Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:53, 10 August 2011

Shortcuts WT:IN WT:INB

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

India Project‑class This page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Misplaced Pages Meetups edit Upcoming none Recent Outside India Past meetups

Audio for Mamata Banerjee

Someone has asked me for an audio file for the Hindi pronunciation of Mamata Banerjee's name. I'm not able to make such a file - would anyone here be willing to make one? (A file for the Bengali pronunciation would be useful too, but it's specifically the Hindi pronunciation that I've been asked for.) --Zundark (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Titodutta (talk · contribs) might be able to help, if I remember correctly he's uploaded a couple of ogg files for Bengali names. I'm not sure what you mean by Hindi pronunciation, it's a Bengali name -- both first and last names are uniquely Bengali, while the first has a Hindi variant, the latter doesn't. —SpacemanSpiff 12:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Actually Banerjee isn't very Bangla, it is an English corruption, bangla prefers Bandopadhya and is written বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়. Mamta can be pronounced मोमता / ममता, audio file will depend on whether the speaker is speaking Bangla or Hindi or English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I mean either, but I've pointed the user to this page, and he can ask Titodutta if he wants to. Thanks for your help. --Zundark (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you can upload the Hindi pronunciation of Mamata Banerjee, however the pronunciation of Hindi in that article is incorrect, i guess someone has to correct it. "(Hindi) ", "(Bengali) " or "(English) /mɑːmtæ ˈbɒnɛə/.--Kkm010* 04:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please respond.--Kkm010* 05:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I cannot provide the pronounciations in IPA, but I believe the phonetic pronounciations are:

English: Mum-taa Banner-jee

Hindi:Mum-a-taa Bun-err-jee

Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, I think we can upload the Hindi pron, what you think which one should be uploaded the Hindi or Bengali pron. I know that you can't upload, but other editors can therefore we can request them to upload the original and correct pron.--Kkm010* 13:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please someone respond and try to upload the pronunciation.--Kkm010* 13:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Victor Banerjee is scripted as (Hindi: विक्टर बैनर्जीِ). This is a better one than (ममता बनर्जी). -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How to spell bulbul tarang in Hindi and Urdu?

The article bulbul tarang has no local-language spellings in its lede; does anyone know how to spell this in Hindi and Urdu? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Phonetically: "बुलबुल तरंग"  Office of Disinformation  17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated, but I have the same problem with your version as I had with my phonetic guess at Urdu (I'm a Persian speaker): neither one brings up a resassuringly large number of ghits for the instrument in question on GoogleImages. Yours does get the instrument as its first hit, but no other pics of that same item. I would expect that if we had the spelling right we'd get pages and pages of people selling, discussing, etc. the instrument, and GI would be full of various pictures of them. I don't know if my methodology just isn't a workable way to verify the spellings, or if we're both off somehow. Ideally, I'd like to find someone who is familiar with reading about the instrument and knows exactly how it's spelled. If nobody here is 100% sure, I can go to a specifically South Asian music forum and ask the musicians there. Thanks for the stab though, I tried the same for Urdu. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

MV, Office of disinformation has the correct Hindi or Devnagari script spelling. Having said that, my father played the instrument in his childhood ( 1930s/40), however, he used the Japanese name, however, my cousin who played it in 1960s and 70s called in bulbul tarang. My father thought,, the instruments were identical. hope this helps.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As a non-Indian, maybe I'm missing the joke here? Are you saying there's some official site where I can find the spellings? Can you link me to it, or just copy-paste the spellings here? So far as the Japanese name, I take it you mean Taishōgoto? Cool, interesting to know it still used its imported name for a while. Thanks for any help finding these Urdu and Hindi names! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

बुलबुल तरंग. This is the only spelling you can have in Dev nagari script used for writing Hindi, Marathi , Sanskrit and Nepali languages. I could not find any official site for the spellings, however check the following link. . In Marathi and Hindi, Bulbul stands for nightingale and Tarang for harmony or waveJonathansammy (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC). Check these out Jonathansammy (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Invite to WikiConference India 2011

Please stop

SpacemanSpiff brought up the following at my talk:

"Please stop" your page moves citing WP:NCINDIA. Most people have opposed your version of things and now moving articles randomly citing an unaccepted proposal as guideline is not on. Please establish consensus first and then do what consensus dictates. —SpacemanSpiff 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I moved article from "X, something district" to "X, something", that was opposed nowhere. Also my citation are not randomly. You did not engage in the discussion, please cite opposition. Also I did disambiguate titles. I was /not/ moving "X, state" to "X, district" in cases where "X, state" is not ambiguous. So, what is the problem? Do you want to hold even these little improvement? Have you seen how much I contributed by creating the SIA pages? The new sub-districts of India overview? What are you doing in that respet apart from opposing. What is the problem with the work I am doing. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• I was about to fix this: Attoor (Kanya Kumari). But well, I will stop now. Please describe your problem in more detail. And hey, I won't do what so called "consensus" dictates. This is voluntary work done by me. If the "consensus" is to do something I would not like to support, I would just leave. Thank you for listening Mr. Dictator. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Also, I don't see how "most people have opposed" "my" "version of things". It were only two that showed up and opposed using the district as minimum. But they dropped out of the discussion afterwards. And one complete outsider opposed, but he seems to have a lack of awareness of the issue, and equates UK ceremonial counties with Indian states. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No knowledge of the detail, but Misplaced Pages is a community and relies on consensus. Put simply, if you cannot deal with that basis then leaving may well be the solution. I hope that it does not come to that, however. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP is also voluntary, and I don't like that a user comes and says I have to do what is dictated by a specific consensus. Anyway, maybe SpacemanSpiff can provide details of what moves were done against consensus. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like that you need consensus when you want your proposals to be accepted as guidelines then you'll need to create another voluntary encyclopedia, guidelines here will have to be accepted by the community. What you did now is to move articles from "xyz, abc district" to "xyz, abc" where abc is a big town. You have now introduced ambiguity in hitherto clean titles by removing the "district" from them because now the title can be confused for either a part of a city/town or part of district. Kurnool, Nizamabad etc are not small towns and the fact that a sub-region can be either a neighbourhood of the city or a village/town in the district matters a lot. This is what happens if you keep on going with these page moves without taking any feedback into account. First it was Hyderabad, Rameswaram etc, now this. —SpacemanSpiff 15:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You are putting things in my mouth that I did not say. I didn't say I don't like that I need consensus. Also I like feedback, Rameswaram maybe was a mistake. Why Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh is the only Indian city to use ", India" and furthermore this name beeing ambiguous I still do not understand. For the removal of the "district" part I agree with you. I will stop moving "xyz, abc district" to "xyz, abc". But I have to notice that this is the first time someone opposed to this and brought up facts. Crusoe8181 agreed with not using "...district" and also this is what was done in many or most places anyway. I will stop this, but additionally I would like to see some real world examples where this is a problem. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not putting words in your mouth, you said "WP is also voluntary, and I don't like that a user comes and says I have to do what is dictated by a specific consensus", there isn't really any two ways about that. And in my first post to you, I requested that you wait for feedback before implementing your changes, but no, instead of actually waiting for feedback you came here alleging that everyone is biased against India and just indulged in personal attacks. I have just told you how it becomes a problem with Kurnool etc where when someone sees a title they can not say if it's a city neighbourhood or a village in a district. —SpacemanSpiff 16:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to do what "consensus" dictates. WP is voluntary. And for Kurnool, I meant, is there actually any naming conflict? Is there any neighbourhood that is named like a village in Kurnool district? Other article titles that use the plain name do not tell either whether they are a neighbourhood, a village, a town etc. One wouldn't even know it is about a place at all. And what would happen if a neighbourhood is disambiguated by mandal - you wouldn't know whether it is a village in that mandal. But I repeat, I agree to hold on with removing "district". There is a lot of other things that can be done before that. As for not waiting for feedback, I asked for feedback, and only when I saw that people opposed a more clear cut system I said some things that I as of today would not like to repeat. This is gone. And please: Thank you for pointing this district-removal thing out to me. I am happy to learn. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sitush "No knowledge of the detail, but Misplaced Pages is a community and relies on consensus. Put simply, if you cannot deal with that basis then leaving may well be the solution. I hope that it does not come to that, however." - Why do you say such things to me. I enforced consensus by moving Hyderabad, India back to Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. It is SpacemanSpiff who moved to a name that had no "official" agreement. He is the one randomly moving single articles. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

On going accusations by SpacemanSpiff

On my talk: "Page moves" ... This is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop moving pages incorrecfly claiming consensus or under the cover of a guideline that doesn't exist. —SpacemanSpiff 06:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you refer to? The last time you didn'T provide details but left me in the dark, after asking you, you said it was about "Abc, def district" -> "Abc, def", which actually was agreed on. But nevertheless I stopped doing these moves. This time, what are you talking about??? Please if you accuse me of having done something wrong, then tell where and what!!! After the last talk about that:

1. where did I incorrectly claim consensus
2. where did I refer to a guideline that doesn't exist? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You have to stop running here crying fowl every time something you don't like happens, this is getting quite tiresome and disruptive. You have been told multiple times, specifically about Hyderabad, India, yet you moved it claiming consensus (again), and you move citing WP:NCINDIA and you plaster that page with the {{guideline}} tag when looking at the talk page there really is no acceptance of it as a guideline or any such thing. If you really can not work with other people and must have your way at all cost and find feedback abhorrent and hold the opinion "I don't have to do what "consensus" dictates.", then you really need to stop volunteering to do such things. —SpacemanSpiff 10:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You are putting words in my mouth, this is tiresome. I did not cry foul. I just assumed your vague accusations were related to WP India and so I posted it here so that other people see what accusations you bring up and maybe can mediate.

1. "You have been told multiple times" - What have I been told multiple times?
2. "specifically about Hyderabad, India" - Give me the multiple diffs please!!
3. "yet you moved it claiming consensus" - actually I provided the diff for that consensus, so it is up to you why that does not hold!!!
4. "(again)" - where did I claim consensus "again"?
5. "and you move citing WP:NCINDIA" - where did I do that since the last talk on that NB? Please provide diff!!!
6. "you plaster that page with the {{guideline}} tag when looking at the talk page there really is no acceptance of it as a guideline" - Sorry, there was no opposition either. I only documented what the current usage is. The conventional usage. And this thing is called Naming convention (India) isn't it? And you reverted my anyway, WP:BRD, and I left that. So what is the ongoing problem here?
7. "If you really can not work with other people" - what is that? What are you talking? I am working with other people. Seems you don't like some of my work, but that does not mean I cannot work with other people.
8. "and must have your way at all cost" - What do you mean by all cost?
9. "find feedback abhorrent" - You mean my one of these: Also I like feedback OR Thank you for pointing this district-removal thing out to me. I am happy to learn. OR Thanks a lot! ?
10. "and hold the opinion "I don't have to do what "consensus" dictates.", then you really need to stop volunteering to do such things." - which such things? You want me to stop to work on Misplaced Pages, because you disagreed with some actions??? Who are you that you think you can dictate what happens here? I think you are not the owner of Misplaced Pages, are you? As I understand, this is a community afford. I tell you again that I regard WP as voluntary, and I never have to work on it. I don't know what is so hard to understand with that? If consensus dictates to put red banners in all pages, I would rather leave than to do what consensus dictates. You understand? I don't have to do what consensus dictates. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that you yourself have asked about Hyderabad multiple times in response to statements, there's no reason for me to explain anything any further, as such that page is no guideline and the talk page is proof of that at this point. Your moves are becoming disruptive and you'll need to stop until you establish consensus, simple as that. And yes, you don't have to work on it, but when you do, you have to follow rules and guidelines, this is not a free for all and if you can not respect the need for consensus, this place is not for you. My last response to you on this matter. I've had enough with your accusations and attacks on this page and elsewhere. —SpacemanSpiff 11:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Again vague accusations, which moves? You have not replied to the 10 question above. So what kind of discussion is that? Do you see that you are attacking my contributions vaguely? What can I learn for my editing from vague accusations? What is this Hyderabad thing? There was consensus to not use the country level for India. You are ignoring that. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Started talk at Talk:Hyderabad,_India#Hyderabad.2C_Andhra_Pradesh_and_WP:BIAS. No need for drama, shouting and vague accusations. Simply stick to the facts. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

===Accusations by Crusoe8181===Doctored talk And we can stop arguing and get on with our work; the recent move of Brest, France requires 2083 (repeat, two thousand and eighty-three) links to be corrected- You understand? I don't have to do what consensus dictates is a lovely attitude (I always consider I am bound by consensus) but the idea of leaving just these 2083 links to someone else to sort out (when consensus is that we tidy up after moves) is not particularly helpful to the project. I would rather leave than to do what consensus dictates. Well, what is keeping you? Perhaps, when there is consensus to suggest you go away that would presumably encourage you to stay, and cost us more time and inconvenience. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)).

I made the article name conforming to WP:MOS I do not see on Misplaced Pages:MOVE that there is consensus that one has to change all links. And why do they need to be corrected? There is redirect. What else are redirects for? And if someone really wants a change then I wonder are there no bots? And for the other topic: to be bound by consensus is different from having to do what consensus dictates. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

::I DID NOT PUT MY EDIT UNDER THE HEADING IT HAS BEEN GIVEN - PLEASE DIG VERY DEEP AND FIND THE MOST MINIMAL COURTESY YOU CAN MUSTER AND MOVE MY BLOODY COMMENTS BACK TO WHERE I PUT THEM!!!!!!!!!!!! (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)). rather be editing, wasted a bit more time fixing (Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)).

If you do less errors like at on 01:57, 7 May 2010 Crusoe8181 "moved Banga, Punjab (India) to Banga, Punjab: sufficient dab" when Banga, Punjab is not sufficient - you would have even more time. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And if you don't create ambiguous names like at "08:45, 25 April 2011 Crusoe8181 (talk | contribs) moved Bogaram, Ranga Reddy district to Bogaram ‎ (dab not needed)" then articles of WP India would need less work for being properly named and linked.

You complained about

• 03:05, 25 July 2011 Bogdan Nagachop (talk | contribs) m (29,264 bytes) (moved Brest, France to Brest, Finistère over redirect: Misplaced Pages:MOS-FR#Cities_.26_communes ... placed under placename, département.)

with me citing a naming convention, when you did 9 days ago

• 02:43, 16 July 2011 Crusoe8181 (talk | contribs) moved Pau, France to Pau, Pyrénées-Atlantiques over redirect ‎ (naming by convention)

without citing any naming convention. Do you really think my move on Brest, enforcing the naming convention, was that bad? Or did you more come here because of other reasons. What is the real reason? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pau has had all the linking corrected, I didn't think move of Brest was so bad, just didn't think the 2000+ links would be fixed any time soon. There is only one Misplaced Pages article on a place called Bogaram so dab not needed unless an article on another created. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)).

Thanks for your reply. I didn't think that any links via a redirect would cause a problem and would be resolved over time. For Bogaram, I think with 600 000 potential villages, who knows which ones is created next, another approach should be applied in the future. If something is at "X, district or taluk" it should be avoided to move it temporarily to "X" to have it moved back to "X, district or taluk" later and then to have to disambiguate incoming links. When a plain redirect as with Brest is of concern, than a link to a dab page is of more I guess. The tool at http://censusindia.gov.in/PopulationFinder/Population_Finder.aspx can help a little bit to check for ambiguous names, but due to different spellings in other sources this does not detect all possible conflicts. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am leaving.

My plan was to greatly improve the quality of the articles related to Indian geography. But if people bring me to WP:ANI and tell false things about me, allegations that I acted against consensus, allegations that I accuse everybody of being biased... I never did these things. I started creating WP:SIA pages, so far I only got 260, the plan was to get to 1000 in the next month. This would have massively helped to avoid ambiguity in links. SpacemanSpiff and Crusoe8181 did win. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your hard work and the contributions you have made to the project. However, it is necessary that you understand that the functioning of Misplaced Pages is firmly based on consensus. It is essential that you learn to collaborate and work with long-time contributors like User:SpacemanSpiff. Also, while I do agree that there are, indeed, some individuals in Misplaced Pages who are biased, accusing each and every Wikipedian who disputes with you of bias is a violation of WP:AGF and does not look good. People like User:Dr. Blofeld and User:SpacemanSpiff have made extraordinary contributions to Wikiproject India and even created a few good articles.-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 04:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan, You have put in a great amount of work within a short period of time. But you let your enthusiasm let you get ahead of the usual process. Misplaced Pages works by consensus building, it is sometimes slow, frustrating and doesnt go the way we want it to go. In your case multiple people, for some reason or another did not see things as you see (you might have been correct for all i know and we might have been wrong). But you went about convincing us the wrong way right from the start. The pro/anti india comments, accusations of bias, not waiting till the consensus was established etc was pretty bad. You have all the markings of a great contributor if you have the patience to get accustomed to how wiki works. There is no need to leave in a huff, i request you to stick around, slow down your pace and start again. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• You both miss that there was consensus. SpacemanSpiff is shouting all over the place that there was not, and now even you seem to believe that. But here is the permalink : rgpk, Crusoe8181 and me agreeing. No opposition there at all. Later, after discussion on this NB, I got a real green thumb even for district dab by User Yogesh Khandke. I got a brownie for the SIA pages. The SIA pages use ", India" thus any article on a specific place using ", India" is not good for the SIA project. The only user opposing dropping country level dab and to use at least state level is SpacemanSpiff. He is the one that acts against consensus when moving Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh to Hyderabad, India and moving Banga, Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar to the ambiguous name Banga, India and deleting the SIA article that I had created there.
• @ Soda, the pro/anti-India thing was solved. rgpk made a nice comment, bringing me to light. I cannot change my past darkness.
• @ Enforcer "accusing each and every Wikipedian who disputes with you of bias is a violation of WP:AGF" - I have not done that. Everyone can see in the history of my actions, that there were disputes were I did not. When, I did assume bias, I did that in some very specific situations, where I perceived one. That bias exists is acknowledge by WP:BIAS. And I still think there is some, e.g. "Andhra Pradesh" cannot be used in a dab tag because avg reader would know what that is as User:Nikkul said. But at the same time Rhode Island can be used, I guess the average reader wouldn't know either what that is. An island? BTW, it's not.
• "It is essential that you learn to collaborate and work with long-time contributors like User:SpacemanSpiff." - And wouldn't it be essential that he learns to not act against consensus? I am not asking him to do what consensus dictates as he did with me , i.e. I am not asking him to remove ", India" as was agreed by WP India (the consensus dictates), because I think WP is voluntary and he can do other things. But I ask that in the future he does not move articles in the opposite direction as with Banga and Hyderabad.
• Looking forward: What is your position on the Banga thing, would you appreciate that I open a move request there? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

THis is exactly the problem of your misinterpretations. Two people agreed with you on the general idea, and then I objected (which you conveniently ignore when you claim consensus) and in the specific example of Hyderabad, there are also objections on the article talk page. That is NOT consensus. And I've been continuously saying, take these to WP:RM to move and not move them unilaterally and that's another thing you refuse to listen to. This is plain ridiculous. And your allegations of bias are there for all to see in every discussion you open, so if you don't mean that people are biased, then don't say it. —SpacemanSpiff 13:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• 4:1 - is majority. I know that majority is not consensus, but in WP the word is used with the meaning that a majority was behind an idea. What is your definition of consensus then?
• "And your allegations of bias are there for all to see in every discussion you open" - I don't see it here: - Either there is some variation in sight between us or in our definition of every. What is your definition of every? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for again misrepresenting facts once again: It was 3-1 and a continuing discussion, not 4-1 and closed; and it was in general terms, not discussing any specifics of a change to policy and implementing immediately on existing titels. Next, yes, you don't accuse anyone of bias on Russian topics, but it's there for all to see on this board, on Talk:Hyderabad, India etc. So, I'm guessing that you aren't leaving then and that it was just more hyperbole? I'm done responding to you. —SpacemanSpiff 14:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there can be 99 people saying "yes" to something here and 1 saying "no" ... and the one person can have things their way. You need to appreciate that consensus on Misplaced Pages is not a vote. Nobody votes on this project, anywhere in day-to-day stuff. For something to happen it not only needs generally to be favoured but also to comply with policies, guidelines, conventions etc & it is because of this that the "majority" (as you call it) do not always get their way. There are other issues involved also, which makes the entire situation far, far more complex than you think it is. One of the key issues is "are they still talking"? If discussion is ongoing and valid points are being raised then it should usually be allowed to continue until those points are resolved to the satisfaction of everyone.

For what it is worth, I am not too happy with what you were trying to do either. - Sitush (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

@Sitush: SpacemanSpiff has another defintion than you, since he told me that I should do what consensus dictates. That means, even if I have another opinion and it is not to my satisfaction, then there would be something like a consensus. Or do you exclude me from "everyone"? Can you say where "X, <some region but not country>", something done by Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States is against any guideline if it is done for places located in India?

@SpacemanSpiff: rgpk + Crusoe8181 + Bogdan + Yogesh = 4. How would you count? "you don't accuse anyone of bias on Russian topics, but it's there for all to see on this board, on Talk:Hyderabad, India etc." - I don't see it "in every discussion (I) open" even if every is reduce to mean India-related: Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-read what I said, You have completely misunderstood it. You do not get your own way here and you have been told this time and again, including at ANI. If you cannot cope with that then go, and stay gone; if you can adapt then I'll be really pleased because you have a lot to offer. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You said "Actually, there can be 99 people saying "yes" to something here and 1 saying "no" ... and the one person can have things their way." in reply to a case where I showed that I enforced the 4:1 majority opinion. You actually seem to say if I am the one that has the minority opinion then I shall leave, but if SpacemanSpiff has the minority opinion and acts against WP:RM decisions and deletes SIA pages without discussion then this is fine and if I am trying to enforce the majority opinion I shall leave. Summary: If I have an opinion that is contrary to that of SpacemanSpiff I shall leave, when he has a view contrary to everyone else he can have "his own way". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Bogdan Nagachop, I hope you don't mind a few thoughts from me. Firstly, I agree it would be great to get some sort of agreed guidelines for place naming and disambiguation for India - as you and others point out, even the number of villages is astronomical compared to just about any other country, and naming conventions used in much smaller countries may well be completely unworkable for India. And I think it would be good to get it decided sooner rather than later - it would be a real pain to rack up a few thousand articles about Indian places (which I sincerely hope we will do), and then discover people have been using a whole multitude of different standards. But the problem is the way you went about it. This is a topic of significant magnitude, and we should not be treating it as an emergency that needs to be solved immediately. Something like this needs a proper consensus, and a proper consensus would potentially involve something like several months of discussion, involving as many of our Misplaced Pages community as we can get. It really is not a job for a quick proposal, and it will not be decided by just 5 people - we need to get it right, rather than get it done urgently. What I'd envisage is some lengthy discussions with various alternatives explored, and then sometime later perhaps a Community !vote (which is not just a straight vote) to decide the way to go - and we'd look for input from people working in various fields, including Manual of Style and Disambiguation. And then, possibly work on the formulation of a new consensus guideline - and all of that before we change or move a single article. We should absolute not go changing everything as soon as one proposal has a small handful of people in agreement. Now, if you can work within this collegial environment, and you can accept the "slow and steady" way we make important decisions here, building as large a consensus of the best quality we can rather than the fastest we can, I sincerely hope you will stay with us and contribute your valuable insights and your undoubted enthusiasm -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this statement. It was interesting for me to read. We will see whether it will take several months, I would favor not, since already now there are several villages that I discovered that had two articles, one I found had even three. The NC was listed on this very NB and the talk stopped, so I don't know how to get more people involved. Also on NCGN the talk that I started did stop. It seems now that more people are interested, I am happy about that. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • (ec)(1) No Bogdan Nagachop don't leave, there are 3 million articles on Wikpedia and I am sure, there will be enough articles for you to contribute without stressing yourself. I have read comments above which made me wonder whether you are some disease best kept away, which is a pity. Such an attitude was the reason for my bringing the blog to the notice of the founder. Every one should remember that he has promised to look at the issue, it is only a matter of months. (2)I agree with your comments on consensus and your statements in defence of your position. Bogdan Nagachop, every policy is twisted, Gandhi move had a 33-7 favourable vote, but there the pro-move argument was found weaker than the anti-move argument, in the Tirthankar case it was a 1-6 vote in favour of the move, there the page was moved without so much of a by your leave. Consensus as you rightly pointed aint dancing to the tune of the band. Stay put and happy editing, no matter what the ghost busters say. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks Yogesh Khandke. Maybe those saying false things about me did only win a battle (me now stopping to work on the articles of Indian populated places) but they will not win the war (me stopping my work on wiping out inconsistency in India article naming). But I really feel unhappy if SpacemanSpiff can have his minority opinion enforced against the majority and people like Sitush say I shall leave if I am in the minority opinion but at the same time Sitush his saying that other people can have the minority opinion enforced even if it is 99:1. I wish you good luck with contacting the founder, maybe you can enlight him about what is going on here. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
    • (ec) Actually, a couple of us recently came across three articles about the same Indian village - written by the same person ;-) So yes, I certainly do recognise that problem. I am a bit late coming to this, and I am very busy (both in my day job and in other Misplaced Pages areas), but it's an area I'd like to try to help with - so as soon as I have a little bit of time, I'll look up the discussions and add my thoughts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
      • You can start to get involved at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
• (ec) Bogdan Nagachop, I think your starting the discussion on naming places in India is a very useful thing. We need to get some consensus on this and sooner is probably better than later. But, I do think you're going about it the wrong way. Comparing it to the guidelines in place for the US as a target to achieve is itself a bad idea (there is no reason why Indian place names have to follow the same logic as the US), but then accusing editors of being anti-Indian or declaring that there is a bias against India in wikipedia is a turn-off. Most people will just assume you're one of the many agenda driven editors who haunt this place. Your core idea, that Indian places should be disambiguated by state rather than India unless there are reasons otherwise, is a good one and worth getting consensus on. So don't give up, just focus on the reasons why it is a good one and go slow. --rgpk (comment) 17:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Appreciating your comment, I like to thank you again for your pro/anti statement. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) Having looked back on a lot of these discussions, I think the whole "bias" thing was really just down to miscommunication, and I don't think Bogdan Nagachop was intending to accuse anyone of deliberate anti-India bias. It is a fact that there is systemic bias at Misplaced Pages - that comes simply from the majority of editors being from the US and the UK, and our guidelines will inevitably be shaped according to what we American and British editors know and understand. So I'm hoping we can put this behind us and work together more harmoniously - we most definitely do need as many good editors from India as we can get (after all, India has the largest English-speaking population in the world, and has very high education standards, so there has to be enormous potential for new contributors there). And as we go along and get to know each other's ways better, we'll surely improve our mutual communication -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The article systemic bias says that bias can be countered by awareness. And maybe one day WP editors may be aware that the statement "most people reading wont know what Andhra Pradesh" also may apply to Rhode Island as in Warren, Rhode Island, and that this fact alone is not a reason to rename an article from an unambiguous Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh to ambiguous Hyderabad, India. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, South Africa, United Kingdom or the United States, use the name of the state, province, territory, region, county or department instead of the country name, but for Hyderabad this is denied with the reasoning "most people reading wont know what Andhra Pradesh" - maybe it is not bias, but it is denying to an article about a place in India something what other countries can have without problem. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

LISTS!!!

I hope the discussions on whatever that was above are over. (or at least have lost interest & enthu.) I would hence like to bring to your notice some new things.

• List of Telugu people vs List of people from Andhra Pradesh
• List of Bengali people vs List of people from West Bengal
• List of Marathi people vs List of people from Maharashtra
• List of Punjabi people vs List of people from Punjab

& so on.... People can be differentiated based on geographical living (even birth-place; thats dispute too) or the ancestry they belong to (even mother-tongue; thats dispute too) or other various things. As all these differentiations are valid, merger of these pages is not possible. (Especially with Punjabi & Bengali where the scope definitely goes beyond geo-borders.) But i dont think that we should have articles of these listings. They are always untidy, debating, redlinked, no-linked, fan-sites and what not. Wouldnt categories be sufficient for this cause of differentiation??? §Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Now how do i make this controversial so that people reply? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Varna discussion south India

I am voting in favor of removal of "Varna" content from the related castes Reddy, Kamma, Kapu, velama articles. The reasons why I have come to this conclusion is the following:

1. This was forced upon us in this article to add "Shudras". I am disputing why it should be there. We have never CLAIMED Kshatriya status in the lede. We are not subscribing to the Kshatriya varna and never claimed "dvija" status.

Please look at the following links, and as you know in south india the varna concept is forced upon and is a contentious issue.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7RW6MrAiJ-0C&pg=PA176&dq=reddi+kshatriyas&hl=en&ei=OB0rTpHGDM_qrQeOkvixDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=6&ved=0CEkQ6wEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=reddi%20kshatriyas&f=false

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=GhQrTu_ZOcnhrAfsg4iyDQ&ct=book-thumbnail&id=nG3aAAAAMAAJ&dq=reddys+in+south+indian+caste+system&q=reddys#search_anchor

http://books.google.co.in/books?ei=lRgtTr75C8rorQfd7qz2Dw&ct=book-thumbnail&id=AOU9AAAAIAAJ&dq=reddy+sat-sudra&q=wily#search_anchor

Page 93 in this link - http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aX-ZAEit4fgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Caste+and+democratic+politics+in+India+By+Ghanshyam+Shah&hl=en&ei=ngATTuq8OpDNrQeSg7CIBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q=reddys%20kshatriyas&f=false

It says - The Reddys, Nairs and Marathas were never backward. They are the Kshatriyas , Vaisyas of the north with the difference that religion did not sanctify these castes.meaning in the Aryan Brahmanical varna they are listed as upper shudras. But that was never accepted by Reddys.

There are accounts of "wily" Aryan Brahmins who just waltzed in and saw these prosperous and dominant castes and started to demean them by craftily creating a section called upper shudras. I am not disputing that in the Brahmanical system, reddys, kammas are upper shudras, i am just saying that "Varna" issues are contentious and highly debatable topic. So it is unfair to put up something so contentious up there especially when we are not claiming that we are Kshatriyas or brahmins or dvijas. The intention is that we just do not want to enter the GREY area and the highly contentious topic of Varna Foodie 377 (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I love your arguments and sources but come to a very different conclusion: it is precisely because these issues are complex and gray that we need to cover them. And not cover them with 3-4 words in an infobox (I'm coming to agree with Sitush that infoboxes are not only unhelpful but damaging here, see WP:Disinfoboxes), but cover them in the body of the article with a good summary of just how complex they are. You note varna was "forced" on South India, and I agree that appears to be the case, but that's even more reason to discuss the forced-ness, not just handwave it away as "forced" and thus somehow not significant. It may well be the case that much of South India will have to start any caste/varna mention with "it's complicated..." and follow up further down the page, as I did on Kayastha, but I think this controversy, rather than showing we should "leave it be" shows that these are "open wounds" or significant modern notability that need to be described. Though the goal of Misplaced Pages is not to Right Great Wrongs, I would submit for anyone concerned that people will be hurt by dredging up varna issues: people are already being hurt by the follow-on effects of varna issues, and being open about complex varna history is one way to keep this issues transparent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok what are your proposals? Because its just inane to just edit-war. How do you think we can better achieve a fair and balanced take on Varna in these articles.Foodie 377 (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of copypasting the whole discussion here, just post a link to the relevant talk page. This is going to duplicate discussion here and there--Sodabottle (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

SB, maybe instead we can delete the above bits on the other Talk pages and just keep it all here? I think we've both said some good overall things above, no point in leaving them out there and cutting them here rather than vice-versa. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ok. my concern was duplication, if the people involved have agreed to continue their discussion here, i see no problem with the copy paste.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) My proposals: 1) That glib "classifications" not be used in the infoboxes: neither varna, nor occupational titles. I'm not aware of any good centralised/non-contentious means of classifying communities other than OBC/SC-ST/Forward; I'm not adamantly against using those in infoboxes, but not supporting it, and I would vaguely support just ditching infoboxes in castes entirely. 2) That, where appropriate, there be a "Social role" or "Varna controversy" or "Caste politics" section in such articles where we discuss just what you mention above. For example, say the Fooian caste filled a warrior-type role in Kerala, and wily Brahmins declared them Shudras in order to disarm them, and then under the Brits the group sued for Kshatriya status on the basis of military service, and then in the modern day are Forward and receive no social assistance. Those would be outstanding details to include that would cut right to the heart of the complexities and fluidities in Indian society, and also head off POV-pusher attempts to add unsupportable fluff. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think infoboxes are a good tool as they give you a good snapshot. I would keep them although the info in them can be altered. And yes I agree definetely there should be a "varna status" or "caste politics" section wherever appropriate. I think I can understand your proposals. I will work on Reddy article and pilot this potential new format there. Then we can go from there. So until then I will self revert the article to previous state.Foodie 377 (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Sitush will be along in a bit to give his piece on how infoboxes aren't value-added for caste articles, so I won't steal his thunder. I'll look forward to seeing your tweak at Reddy (you've done great work there). Are you thinking to put OBC/SC-ST/Forward classifications in the infobox, or have no classification at all? Personally, rather than infoboxes I'd be fine with just one good historical photo/sketch of a typical traditional member, the name in English and their traditional languages, and that's pretty much it. Wait, actually a little map with dots where they were historically found would be awesome, though I don't know how feasible. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I got here, at a snail's pace :( I will comment at the template talk page, since that is where a discussion about infoboxes is most likely to be relevant. As MatthewVanitas infers, I have a real problem with this particular 'box and would gladly see it banished entirely. However, even a pruning of it would be better than nothing. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on the specific point of varna the template could work if people used the thing as it was designed. There are separate fields for "varna", "classification" and "disputed varna". As an example, in the case of Kurmi, these fields could be filled with Shudra, Kshatriya and OBC, respectively. Don't go rushing there to do it, though. There has been a long-winded discussion on the talk page that resulted in the entire concept of using those fields being rejected on the grounds of them merely being a magnet for dispute & impossible to do justice to in the space available in the box. This would be my argument at Template_talk:Infobox_caste, when I get round to it. - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now posted my utterly compelling argument at the template talk page. Well, it is utterly compelling to me, at any rate, but doubtless others will think differently. That is the place for this discussion henceforth. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To caveat: by "this discussion" you mean specifically the infobox portion thereof, yes? That's fine by me, we can cover template chat at the template page. There is still the larger issue of varna classification in the body of the article, and I think Foodie and I are on the same page there, so good positive steps. Again, I think in a lot of cases varna is worth mentioning somewhere in the lede, even if it is just "it's complicated (see below)", and goodness knows plenty of articles love to jam "Kshatriya" into the first sentence. It'll take some tweaking to get words that make all parties happy, but I hope we can agree that varna is: 1) complicated and changing 2) of great interest to readers and with echoing effects even in the modern day 3) sensitive and should be addressed with precision but without censorship or waffling. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Foodie 377. I too am having problems with the word "S*****". Some time ago, there was a proposal to use the word "Dalit" instead of "S*****". Do you think you are OK with it? I understand that it is the word which is supposed to be acceptable in North India and there would seem to be no distaste for that word there.-MangoWong (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Where was that proposal? I hope that you are not referring to something that I said because it most certainly was not a proposal. If you think that it was then you have misread it. Furthermore, we cannot call a community "dalit" without reliable sources to verify that. It is not a synonym. - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added new section 'Varna status' in the body of the Reddyarticle. Foodie 377 (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

MW, you seem fixated on this "let's compromise and say Dalit instead of Shudra" issue. Is this some joke on your part, or attempt to trick people into agreeing with you so you can turn around and show it as a facetious suggestion? "Dalit" and "Shudra" are not at all the same thing, so I'm having a hard time thinking of some legitimate reason you could be suggesting this. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

So called " Dominion of " India

The following is an extract from the Indian Independence Act 1947:

1.-(i) As from the fifteenth day of August, ninteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.

The following are a sample (sample only) of the many treaties during the period that India was a Dominion. In none is India described as the "Dominion of India":

• No. 1796. EXCHANGE OF LETTERS CONSTITUTING AN AGREEMENT1 BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND INDIA EXTENDING THE FINANCIAL AGREEMENT OF 14 AUGUST 19472 . NEW DELHI, 15 FEBRUARY 1948
• No. 543. AGREEMENT1 BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF SWEDEN RELATING TO AIR SERVICES. SIGNED AT NEW DELHI, ON 21 MAY 1948

There is no dispute but that India was indeed a Dominion between 1947 and 1949. However, it is abundantly clear that both its common name and its official name was never the "Dominion of India" although that term was used sometimes. Accordingly the article called "Dominion of India" should be moved to something more appropriate e.g. "India (Dominion)" and the article revised accordingly. I want to raise this here so as to (i) reach consensus as to the facts; (ii) agree where the article should be moved. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Indian state between 1947 and 1950 has been refereed to as "Dominion of India" in many official documents and in secondary sources. Check the jammu and kashmir Instrument of Accession, it clearly uses the term ""dominion of india". Other instruments of accessions signed by various princely states also use the term (they declare they are acceding to "dominion of india"). Here is a UN document from the 47-50 period which uses "dominion of india". The indian Constituent Assembly called itself the Constituent Assembly of the Dominion of India. So i dont think a move is necessary. The current title is fine--Sodabottle (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The current indian constitution itself refers to the predecessor state as "Dominion of India" in multiple places. (check out Article 370's text)--Sodabottle (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sodabottle, Taking each of your statements in turn:

• "The Indian state between 1947 and 1950 has been refereed to as "Dominion of India" in many official documents". No one has denied that. But I deny that it was ever the common name. That is critical. Also, very clearly, the term "Dominion of India" was not used in many, many official documents - far more - e.g. the fundamental source (the Indian Independence Act) and all Treaties lodged with the United Nations.
• Re. the "Instrument of Accession of Jamu and Kashmir" which you point to - read the very first lines - The expressly state that from 15 August 1947, there would be a new dominion to be known as "India" (not "Dominion of India") quoting the wording of the Indian Independence Act itself. The fact that the term Dominon of India is also used does not take from the fact that the Instrument itself sets out expressly how the Indian Independence Act itself determined how the new Dominion would be named.
• The fact that the Constitution includes reference to "Dominion of India" does not add one bit to whether or not that term was the common name (it clearly was not the official name - as per the Indian Independence Act) during the short era of the Indian Dominion.
• In summary - (1) You have not disputed that "India" (not "Dominion of India") was the official name of the Dominion; and (2) You have not shown that "Dominion of India" was the common name used for the country during the short period that it was a Dominion. Given the article is wrongly located because (1) it suggests (wrongly) that Dominion of India was the common name for the country at the time; and (2) the information on the article itself suggests that "Dominion of India" was the official name of the Dominion which it wasn't. I would welcome the views of other editors too. NelsonSudan (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The notion tha the use of the term "Dominion of India" in the present date constitution in some way reflects that the common or official name of the Indian dominion went by that name is further undermined by this exchange in the Indian parliament:

Shri H. V. Kamath : Sir, is it very necessary to say "the Government of the Dominion of India ?" Is it not enough to say "the Government of India?" Mr. President : There is a confusion. The Government of India means. also the Government of India under the new Constitution, but the Government of the Dominion of India means the Government which was in power before the commencement of the Constitution. I think it is to avoid that confusion that this amendment is brought in. - Source

Its very clear that the use of the term in the Constitution was intended merely as a convenience to avoid confusion between the "old dominion" India and the new India....NelsonSudan (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Which WP policies say it is required to not use a name that was used in official documents but in itself was not official? Which WP policies say it is required to not use a name that was a commonly used name in official documents and that was especially used to distinguish it from another object (India), but maybe was not a WP:COMMON name in the past? Regarding the example "India (Dominion)", WP:MoS would require "India (dominion)". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re. 1 - "Which WP policies say it is required to not use a name that was used in official documents but in itself was not official?" There is no such requirement. The requirement is that the common name be used. The common name was "India", not Dominion of India.

Re. 2 - "Which WP policies say it is required to not use a name that was a commonly used name in official documents and that was especially used to distinguish it from another object (India), but maybe was not a WP:COMMON name in the past?" This is more or less the same question as 1; the requirement is that we use THE common name. THE common name was "India", not "Dominion of India".

Regarding - "India (Dominion)", WP:MoS would require "India (dominion)" - Either sounds fine to me; if you think the latter is preferable, that's fine by me.

Separately, more light on the origins of the use of the term "Dominion of India" in the present day Constitution is again apparent from the foollowing (it does not add much beyond what I have quoted already above but thought I would add it in for completeness):

"Article 270

Mr. President: Then we go to article 270.

Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal: Muslim): Mr. President, Sir, I beg to move:

"That in article 270, the words 'the Dominion of' be deleted."

The word 'Dominion' is applicable to India as it is constituted today. In the new set-up of things which is being drawn by this Consititution the word 'Dominion' or the idea of any Dominion would be repugnant to our Constitution. That is why I have sought the deletion of this. If the deletion is accepted the passage will run thus namely "the Government of India" and not" the Government of the Dominion of India".

(Amendment No. 2976 was not moved.)

The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Sir, I move:

"That with reference to amendments Nos. 2975 and 2976 of the List of Amendments, in article 270, for the words 'assets and liabilities' the words 'assests, liabilities and obligations' be substituted."

Now, as regards the amendment moved by Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad, may I say that he has evidently forgotten that we are using the words "Government of India" to indicate the Government that will come into existence under the new Constitution, while the "Government of the Dominion of India" is a term which is being used to indicate the Government at the present moment? Consequently, if his amendment is accepted is accepted it would mean that the Government of India is succeeding to the liabilities, obligations and assests of the Government of India. It would make absurd reading. Therefore the words as they are there are very appropriate and ought to be retained."

Thanks. NelsonSudan (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The Indian government referred to the "Dominion of India" as the "Union of India" during the period 1947 to 50. In fact, the page use to be at Union of India, but it was moved to Dominion of India a few years ago. On the whole, "Dominion of India" is a less POV title. The reason for this is that in 1947, the "Union of India" was a reference to the Federal Union envisaged by the British Cabinet Mission of 1946, which would have included both Pakistan and Hindustan, and was Britain's last attempt to keep India united. By calling its part of undivided India, the Union of India, the Congress kept alive the POV that the partition was not a division of undivided India, but rather a secession of Pakistan from the Union, and also that if Pakistan didn't pan out, it could return to the Union. You can read about it, for example, in Bose and Jalal's Modern South Asia. So, I guess, I wouldn't change the current page name. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the book does seem interesting, but I don't think this was needed here. Someone would put forth a counter point and will take the discussion further away from subject. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my questions above and the reply by Nelson, I like to ask this: Is there a WP policy requiring using a past common name? I.e. can't we choose a common name as of today? What is the common name of "India (dominion)" today? I think there is some freedom in the titles applied. "India (dominion)" is not something one would use in speech, but Dominion of India is and it is also documented that this was used in the past. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fowler&fowler - Honestly speaking, it sounded like you knew what you were talking about which is good.....But, here we are concerned with much simpler questions. As I read it the questions are (1) what was the common name of the Indian dominion - was it "Dominion of India" (as the current article would have the reader believe) or was it "Union of India" or was it simply "India" (as I believe was the case). We simply have to determined on that front what was the common name of the country at that time?; (2) we also need to agree on what was the official name of the dominion. So far, I think every one has agreed that "Dominion of India" was not its official name.............Rather it was simply "India". Fowler&fowler - Do you take any view on these specific rather narrow questions?

Re. "can't we choose a common name as of today" (User Bogdan Nagachop) - It is a fair question....and I am open to the views of others.........But, I do not disagree with this approach...............Ultimately, it would leave a very misleading article. It would give the reader the impression that "Dominion of India" was the common and/or official name of the dominion at that time...........when it was neither! That to me is fundamental. Accuracy and quality of information....not mere convenience (i.e. ease of distinguishing present day India from its dominion predecessor...). The basic WP rules are on determining what is the Common Name....Well, it was certainly "India" during the period...But of course, today, when is that India referred to....Most often, I suspect, in the context of distinguishing it from present day India....But I think "India (dominion)" does just that without the negatives of misleading the reader as to basic facts....like the common name and official name of the dominion in question. NelsonSudan (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The topics on India related articles are treated with utmost care, as can be seen here No consensus that Bharat is English name of India, RFC on the same. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that "he topics on India related articles are treated with utmost care". Do you have any view on my proposal that the "Dominion of India" article be moved to "India (dominion)"? All views (and reasonings welcome). NelsonSudan (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For me, the choice is between Union of India, Indian Union, and Dominion of India, all three of which are names which were used for the dominion at the time and which are still used for it. Both Union of India and Dominion of India have been used for the name of the WP article, although Fowler&fowler is wrong on the history of the name (please see Talk:Dominion of India for the name changes in 2008 and 2011). The present Indian constitution still refers to the sovereign country as the "Union of India", I think in defining certain legal jurisdictions, so I am inclined to avoid that name. I see no harm in the present title. I agree that it was not widely used as the name of India, which was mostly called just "India", but the same is true of all of the other Misplaced Pages page names covering different periods. For purposes of disambiguation, Dominion of India seems to work well. Moonraker (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Moonraker - "For me, the choice is between Union of India, Indian Union, and Dominion of India, all three of which are names which were used for the dominion at the time and which are still used for it." Wasn't "India" both the most common name and the only official name? Why do you not even consider it as the appropriate name?

Re "I see no harm in the present title. - I agree that it was not widely used as the name of India," So you agree it was not the Common Name? And you agree it was not the official name....So do you not think it is pretty misleading to have the article titled that way? I really don't know how you can be happy with it as a name for the article.

Re "For purposes of disambiguation, Dominion of India seems to work well...." If its just about Disambiguation...why not use the titled suggestd above..."Inida (dominion)"? The only reason you have given for keeping the present article name is Disambiguation....ignoring the fact it was not the common name or the official name....Rather odd, I'd say..Sorry, Am a bit disappointed with the level of reasoning here. NelsonSudan (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, "India" was the most common name, but it was not the "only official name", as the word "India" has had so many meanings. All kinds of official documents, just like Misplaced Pages today, needed to disambiguate between the different meanings of "India", which is how "Indian Union", "Union of India" and "Dominion of India" came into being. With regard to "India (dominion)", it seems very unlikely that it was ever used as a name. If there is no objection to using the word "dominion" in the page name, then it's merely a question of word order, and to me a name which was and is used is preferable to one which (so far as I know) never was. Moonraker (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Re. "Yes, indeed, "India" was the most common name, but it was not the "only official name"" I have provided a source, the Indian Independence Act to show that "India" was THE (i.e. only) official name). Please could you provide a source for your claim there was somehow more than one official legal name? That seems the very least you could do. Mere use of different terms to describe a country is not enough.........I want you to point out a law saying that the official name of the country was "Dominion of India" or anything other than "India". Separately, no one is suggesting "India (dominion)" was the name used....Obviously the word in brackets is clearly used as a DAB reference...disambiguation....disambiguating it from the India article (which is about the present day Indian state). Just look at Georgia (country) and Georgia (state) as examples. Does any one seriously suggest the word in brackets is being suggested as a formal part of the name? Of course not. NelsonSudan (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Place name clean up - move approval requests

Due to recent opposition to me cleaning up the naming in accordance with established consensus, User:SpacemanSpiff reporting me to ANI for doing so, and several other people telling me I am doing something the wrong way, I am now filing moves individually.

Inside Category:Villages in India when scanning two levels below, there are only three articles that use two commas, all the other 10000+ articles use at most one. RM's placed at:

• Talk:Madhyakul, Amta, Howrah -> Madhyakul, Howrah
• Talk:Jaipura, Ludhiana, Punjab -> Jaipura, Ludhiana
• Talk:Fatanpur, Pratapgarh, Uttar Pradesh -> Fatanpur, Pratapgarh

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Inside Category:Villages in India when scanning two levels below, all of the 1000+ articles that use a dab tag attached via comma use the basic place name, when not considering type indicators like taluk or district, capitalized. RM placed at:

• Talk:Paman, Kanpur dehat -> Paman, Kanpur Dehat

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Inside Category:Villages in India when scanning two levels below, I only found "Rajastan" once. This string redirects to Rajasthan, so it might be a variant name. 33 other articles use the variant Rajasthan. RM filed at

• Talk:Kanpura, Rajastan -> Kanpura, Rajasthan

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No evidence found that Koonur is located in several "Nalgonda districts". RM filed at:

• Talk:Koonur, Nalgonda districts -> Koonur, Nalgonda district

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No evidence found that anything like "Nalgonda dsitrict" exists while the cat says it is in Nalgonda district. RM filed at:

• Talk:Masidugudem, Nalgonda dsitrict -> Masidugudem, Nalgonda district

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

These seven move requests have all been fulfilled. What would have cost me 1-2 min, did cost me more than 15 min. And the admins that performed them and closed the requests probably needed another 5min. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Place name clean up - articles using X (village)

Inside Category:Villages in India when scanning two levels below, there are 48 articles using "X (village)". I only checked the first three with http://censusindia.gov.in/PopulationFinder/Population_Finder.aspx and all are ambiguous.

What do SpacemanSpiff and his crew think of how to fix this any time soon? Do SpacemanSpiff and his crew think that I should really file all these by WP:RM and bother the people over there with such stuff, especially admins who have really things to do that are of more importance - in my opinion? I also do not see why this would be against any policy, if I would disambiguate them, but last time when I moved a page SpacemanSpiff got angry and brought me up to ANI and some people here seem to support this.

I find it really strange, why moves that I do in accordance with WP policies are singled out, while others are free to follow WP policies and SpacemanSpiff even is allowed to violate policies. - update does not matter. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Bahara (village)
2. Bala (village)
3. Barauli (village)
4. Bharal (village)
5. Bhoo (village)
6. Bija (village)
7. Bindu (village)
8. Burhanpur (village)
9. Changanassery (village)
10. Chenkal (village)
11. Chittur (village)
12. Gaon (village) - not an article about a village
13. Hanle (village)
14. Harra (village)
15. Hogenakkal (village)
16. Irinjalakuda (village)
17. Kannamangalam (village)
18. Karikkode (village)
19. Karimkunnam (village)
20. Ked (village)
21. Keezhattingal (village)
22. Khanapur (village)
23. Kishunpur (village)
24. Kollayil (village)
25. Kottukal (village)
26. Kotwa (village)
27. Kuri (village)
28. Lusa (village)
29. Mahi (village)
30. Manjoor (village)
31. Manki (village)
32. Meenachil (village)
33. Mohur (village)
34. Muvattupuzha (village)
35. Pullur (village)
36. Puthur (village)
37. Rajabazar (village)
38. Rajpur (village)
39. Shivdaspur (village)
40. Vadakkekara (village)
41. Vatul (village)
42. Veloor (village)

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think that SpacemanSpiff is "violating policies" & getting away with it then take him to WP:ANI. Otherwise, hold your peace. As far as your list goes:

• you have started yet another thread on a similar subject;
• you have been told that nothing has to be fixed "any time soon" and nor is it likely that stuff will be. There is a process and you need to follow it. - Sitush (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in WP ANI, I am just astonished that one user can get away with violations while I am brought up at ANI even without any violation. you have been told that nothing has to be fixed "any time soon" - what does it matter what some random people say randomly? And why do these random people tell me I have to follow process (which process did I not follow and where did that happen?), while when others fix things immediately these same random people are not telling these others to follow process? In summary, why treat my fixes different to those of others? Bogdan Nagachop (talk)

Well, if you are not interested in resolving the issue you have with SpacemanSpiff using the means available then I think that you should hold your peace, as said above. Don't even mention the issue because your attitude could attract accusations of tendentiousness unless you are prepared to see it through at the venue which is appropriate for your concerns. As for your latter point, well, that just goes to confirm what others have suggested: you appear to have no interest in working here in a collaborative manner. That is unfortunate, but so be it. Perhaps the reason why you are being told of something and others are not has something to do with your attitude and the way in which you keep pushing the issue with numerous threads here. However, I have not followed the in-depth discussion and can only credit Spaceman etc with AGF based on my past dealings with him. If you want to bring the matter up for review then, yet again, it is probably an issue for ANI. You are painting yourself into a corner, it seems. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So SpacemanSpiff's edits get AGF, while mine not? How can you determine "attitude" when I fix an article name, how can you determine attitude if someone else fixes an article name, and with exactly which moves did I not follow which process that I should have? You did not answer: "why treat my fixes different to those of others?" Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I am AGF'ing on you also. Like I said, I have not followed the discussion in detail. I am merely pointing out the options available to you and noting that your responses are effectively shooting yourself in your foot. If you have a problem with Spaceman's applications of policy then take it to ANI, and if you are not prepared to do that then stop accusing him because you clearly do not have the courage of your convictions. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that I came here to improve the naming of articles related to Indian geography. People are accusing me of doing something the wrong way, but, especially with you I miss what of my name fixes you think was "out of process"? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan, you have some really good points, as you often do, but again you're compromising yourself by getting caught in the personal. I would respectfully submit you consider US President Teddy Roosevelt's adage "speak softly and carry a big stick". If you argue about conflict, there will be more conflict. If you are keeping a level head, communicating smoothly (speaking softly), and feel there's honestly misbehaviour, take a very neutrally worded and dispassionate argument to ANI (your "big stick"). Otherwise, I suggest you play your strong suits with the very good analysis you're providing. I am not closely tracking the debate, but your concerns about such comments as "nobody knows where Andhra Pradesh is" are quite valid. Unlike much of what is accused of "endemic bias" there, saying that Rhode Island is better known than AP might indeed be Western bias. I urge you to keep editing in general since editors of your calibre are a great addition, but please do temper this (particularly if you continue with the geography issue) with the awareness that any endemic bias must be addressed with great dispassion, clear documentation, and unemotional logic, and honestly is unlikely to be fixed on India issues until it is clear that non-Indians likewise recognise the endemic bias. I appreciate your work, but this is going to be a slow process which needs finesse, and the cleaner it's run the easier it will be in the long run. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, if you can, but I need help. I cannot go one with the geography clean-up alone. I made a dispassionate, neutrally worded NC proposal: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India), but some that I have not seen on stuff related with Indian geography before, now vote for userfying the WP:PROPOSAL. How can we get out of the issues we had if there is no written down WP:NCINDIA?. Related to ANI, I did bring one of his out-of process actions there, but some random editor decided to mark the issue as closed . But I don't care so much, the more important thing is that I would like to go on with the clean-up and that everybody has an equal standing here, and not because SpacemanSpiff is an admin he can do what he wants even if it is against majority. Please help that we can go forward with WP:NCINDIA, Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (India). Then maybe a minimal consensus can be turned into a running guideline and we can concentrate on the issues and try to solve them. Let's go forward. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. It has been explained before that Spaceman cannot do anything he chooses without potential consequences. If you have a problem with his edits then you know what to do. The cleanup does not appear to have consensus despite your belief, and there is an ongoing discussion. Your general principle - get a convention in place - is sound, but your understanding of how this happens is weak. Numerous people have tried to explain this to you. Perhaps re-read the many threads above which you started and to which people responded. Take on board what people are saying about the process and leave the personalities out of it. As at least one person has said, this is going to take months rather than days. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan, both Spiff and I are supporting keeping NCINDIA, with the caveat that it's a work in progress, so you clearly have support there. So far as uninvolved editors not taking your side: look upon it not as an insult, but as a challenge: how can you modify/clarify your argument so as to get neutral editors to support your side of the discussion? Again, with the state of disarray of Indian geo articles, DABing isn't the single most urgent need, so it's a good area to have a solid, consensus-based, long term solution even if it's slowly chipping at it for a few months. Take it slow, maybe ask a few related WProjects (WPASIA? WP Geography?) to come take a look. I know you have concerns about endemic bias, but make sure you don't "read into" people's statements beyond the clear biases, don't edit with "a chip on your shoulder", etc. On the AfD, someone brought up an interesting point about relatively recent and imported geo-names vice milleniae-old names from a variety of languages, so that's an interesting discussion point, takes into account India's distinct attributes, and gives you something solid to incorporate or oppose.

Long/short as long as folks keep cool heads and open communication, this will be a slow but ultimately profitable process. Again, WP India issues (like many other issues) will not be fixed in one day, and though perhaps inconvenient the DABing issue is not rendering the articles inaccessible, so let's proceed harmoniously which will be easier and quicker in the big picture. "Slow is smooth... and smooth is fast." MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@MV, in my latest comment I missed that you did vote on the deletion page. As for cleaning in one day: The 4:1 agreed upon cleaning could be done in one day and I almost did. Only Banga and Hyderabad have been reverted. The above village list I could do in 2 hours. There will still be issues, but if one person can stop that these small issues are solved, and get the time spend on each to be more than 10-fold, the whole clean-up will take much longer. Currently we didn't even look on spelling, not talking about the actual content. In one month time I might not be able to help with clean-up, because I may have other things to do. Currently I have time, and I think my clean-up did not invent any new naming formats, but is doing an elimination of minority schemes and of the country dab as was 4:1 agreed in this project. When I applied dab by district for some articles this is not my invention, but it is something that could be found before. I have been at WP NCGN but except for you no one did comment there. I am happy with the MfD close, seems like very reasonable closing statement. Except it may look as if NCINDIA was tagged as proposal during the MfD, but that it was not, it was almost all the lifetime staying there as a proposal. OK, I will move on and try to bring it to guideline status. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bombings in Mumbai - title discussion

Readers here may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks#Requesting Move 2. Cheers. -GTBacchus 02:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Clan Infoboxes

There needs to be some organization for clan infoboxes, especially for Rajput infoboxes, which are a mess of css and generally inconsistent in appearance. Now I'm not sure this should just be a Rajput thing (at least one clan I encountered had in it's title Jat, Gujar and Rajput and I'd hate to leave any of those out) or even an India particular thing (since some clans are in both India and Pakistan). Maybe an infobox template for South Asian Clan with a field of ethnic groups. I want to make sure I don't step on any toes before trying to run with this idea as I think this sort of infobox could apply to a number of articles. Does anyone object? (On a semi-related topic, I've seen in a lot of Rajput clan infoboxs the field "Vansh" - I cannot find anywhere a definition or article on that term. I'm not sure it needs an article, but at least for my own sanity, does anyone know what that term means?) Jztinfinity (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Look up the page a bit and then discuss at the infobox template which is linked therein. - Sitush (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Or just go to Template_talk:Infobox_caste directly. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Sitush that it's best you join our overall Template discussion and see how we can standardise Rajput infoboxes to those. But in answer to your specific question, as I understand it vansh refers to the various legendary genealogies: Yaduvanshi (descended from Yadu), Suryavanshi, Agnivansha, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Mamata Banerjee Oath of Office

I have listed Mamata Banerjee's Oath of Office for promotion as a featured sound. Please list you Support/Oppose votes here. Regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Football articles

Have a look at this . The Indian football clubs are being vandalized like anything. It comes under the scope of WikiProject India. I thought to leave a message here so that some one who know about the team might have a look at that. I could not revert it myself because the informations are so misleading that I dont know which edit is correct. However I've reverted this (Kingfisher East Bengal FC), still not sure whether it is correct. Have a look at this too this is quite insane. Shriram (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the article for which you provide the diff, massive chunks of it are copyvios, a lot is trivia, there are numerous redundant statements, a lot of POV and weasel, some uncited bold statements, misuse of honorifics, a complete failure to understand WP:MOSHEAD ... and so on. If this is typical of Indian football club articles then the India project needs to get the things cleared up, pronto. Vandalism is the least of our worries. I have made a start. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Shriram (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Need comments on Hindu Jatis related discussion

Hi,

Need comments on Hindu Jatis on discussion going on Talk:Kurmi#Source_for_Shudra Shudra source.

Views about how Misplaced Pages standards on Reliable Sources are enforced on pages related to Hinduism/Hindu Jatis are also welcome, for it appears to me that these are enforced on Hindu Jatis tightly for to consider reliable sources only, not otherwise.

As also, from my side, I would like to point out how admins have missed it completely, perhaps since last 3/4 months, that these are about Hindu Jatis and are treating the subject as a kind where all standards must be enforced and anyone who insists otherwise is to be treated strictly as per usual Misplaced Pages norms. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the second time inside a week that you have called here for input on that thread at Kurmi. At least on the first occasion you worded it fairly neutrally. The above is not. The problem relates entirely to your inability to understand the WP:Five Pillars. Your opinion counts for nothing in an article, and neither does mine. It is all about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTCENSORED etc, as you have been told time and again. Furthermore, as you have also been told time and again, if you do not like this then the correct venue is not that talk page or this talk page but rather WP:DR. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't be tendentious in avoiding to answer why RS is demanded strictly on pages of Hindu Jatis. You yourself has said that WP:Five Pillars are not strictly enforced on topics related religion, but your behavior is different on Hindu vanra.

You, MV and admins have demanded all the standards, and more, on these pages. If you do not like this talk page, don't come complaining. Drop the bone and move on. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 15:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I will add this one to the ANI report. Classic! - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have got it wrong: you ran here about Nair and Thomas, not Kurmi. It is a few weeks since you wasted everyone's time here with your Kurmi POV. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Just drop the bone, dude. Let others respond, too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the entire issue to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F. This is a general notification: the AN notice refers to a couple of threads on this page & it will take me forever to work out each individual who should be notified. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Or you could have let people give comments on this discussion here.

I guess the comments about whether RS criteria should be strictly enforced for Hindu Jatis page, including legends, referring Puranas, etc. could be commented here or there then. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. You really can be obtuse sometimes. The issue at AN is your general behaviour. If someone wants to respond to your query at the start of this thread then, of course, this is the place to do it, not AN. Why you said what you did at AN is beyond me: I didn't take this thread there, I merely mentioned it. BTW, do you know what "drop the bone" and "tendentious" mean? Your first usages of it in this thread makes me suspect that you do not. No big deal, except using words and phrases about editors when you do not understand those words/phrases can cause problems. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

whether RS criteria should be strictly enforced for Hindu Jatis page - Why would RS criteria not be enforced on jatis? Again, nobody is attempting to remove mentions of the Puranas from articles; what we are removing is WP:OR which attempts to draw on the Puranas. If you have an RS which says "according to the Puranas the Fooian caste used to be kings", that's great, cite it to the RS. Instead, we've got editors saying "Hey, I looked in the Puranas and there's a Phooian caste who was kings, and that's spelled really close to Fooian, so we can assume they're the same thing, so I'm adding kings to the article and citing Chapter 8 Verse 5 of the Puranas." The former is fine, the latter is WP:OR. Would you not agree? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The other problem with these ancient texts is that they are nowadays considered to be very poor as historical documents. Although they may have a place in an article connected directly to Hinduism to explain a myth/legend/belief etc, they should not be relied on for any other India-related articles (except for articles about the texts themselves, of course). The only exception I can see to this is if it is explicitly pointed out that they are unreliable for time, place, names etc & that many (perhaps all) of them were written in extreme systems of patronage ... and if we mention all this then one has to question why we're using them at all. I have corrected similar failings in the past with regard to, say, Megasthenes: he has been quite badly misrepresented on at least a few India-related articles because people have not taken the time properly to evaluate what the guy said. (Some of his placenaming is equally suspect, for example). - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I have read someone recently who claims that Kalhana's 12th C work is the only ancient text from India that can be relied upon for anything much. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You all are judging what others have done, which is not job of editors on Misplaced Pages. You have gone at length to justify why to avoid legends/beliefs which is somehow not mentioned as job of editors on Misplaced Pages. ..ईती ईती नॆती नॆती.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to me or MatthewVanitas? What exactly is your point? It is extremely cryptic. If you are referring to me then I can provide you with quotes for the unreliability etc if you want, but it has generally been accepted as being the case on articles I have worked on. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop personal attacks like "It is a few weeks since you wasted everyone's time here with your Kurmi POV."???. It is nothing more than disgusting to me. He did not waste my time. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, TT has been banned from editing India-related articles for three weeks. But if they helped you out then that's great, for you. - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

varņa means class. There are 4 classes, brāhmaņa, kśatriya, vaiśya and śūdra. One makes a choice ("vŗņoti"), based on one's aptitude (guņa) and work (karma), as to which class (varņa) one would belong to. I don't know what śūdra means, but it is said that is born a śūdra by birth (janmanā jāyate śūdrah) and becomes a twice-born (dvija) by culture (samskāra) (samskārāt dvija ucyate). To the best of my knowledge the Shāstras do not talk about jāti per se. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Aurangabad Naher water system second opinion

Trying to copyedit the above page, but the list in the "Naher-E-Ambari" section has been written poorly enough to make me wonder if its in the right place (or if it should even be included). I personally believe that it should be removed, but I would really appreciate a member with a good grasp of English spelling and grammar to look over it and give me a second opinion so I can finish copyediting it. Many thanks. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Tried cleaning it. But..aaahh!!! dint understand a thing in that Naher-E-Ambari section. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove it. If anyone has any objections, they can address them either at my talk page or the talk page of the article in question. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Telugu help

I'm trying to expand and reference the article List of trade unions in the Singareni coal fields. I'm working on a draft at User:Soman/temp. However, I'm having problems encountering full election results, especially from 1998, 2001 and 2007 (and has any election been held 2011?). Could any Telugu-speaking editor check if there are news reports in Telugu on the election results? Also, to check if SGKS and Singareni Workers Union are one and the same? (I posted a query at WP:RDL) --Soman (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed moves

I have proposed the renaming of a number of Tamil Nadu districts here- minor orthographic changes, but we would need to agree (Crusoe8181 (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)).

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sreelakshmi Suresh (2nd nomination)

Please provide your feedback on the aforementioned AfD as its getting highly controversial by days. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

1950 state - Punjab or East Punjab

I found this template:

v t e States of India on 26 January 1950
Part A States	Assam Bihar Bombay East Punjab Madras Orissa Uttar Pradesh West Bengal
Part B States	Hyderabad Jammu and Kashmir Madhya Bharat Mysore Patiala and East Punjab States Union Rajasthan Saurashtra Travancore–Cochin
Part C States	Ajmer Bhopal Bilaspur Coorg Delhi Himachal Pradesh Kutch Manipur Tripura Vindhya Pradesh
Part D States	Andaman and Nicobar Islands

and there an entry called "Punjab" is included. The article "East Punjab" gives the impression there was a state called East Punjab. What was the first name and when did it change? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bogdan, I have updated the East Punjab page to answer your question and I have also corrected the link in that template from "Punjab" to "East Punjab". Moonraker (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Follow up question at Talk:East Punjab (state). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rajasthan map required

I have been trying to find a suitable map that shows Rajasthan/Rajputana in relation to the Mughal and Maratha territories around the time of James Tod. Even better would be a free use version of Tod's own map of central India. Can't find anything that suits - suggestions welcome. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added maps here and here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I did not realise that they were your uploads but had seen them previously. One of those would suffice but I was hoping to find something a bit more specific, especially since Tod's map of "Central India" was finalised in 1815 or thereabouts & so is well out of copyright. I have seen a version of Tod's map in a GBooks view but cannot screenshot the thing because the viewport limits how much of it is available. If nothing else turns up then one of those which you linked to will be better than nothing at all. - Sitush (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Odisha map

While on maps, if anyone can move the Commons file pushpin map File:Orissa locator map.svg to File:Odisha locator map.svg this should now allow the state to be named Odisha in infobox and a pushpin map to appear (I've done the rest, I think, see Hinjilicut et al, just not sure how to copy the map) (Crusoe8181 (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)).

Difference between Mannadiyar‎ and Mannadiar in Kerala?

At the article Mannadiar, a new-reg came in, blanked the article and put in a new one (content appears to be summarised, poorly, from some kind of anthro source) about a clan in the Palakkad area. The other editor restored the article, and the article has a blurb mentioning "not the same as the Palakkad Mannadiyar clan". I can't quite tell if these are really two different groups which have a very similar name, the same group and the fighting is just a content fork or what.

If anyone has a better grasp on Kerala social groups, input here would be cool. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mannadiar - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.236.65 (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Photo for misri (anyone got sugar cakes in their kitchen?)

The article misri (apparently cakes of sugar crystals) has no pic; does anyone here have this stuff just sitting on their kitchen table at the moment, and can upload a pic? Just seems an easy thing to find a pic for amongst the Indian editors. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I always though that Misri was just crystalline sugar in larger size. But the page added some mystery now. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Set index articles on populated places in India

There are 640 000+ villages in India, 2000+ of them new in Census 2011 as compered with Census 2001.

Now you see how the biased users JaGa (US), SpacemanSpiff (US), Crusoe8181 (AU) work on making the content worse, ignoring complexity of Indian toponomy, and you can see some of the processes they use to come to their goal of keeping editors that are disputing their views on India out.

What could be suspected before, seems now more likely: User:SpacemanSpiff who had content disputes with Bogdan may have formed an alliance with User:JaGa to get the Bogdan account blocked.

Allegation by User:JaGa

• ... focus on making the titles of geographic and language articles consistent (!!!)
• ... along with a failure to seek consensus before performing mass moves ()

The so called CheckUser report says that it is "likely" that the User:Bogdan_Nagachop and User:HawaiiLibre are the same as User:Chaldias. This statement of likely is then used to justify a block by User:ErrantX who also had a content dispute with Bogdan, namely at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of the localities around Tehran.

SpacemanSpiff then sides with Cruseo8181 who also had disputes with Bogdan to secretly (not talking with WP:WikiProject India) revert the creation of the WP:SIA articles, pages created by Bogdan to sort out issues with wrong linking within Indian geography articles.

SpacemanSpiff and Crusoe8181 are now working together on deleting geographic references that Bogdan brought in, e.g. references to census India, references to populated places.

11:56, 10 August 2011 User:SpacemanSpiff deleted:

• Template:Ambiguous names of populated places in India

Below is a list of 273 WP:SIA articles created by Bogdan. The work of Crusoe8181 and SpacemanSpiff resulted so far in

• A) deleted pages shown in red
• B) redirects to articles (re-introducing possibly ambiguity, hiding the fact that the name is ambiguous)
• C) redirects to dab pages (reducing the possibilty of enhancing the lists, e.g. with maps, etymology, due to MOS:DAB restrictions)
• D) pages up for deletion per WP:PROD
• E) pages with a reference to a deleted template

List:

1. Abbigeri, India
2. Abbihal, India
3. Abbur, India
4. Abburu, India
5. Achalu, India
6. Achampalli, India
7. Adagoor, India
8. Adakamaranahalli, India
9. Adapura, India
10. Adavisomapur, India
11. Addagal, India
12. Addihalli, India
13. Adi, India
14. Adiganahalli, India
15. Adihalli, India
16. Adoor, India
17. Adur, India
18. Aduvalli, India
19. Advibhavi, India
20. Adyar, India
21. Agadi, India
22. Agalakote, India
23. Agar, India
24. Agara, India
25. Agasanahalli, India
26. Agasarahalli, India
27. Agrahar, India
28. Agrahara, India
29. Aheri, India
30. Ahmadpur, India
31. Ahmedpur, India
32. Ainapur, India
33. Akalkumpi, India
34. Akbarpur, India
35. Akkanahalli, India
36. Alamanda, India
37. Alampur, India
38. Alangudi, India
39. Alangulam, India
40. Allapur, India
41. Amara, India
42. Amarpur, India
43. Amboli, India
44. Amin, India
45. Amona, India
46. Anaivari, India
47. Anantharam, India
48. Annavasal, India
49. Anniyur, India
50. Annur, India
51. Arakere, India
52. Ashta, India
53. Athani, India
54. Atmakur, India
55. Aurangabad, India
56. Ayangudi, India
57. Ayyampalayam, India
58. Badarpur, India
59. Badgaon, India
60. Baga, India
61. Bagalur, India
62. Bagar, India
63. Bahadurganj, India
64. Baikunthpur, India
65. Bailur, India
66. Bajna, India
67. Ballur, India
68. Banapura, India
69. Banga, India
70. Baragaon, India
71. Barhi, India
72. Barwar, India
73. Basar, India
74. Begar, India
75. Begur, India
76. Belluru, India
77. Belur, India
78. Bennur, India
79. Betul, India
80. Bhadreswar, India
81. Bhagyanagar, India
82. Bharal, India
83. Bhatgaon, India
84. Bhoj, India
85. Bhoo, India
86. Bhuvanagiri, India
87. Bija, India
88. Bilaspur, India
89. Borda, India
90. Brahmapuri, India
91. Chamalapura, India
92. Chamba, India
93. Chandanapally, India
94. Chandur, India
95. Chapar, India
96. Chelur, India
97. Chennur, India
98. Chikhli, India
99. Dammur, India
100. Danta, India
101. Dasarahalli, India
102. Deogarh, India
103. Deori, India
104. Dharampur, India
105. Dharampura, India
106. Dharmapur, India
107. Dharmapuri, India
108. Dharmavaram, India
109. Doddakallahalli, India
110. Dommasandra, India
111. Durgapur, India
112. Dusi, India
113. Faridkot, India
114. Faridpur, India
115. Fatanpur, India
116. Fatehabad, India
117. Gauripur, India
118. Gonda, India
119. Gopalapuram, India
120. Gopalpur, India
121. Gopinathpur, India
122. Gorantla, India
123. Gotur, India
124. Govindapuram, India
125. Gudadur, India
126. Gudalur, India
127. Gutti, India
128. Hallur, India
129. Hanumanpur, India
130. Hariharpur, India
131. Hebbani, India
132. Herur, India
133. Holalu, India
134. Hosur, India
135. Islamnagar, India
136. Islampur, India
137. Jagannadhapuram, India
138. Jamalpur, India
139. Jawaharnagar, India
140. Jayapura, India
141. Jodhpur, India
142. Kabbala, India
143. Kadaba, India
144. Kalas, India
145. Kallur, India
146. Kalwa, India
147. Kalyanpur, India
148. Kamalapuram, India
149. Kamalpur, India
150. Kandhara, India
151. Kandukuru, India
152. Kannur, India
153. Kappil, India
154. Karki, India
155. Kartarpur, India
156. Karuppur, India
157. Kharagpur, India
158. Kodihalli, India
159. Konnur, India
160. Koppa, India
161. Kot, India
162. Kota, India
163. Kothamangalam, India
164. Kothangudi, India
165. Kottur, India
166. Kotturu, India
167. Kovilur, India
168. Kovur, India
169. Krishnanagar, India
170. Krishnapura, India
171. Krishnapuram, India
172. Kudalur, India
173. Kumaramangalam, India
174. Kumbalam, India
175. Kunnathur, India
176. Kurichi, India
177. Kurli, India
178. Kursath, India
179. Lalganj, India
180. Ledo, India
181. Lingampally, India
182. Loha, India
183. Lohara, India
184. Lohna, India
185. Londa, India
186. Maddur, India
187. Madha, India
188. Madhapuram, India
189. Madharam, India
190. Mahur, India
191. Mallur, India
192. Manali, India
193. Mandi, India
194. Mangur, India
195. Mardol, India
196. Margherita, India
197. Mathur, India
198. Medak, India
199. Mettupalayam, India
200. Miao, India
201. Mirganj, India
202. Nabagram, India
203. Nagari, India
204. Nallur, India
205. Nampally, India
206. Narasingapuram, India
207. Narsapur, India
208. Narsinghgarh, India
209. Naura, India
210. Nittur, India
211. Nizamabad, India
212. Nizampur, India
213. Pakala, India
214. Palayam, India
215. Pallapalayam, India
216. Pallapatti, India
217. Parvathipuram, India
218. Patan, India
219. Patara, India
220. Periyakurichi, India
221. Puliyur, India
222. Puttur, India
223. Rajpur, India
224. Ramachandrapuram, India
225. Ramagiri, India
226. Ramapura, India
227. Ramapuram, India
228. Rameswaram, India
229. Ramgarh, India
230. Rangapur, India
231. Rayavaram, India
232. Rudayan, India
233. Salempur, India
234. Sanaba, India
235. Sangrampur, India
236. Shahabad, India
237. Shahapur, India
238. Shahjahanpur, India
239. Shahpur, India
240. Shahpura, India
241. Shaktinagar, India
242. Shamsabad, India
243. Shankarnagar, India
244. Shergarh, India
245. Sherpur, India
246. Shikarpur, India
247. Shirgaon, India
248. Shivapur, India
249. Sirsa, India
250. Sirsi, India
251. Sivapuram, India
252. Srikakulam, India
253. Srinagar, India
254. Sriramnagar, India
255. Sultanpur, India
256. Tallur, India
257. Tarapur, India
258. Tarikere, India
259. Tatipudi, India
260. Tawashi, India
261. Tegur, India
262. Thandalam, India
263. Thenkarai, India
264. Uchila, India
265. Umri, India
266. Un, India
267. Una, India
268. Uppal, India
269. Vembukudi, India
270. Vilangudi, India
271. Wadi, India
272. Yadavilli, India
273. Yadur, India

SIA-Populated places in India (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Project-Class India pages
• NA-importance India pages
• Project-Class India articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject India articles