommend that you stop being clever. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC) You haven't answered my question: what gender are you? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC) @RegentsPark: till when do I have to deal with WP:ASPERSIONS? I have repeatedly asked this editor to stop over a long, long period of time. Can you hat this attack against me the way you hated my proposal for going off topic, or is this editor allowed to WP:BLUDGEON the RfC as they see fit? UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC) We are not in the same boat. I have not operated two accounts simultaneously and twice under different names without giving anyone a clue in order to make the same argument about sovereignty in the Himalayas, wasting the time of longstanding competent editors one of which was the selfsame RegentsPark. I don't go around starting RfCs or pseudo-RfCs at the drop of a hat when I can't have my way. How many did you begin on Talk Himalayas? Let me count the ways: First in your avatar as Pankykh, you started: Talk:Himalayas/Archive_4#Mention_of_dispute_in_dropbox_irrelevant_to_the_number_and_names_of_the_countries. When Pankykh mysteriously vanished, you in your current avatar appeared in the brief feint at my argument's face in Talk:Himalayas/Archive_5#Repeated_removal_of_cited_content_by_Fowler&fowler Then as your current avatar you got down to brass tacks (i.e. attempted to finish Panky's work) in: Talk:Himalayas/Archive_6#RfC_on_lead_sentence_about_territorial_disputes By the way what did happen to that RfC. I never bothered to check. Did it go the way this one is going? Withering away pitifully for lack of attention? Fowler&fowler«Talk» Well, if you had only "bothered to check", you would have seen that two uninvolved editors voted in support of my proposal, and only one voted against it. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC) So why have you not asked some admin to close it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC) It's been ten months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Oh, I see it has been archived. The coroners consent will be needed for exhumation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC) More likely, the closer closed by archiving. It was too unfocused for anyone to discern anything. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Anyway, I have work to do. I didn't create reliable content on WP by wasting time in such RfCs Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Oh and the second example you mention above is regards the weather and pictures, absolutely unrelated to the other two, and which resulted in nearly all of my edits (which were removed by you) being reinstated. That’s what I mean by WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:ASPERSIONS. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC) @RegentsPark: and by a long time, I mean a long time. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Please don't write nonsense. You were trying to replace the real India of its huddled masses, its dust, heat, and perspiration, its homeless sleeping on sidewalks or street medians by the unrecognizable "India shining." As such you were engaged in violating the cardinal principles about reliability and due weight, which applies to pictures as well, that aim to complement text that has been supported by reliable sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Continue in this manner and I'll eventually request a topic ban for you from South Asia related topics broadly construed. I've had it with you. I'm not coming back to check how you have proceeded in this false RfC. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC) I’m reminded of how another editor responded there and then, calling your comments "ridiculously orientalist arguments — lacking basis in any policy". I have thirteen successful WP:FPCs, including three from Pakistan and one from Armenia. On Commons I have more. This is precisely the WP:ASPERSIONS that I’m tired of. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC) In response to the ping above at 19:39, 15 June 2023, I have not examined everything on this page but noticed the comment I replied to on my watchlist. F&f: That is not allowed. I have no opinion on this RfC but in general, articles are considered on their merits and factors that apply to one article might not apply to another. That is, it is unlikely that a prescription about how unspecified articles should be written will be successful (apart from universal issues such as WP:MOS). There should be no further discussion about other editors—focus on content. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Johnuniq: point taken. Will focus on content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC) @UnpetitproleX: I apologize unconditionally for hurting your feelings by the inadvertent use of “his” to refer to you. From here on out I will always try to to use the plural pronouns they/theirs for you and/or your past accounts. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks, Johnuniq, though I am still waiting for something to be done about the many WP:OFFTOPIC walls of text, which are mostly unfounded accusations against me of my "misbehaviour" on Himalayas, WP:Featured Picture Candidates and whatnot. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Sorry but there is too much text for me to want to sort out editor behavior. I'm happy to take steps so editors avoid aspersions against other in the future but I can't work up an enthusiasm for monitoring the past. My comment at 08:54, 13 June 2023 was easy because the short text I was referring to was obviously inappropriate. People should focus on content. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Apologies, Johnuniq, I didn’t mean I’m waiting for you personally to do something. I pinged an admin above, who did shut a similar discussion down on Talk:Srinagar. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC) I do not wish to write a wall of text in response to their accusations, but they have lied freely in their accusations. For example, they said this above "they were peddling the image [ this one ] on some WP article(s) making fun of Muslims; after I called them out, they turned it into an image that showed what Islamic feminists were battling!" I did not make fun of anybody, let alone a community, nor did I turn the image into anything of that sort (you can read about what happened here). Adding relevant images to pages is one of the many things I do. I have added the majority of images to Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh etc, including many that I have taken myself (such as this and this). This is just one in the multitudes of accusations they have made against me on this page. Am I to just take it lying down? UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Let me know of any future problems. The rule is to discuss article content on pages like this and restrict discussion of other editors to a noticeboard like WP:ANI. I understand that you are unhappy with what has been said but the way to get ahead at Wikipedia is to focus on content without being distracted by inappropriate commentary from others. Johnuniq (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

References

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shalini (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Shalini (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Shalini (disambiguation) to Shalini. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Avinash (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Avinash (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Avinash (disambiguation) to Avinash. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yuvraj (disambiguation)

There is a discussion at Talk:Yuvraj (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 July 2023 about moving Yuvraj (disambiguation) to Yuvraj. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

1986 Proposed Anti-Sikh Genocide

Does anyone have knowledge of such pogrom? — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax. The sources say nothing about a pogrom or planned killing of Sikhs. I cleaned up the citations and almost nothing is left. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

>>> "The 1986 Proposed Anti-Sikh Genocide was a proposed pogrom by Hindu radicals, the Indian National Congress along with other nationalists to eradicate Sikhism from Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Bihar."

The hoax I believe has been perpetrated by the Indian National Congress to sow confusion among the ranks of the BJP. For real Hindu radicals would not have limited their ambition to the Bihar-Bengal border. They would have gone whole hog through the Ganges Basin

Just kidding. :)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark @Fowler&fowler Could you also review Desh Sevak Sena by the same editor — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally not a fan of pages created off-Wiki (or even on a user subpage) and then begun on-Wiki with one big prose dump. If I had my druthers, I'd delete those pages.

That said, it is well-known that ex-INA men (upon release from confinement after their surrender in 1945) took part in violence of the Partition of India, especially on the Hindu-Sikh side in the Punjab region. I vaguely remember during the writing of 1947 Amritsar train massacre that along with the Sikh Jathas, they became organized killing machines that left no one alive.

As for the sources used in the Desh Sevak Sena article, I can't say.

I did change (i.e. move) Mohan Singh (general) to Mohan Singh (military officer) on the grounds that the "general" rank was a post-INA-induction rank, the result of grade inflation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem very promising, especially the S. S. Ahluwalia part. My confidence on the creator further dropped when I saw Kandu Khera Incident. FWIW, all of the creators moves are reverted too. From their contribs, I cannot, unfortunately, assume good faith. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Looks like there's now SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit#22 July 2023 — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Kashmir Files Spinoff

The Kashmir Files: Unreported — I am not sure if this has been released but Agnihotri is explicitly claiming it to be a seven-episode/five-hour-long documentary. To start with, the lead needs attention. Paging Fowler&fowler and @Kautilya3 for paying attention to the article. I will likely be unavailable but might chime in, if required. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Uddhav Thackeray

Hi, it is regarding these changes. Looks COI. Please see whether some of the newly added things can be salvaged or all of it needs to be purged for being resume like. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Equestrian statue of Mark Cubbon

Are any editors able to help expand Equestrian statue of Mark Cubbon? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Does the statue need its own article? Surely a section on the main Mark Cubbon article could discuss the statue? Evansknight (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge it. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2023 Manipur violence

Hello, there are some ongoing content disputes at the above article (many of which are discussed on the talk page) which could help from editors who are more aware of the subject matter. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Jaipur–Mumbai Central Superfast Express murders

Just created. Feel free to expand, improve, and publish if you would like to. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Cue more frenetic & often incorrect editing. WP:NOTNEWS needs to be revisited, I think. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not very much of a content creator, which is why I chose to not publish it directly. If it does not meet the criteria for inclusion, I can let it die for G13. But if someone thinks that (policywise) it warrants inclusion, so there's some of the skeleton to build upon. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It will be fine, and I'd rather news-y things were developed in draft space first, but give it 12 hours & I'm pretty sure someone will have done the same in mainspace. I am just not a fan of encyclopaedias being used as rolling news sources. Back in the day, The Times (London) had a reputation for always being late reporting news ... but more accurate than any other source. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Lists of caste members - delete them?

I'm reposting something I said on my own talk page an hour or so ago, just to get a feel for what the current thoughts are here regarding lists of caste members, eg: List of Rajputs. I think it would need an RfC to have any effect: I am useless at proposing such things but do think we have a growing problem, especially with so few eyes which are well-versed in our policies and guidelines.

What I said was I'd like to see all of these caste lists deleted. They're mostly contrary to WP:CASTEID and the consensus on not categorising people by caste They are timesinks. They are replete with BLP violations and poor sourcing, which in the case of Indian newspaper sources often is, I think, circular. They add little to our knowledge and attract the worst of caste warriors and SPAs. Some are already lengthy, almost unmanageable, and there is no end to it, as I said a few hours ago at Talk:List of Brahmins.

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly support deletion. That list is outdated not to mention imprecise in a day and age when it is disconnected from traditional priestly function. In fact, I strongly support deleting all caste lists from WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Support I never even knew such lists existed. I too support deletion all caste lists. They have no use at all in Wikipedia. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I have been cleaning them for 15 or 16 years now. Things have improved slightly with the various changes to page protection systems but it's still boringly repetitive yet necessary work. The big question if they were deleted is whether people would then start creating the same lists inside the main articles for the various castes. But (a) it would dramatically reduce the number of articles which need to be monitored; and (b) I think WP:CASTEID would still be relevant. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you convert this into an RFC to bring in greater participation. Nowhere in Wikipedia should the caste of a person be listed. I think that this would come under WP:CASTEID as peoples' caste are being mentioned. Caste is a long gone social criterion just like clans that does not need to be mentioned at all. PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the removal of such caste lists would be of considerable benefit to Wikipedia, for multiple reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Support Agreeing with this proposal. All these lists needs to be deleted. Here are some of them we can start with.

• List of Brahmins

**List of Deshastha Brahmins

**List of Gaud Saraswat Brahmins

**List of Iyengars

**List of Iyers

**List of Saraswats

• List of Khatris
• List of Rajputs
• List of Jat people
• List of Maratha people
• Yadav (surname)

** List of Yadav politicians Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Creating RfC below. Not done one before, so feel free to edit it if I mess up. - Sitush (talk)

Dictionary of American Family Names by Oxford University

Some editors on the page Talk: Singh believe this source [13] does not pass WP:HISTRS. Please add your input on the reliability and suitability of this source. Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely understand, Patrick Hanks is the editor of the book; since we get no other names (as author), the reliability of the source becomes associated with Patrick Hanks only; that's precisely the reason I believe it cannot be used in caste or related articles as per WP:HISTRS. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic. OUP is an academic press; dictionaries of all types tend to evolve and so have different editors at different times. Why isn't the question asked at WP:RSN? If there is an alternate explanation in some other reliable source then we should show both. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• Issue has been resolved. Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Rivaba Jedeja

I have noticed that Rivaba Jadeja has recently received a high number of page views on the EN wiki where her biography is a very short stub. Her article on the TE wiki provides additional information. Is anyone interested in expanding the EN article?--Ipigott (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Need help sifting through these hagiographic battle articles

For those unfamiliar with this section of Wikipedia, there has been a recent upsurge in articles, particularly pertaining to military history, that seem to promote religious heroism. Please see Template: Late Mughal-Sikh Wars, Template: Hill State-Sikh Wars, Template:Early Mughal-Sikh Wars and Template: Afghan-Sikh Wars. Many of these articles need to either be deleted or examined for source reliability and verifiability issues (trust me there are many). I've also seen some articles that fabricate numbers or have an incorrect battle outcome contrary to what the sources delineate. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide a list of articles deserving scrutiny at my t/p? TrangaBellam (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, most or all of them. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Suthasianhistorian8 i have checked through the various battles listed and i can agree with you somewhat that they definetly should be reevaluated or atleast be rewritten.I however dont agree that most of the articles should be deleted considering some of these battles are notable topics for them to have their own wikipedia page.If i have the time i can try to maybe revamp these pages to make them better and to remove sources that are either unreliable or outdated. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Twarikh e Khalsa. I agree with your analysis and believe you can help improve them. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Harapanahalli - Karnataka - requesting attention

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Non-co-operative user:

Darshan Kavadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Article under discussion Harapanahalli, Talk:Harapanahalli, article history

• Content dispute: @Darshan Kavadi (almost single purpose account) adds Kannada language words "ವಿದ್ಯಾಸಿರಿ ನಾಡು" (Transliteration: Vidyasiri Nadu (Land of rich education/Best Education etc) According to contesting user SJanakiPSusheela It's actually local media sobrequet, hence undue) to the article Harapanahalli in info box 'other_name' without providing reliable source as per WP requirement plus has slow edit warred with contesting user almost since June 24th.

@ WP:RPPI contesting user requested increase in page protection but got declined with either AIV or ANI solution.

Since I came across the message @ WP:RPPI attempted to mediate with @Darshan Kavadi at article talk then at user talk page asking to support the change with reliable source. Not only there is a lack of expected response, but Kavadi reinserted contested change and removed citation needed template put by me.

@SJanakiPSusheela is technically correct in following MOS:PUFFERY and deleting unsourced content. Though the route of AIV or ANI is always available; I am not sure to do the same for relatively small issue with a relatively novice user. Can some one take one more chance to help explain the user and handle the issue further if required.

Bookku (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

He has removed your date & citation needed formats too. Kindly ask admins to protect the page after removing disputed things in the article please. SJanakiPSusheela (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller @RegentsPark

The above user is requesting admin attention. Bookku (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting review at FLC

Requesting interested reviewers who are active in FLC, kindly review the article I've nominated here Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/AIFF Player of the Year Awards/archive2. Things usually take long at FLC but it has been months since source review has been done by the FLC director and according to process they follow, FLC delegates want to see more review to promote it. It will be a great help since I've other articles which I'm thinking for nominations. Thank you all. Drat8sub (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Directive Principles

Directive Principles has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The odd case of the New York Times becoming a friend of Modi gov

When I heard that 250 eminent citizens of India had labelled the New York Times "an uninterested, third party", my ears perked up.

Some searching revealed lines like these:

Citing a report in The New York Times which alleged that Indian news website NewsClick was among organisations funded by a pro-China US-based network, the government and the ruling BJP said Monday that the Congress, NewsClick and China were linked to an “anti-India umbilical cord”.[14]

Some more searching revealed that The Indian Express had reprinted an entire NYT article three days earlier!

Poor NewsClick looks to be in danger of being shut down, to add to the disgrace of never having had a Wikipage for itself. I am sure the fans of Modi gov will fix the second problem soon. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Photos of Zanskar uploaded in Commons

I've uploaded ~230 photos of Zanskar in Commons. These are from a road journey from Manali to Padum and day hikes in the surroundings. Many are quality images, some are valued images and featured pictures.
Hope these are useful in WikiProjects India. Tagooty (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Patna–Mughalsarai section#Requested move 19 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Patna–Mughalsarai section#Requested move 19 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 06:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

2016 Indian Line of Control strike

This article is about refuted claim of a surgical strike but that should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead just like 2019 Balakot airstrikes does.

Kindly join the discussion at Talk:2016 Indian Line of Control strike#Authenticity to help establish consensus. Editorkamran (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Nalinibala Devi by Preeti Barua

This book pass WP:HISTRS ? Eduardo2024 (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Problem solved.

Eduardo2024 (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Article for Civil disobedience movement

We need to have a separate article for Civil disobedience movement which is a major part of the freedom movement. But this page - Civil disobedience movement is redirected to Salt March. Salt March is, no doubt, a major part of the civil disobedience movement, but not the entire movement itself. It needs a separate article. Chaduvari (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

And what will you write in it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected request

There are 2 extended confirmed protected requests on the talk page of the Rape in India article, dated 17th August. Someone please carry out the requests or decline the same with a reason there. Thanks!-2406:7400:98:B549:5DB:E017:FB6E:EDC3 (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Indian Express

Someone please carry out the request or decline the same with a reason here also.-2406:7400:98:B549:5DB:E017:FB6E:EDC3 (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Ram Mandir

Do Ram Mandir come under contentious topic, and if yes, shouldn't we add the contentious topic template onto the talk page? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I would think yes and yes. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Scholars under police investigations

You are comments are invited at the WP:RSN thread with this topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Kuki–Paite ethnic clash of 1997–1998

There seems to be disagreement over how to refer to different ethnic group. I moved the article back to its original title but I'd welcome more informed opiions on this issue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Shahbaz Khan (actor)#Requested move 15 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shahbaz Khan (actor)#Requested move 15 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 18:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Manjeshwar#Requested move 17 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Manjeshwar#Requested move 17 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – MaterialWorks 15:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hoshangabad district#Requested move 27 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hoshangabad district#Requested move 27 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hoshangabad#Requested move 27 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hoshangabad#Requested move 27 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:R Praggnanandhaa#Requested move 28 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:R Praggnanandhaa#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Culver Max Entertainment#Requested move 20 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Culver Max Entertainment#Requested move 20 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sharanga#Requested move 8 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sharanga#Requested move 8 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ahmedabad–Allahabad Weekly Superfast Express#Requested move 22 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ahmedabad–Allahabad Weekly Superfast Express#Requested move 22 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 20:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

India location articles - Orphan, No sources

While bouncing back and forth between WP Orphan articles & WP Unreferenced articles, I found these and am asking for help here.

• Bhakli
• Harnam Singh Wala
• Kalepalli, Chittoor district
• Karakuduru
• Katkai Silarpur
• Kethreddipalle

Instead of sending the above to "Proposing for deletion" or AfD, I am hopeful that editors here will improve them. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Support I will see what articles I can improve on and find someone that knows more about this. I can see some potential in these articles. Shadow345110 (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at these articles I think maybe it would be better if we draftify them @JoeMNLC. Shadow345110 (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aparna P Nair#Requested move 5 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aparna P Nair#Requested move 5 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. WWGB (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sengol

Eyes are welcome at Sengol. The article history speaks for itself. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023–24 Indian Federation Cup#Requested move 4 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023–24 Indian Federation Cup#Requested move 4 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent#Requested move 8 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent#Requested move 8 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 16:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

MP 11th lok Sabha

Can anyone share me direct link of profile of Sukhlal Kushwaha ,Member of Parliament from Satna Lok Sabha constituency for 11th Lok Sabha. From here [15] Admantine123 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

2016 Indian Line of Control strike has an RFC

2016 Indian Line of Control strike has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon

Hello Noticeboard for India-related topics:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrectly calling suburbs of Chennai as "separate cities"

Can someone look into the ongoing changes in Chennai suburb articles, chiefly, Tambaram, Avadi, Pallavaram, Pammal, Chromepet, Pattabiram, etc.? Link to the discussion is Talk:Tambaram City Municipal Corporation#City of Tambaram. Citing the creation of municipal corporations in the suburbs of Tambaram and Avadi in 2022 (which are merely for administrative reasons and doesn't make them separate cities), an editor keeps making changes in these articles claiming that Tambaram and Avadi are separate cities and that the suburbs of Pallavaram, Chromepet, Pammal etc. are "neighbourhoods" of "Tambaram City" and that suburbs such as Pattabiram are "neighbourhoods" of "Avadi City". They cite the word "city" used in the "Tambaram Municipal Corporation Act" document (Section 1 of the Tambaram City Municipal Corporation Act, 2022) to make these changes. Tambaram and Avadi are de facto suburbs of Chennai (similar to Mumbai's Andheri or Chembur) and they are constituent parts of the megalopolis (incorporating an area of 1179 sq km). These slew of changes began with an editor claiming Avadi and Tambaram as "satellite cities" of Chennai when in fact they are not (see [16], [17]). They even went on to create categories such as "Category:Neighbourhoods in Tambaram" (which is now considered for deletion). This way, every suburb within Chennai's metropolitan area would become the neighbourhoods of the abutting suburbs, creating chaos in the categories "Category:Neighbourhoods of Chennai" and "Category:Suburbs of Chennai". Moveover, all these changes were made unilaterally without any consensus (despite my reverting these changes several times). An expert review may be warranted here. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:India International Convention and Expo Centre#Requested move 17 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:India International Convention and Expo Centre#Requested move 17 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Din-i Ilahi#Requested move 16 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Din-i Ilahi#Requested move 16 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Same Place

Is Sitamarhi, Nawada the same place as Sitamarhi?Annwfwn (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

With a quick glance, I would think not. One is the headquarters of Sitamarhi district. The other is a small village in Nawada district. The two districts don't abut each other. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh#Requested move 21 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion going on at Talk:List of chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh#Talk:List of chief ministers of Uttar Pradesh that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:New Parliament House, New Delhi#Requested move 19 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion going on at Talk:New Parliament House, New Delhi#Requested move 19 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Daily News and Analysis#Requested move 25 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Daily News and Analysis#Requested move 25 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 15:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Indian Idol#Requested move 26 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indian Idol#Requested move 26 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Should we mention OBC credentials of Narendra Modi

I mentioned Narendra Modi's OBC credentials in his "Early life and education" section but my edit was reverted. Then the matter was discussed at Talk:Narendra Modi here but we couldn't reach a consensus. Should we include the following line in "Early life and education" section of Narendra Modi:

He belongs to an OBC community.

Dympies (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

References

• Support: Its a well known fact that Narendra Modi belongs to an OBC community. He has publically said this several times that he belongs to a backward caste. His OBC identity has been widely published in the media which proves its relevance in his social and political career. So, inclusion of the said line should not be a big deal. Dympies (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

A class of people in Indian society are also adamant to highlight time and again that Narendra Modi belongs to a Backward Caste. I don't know why. Interestingly, this class doesn't belong to Modi's own caste. Adding caste of Modi to his article is as much relevant as adding caste of his mighty cabinet members.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you can contesting his OBC credentials? If yes, then this Wire source is for you. Dympies (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support I think we should also include a footnote that include a note on how his OBC credentials have been questioned by the opposition.

Wrythemann (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I beg to differ with you, Wrythemann. There are many political statements which are outright false. The opposition calling him a "fake OBC" should be seen in that light only. The Wire source clears that the questions raised on his OBC credentials are not justified. Our platform should be truthful without giving undue importance to such political statements. Dympies (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wrythemann (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• support caste name but oppose OBC/BC etc:Caste is entrenched in Indian society much more than race is entrenched in the US society. And I believe it affects more, in education, employment, politics, etc than race does in the US. In fact, unless a person is living isolated from society like Tarzan, it is impossible that a caste does not affect him/her. It would be better if we mention his actual caste rather than categorize it as OBC/forward. [updated]The OBC or BC classification should be left to the caste specific page. The OBC status of castes change so should not be on Modi's page. LukeEmily (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  We obviously can't mention his Ghanchi caste as we don't have a primary source for that. I disagree with your rationale for opposing mention of OBC. If status of caste changes, nothing stops us from updating the page. Dympies (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hi there @Dympies I beg your pardon, its not Ghanchi, his actual caste is Hindu Ghosi. Their occupations are totally different. Hindu Ghosis primarily raise cattle and supply milk. Whereas, the Telis supply oil. Both are OBC. I am neutral about including his caste, at the moment. I agree there are ample sources that say Modi comes from OBC background.

  Regards Nirmohiji (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nirmohiji, his party claims that his caste is Modh Ghanchi or simply Ghanchi. See this. Dympies (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Dympies You are right about him being a Ghanchi. I had mistaken Ghanchi for Ghosi earlier. Thanks for the information. I personally think Modi's caste is not a very important factor. People certainly do not vote him for his caste. It true that he known for his work not caste (good or bad).

  As per the current political scenario, it is fair to say that OBC vote bank is the most important vote bank in the country (India/Bharat).

  And I'll not be surprised if Modi's opposition alleges that "Modi wants to lure OBC voters and that is why he is presenting himself as an OBC". But

  No community stands behind him (not even his caste) like the RSS. And like it is said by the RSS members commonly, Sangh is a family itself. His Family is RSS. And also the BJP.

  I continue to remain neutral on the inclusion of Narendra Modi's OBC credentials.

  Thanks again Nirmohiji (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)