Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:43, 23 November 2006

• ]

Archives 1 | 1a | 2 | 2a | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

New 'People' Workgroup?

Is there a chance of a new workgroup being created under 'People' or a similar title? Within this workgroup could be included major figures of India such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Tilak, etc. There could even be sub-workgroups splitting them up into celebrities, politicians, saints/godmen, etc. Tags and banners would need to be created for this purpose. Hopefully there will be enough consensus to give the green light to creating and expanding this new workgroup? Ekantik 06:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Biography articles are already maintained by WikiProject Biography grouped by profession. Would it really help to seperate them by nationality? Although I was thinking the name could be WikiProject Indian biography that would be child project of both India and biography projects (just like Indian cinema is related to Films and India projects). -- Ganeshk (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. What about a separate section for saints/godmen? I haven't seen a separate section for them in WP:HINDU although this could be done over there. Ekantik 01:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You could post at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography requesting for such categorization. -- Ganeshk (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Even though that would probably involve religious leaders of other religions and traditions it might better the project for saints/godmen of all religions to have a common set of guidelines to work by. Good suggestions, thanks. I'll get on it straightaway. Ekantik 01:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Aurangzeb

Can some cooler heads than mine have a look at Aurangzeb, please? --Nemonoman 19:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Aurangzeb are quickly approaching an edit war. --Nemonoman 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've protected it for now =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles by class and importance

There is a discussion going on about creating statistics in the following format:

India articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	3	7	34	49			93
FL	7	9	29	139			184
FM					68		68
A	1	2	2	2			7
GA	28	61	176	466		1	732
B	135	463	890	1,811	1	164	3,464
C	104	908	2,338	10,412		775	14,537
Start	16	998	5,193	64,045	2	2,287	72,541
Stub	1	294	2,324	95,215	2	2,271	100,107
List	24	212	649	5,263	26	204	6,378
Category					37,798		37,798
Disambig					715		715
File					1,425		1,425
Portal					88		88
Project					198		198
Redirect	1	94	393	5,940	3,820		10,248
Template					5,737		5,737
NA		24	31	350	5,612		6,017
Draft					821		821
Assessed	320	3,072	12,059	183,692	56,313	5,702	261,158
Unassessed	1	1	1	102		2,819	2,924
Total	321	3,073	12,060	183,794	56,313	8,521	264,082
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 1,033,451			Ω = 5.40

This table is now up to date again.
It is updated by a tool on the toolserver; it will not work if the toolserver is
having problems. If this chart is showing much more than zero,
then the table will be updated slowly or not at all.

Using the above idea, I updated our banner to implement intersection categories. Please check India articles by quality and importance. Now you can find out Stub-Class India articles of Top-importance. I feel B-Class India articles of Top-importance will be really useful for FA writers for pick articles. And Category:Stub-Class India articles of Top-importance could feed WP:INCOTW. Please comment. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems good to have it in a tabular format. =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Congrats to all new Indian admins promoted when I was absent. :) Good work, keep it up and may we get many more. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kukhran

Who edited the Kukhran page?

the grammar is absolutely terrible and a lot of the information is speculative (such as greeks having intermingled with Kukhran tribes???? I'd be very interested to see the evidence you can provide for this assertion)

in fact the previous page prior to this one was much better and more accurate with regards to scope and historical verification. Whoever edited this page (I mean you're a Kukhran as well, at least you better be), I don't mean to put you down but before you edit a page like this consider the grammar and citation that is necessary in order to maintain a certain level of professionalism and respect. You need citations on many occasions and deleted! the writing of previous authors who actually did a very good job and whose actual work was accurate.

This is what I absolutely hate about wikipedia you know someone comes along and does a great job and then another person comes along and ruins it.

I mean I see here you did try and create a more distinct structure to the page and create differentiated categories which is great, yet you added some of your own speculative information which is (ahem) not the ultimate goal of this website I presume, and this whole project for that regard.

I'd like to edit this page and check for grammatical mistakes as well as add much needed RESEARCHED citations and evidence. Being a Kukhran myself the validity and accuracy of this page is essential and important to me.

please contact me at chadhas@umich.edu to let me know how I can get involved and fix this page.

Thank you.

I just tried fixing up the Kukhran page but there's just too much to do right now grammatically etc. I have to come back to it, why did you interchange Kukhran and Kukhrein, its Kukhran/Kukhrain man...just Kukhran I've never heard of Kukhrein before in my life. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.23.72.200 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 21 November 2006.

You can check out who edited the page by clicking the history button on the top. This is the shortcut. If you intend to copyedit or make changes, please make sure that the content is referenced by credible sources, is neutrally written and contains brilliant prose. There is no need to email you, why don't you create an account here so we get to know you better? Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

why would I want to join a community which allows anyone to edit and change information that masses of people can then access and assume as fact? I went to your little history page...and here we have PAKISTANI individuals who have listed "India" as a nation they consider to be a threat to world peace on their personal pages, editing and writing articles regarding an Indian caste/community of Hindus and Sikhs. What really pissed me off is that this man CHANGED the pages history by stating that large numbers of Kukhrans converted to Islam..when in actuallity it is a ridiculously small community that was unable to leave their land after partition and thus did not want to be killed by muslim mobs. Kukhrans are warrior peoples and we are the ones who resisted Muslim rule for centuries..and this Pakistani who openly states that he hates India is now editing pages of Indian regard, ABSOLUTELY PROPOSTEROUS...this website will never have any credibility as long as things like this are allowed to go on. Its a shame, a damn shame. Maybe if you fix this issue I'd consider actively participating on this website. But as long as anyone can come in and try and re-write/create their own history...NO WAY.

YOU have the power to change it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Tamil

I am trying to avoid getting into this sort of thing, but can anyone explain why Category:Tamil is a subcat of Category:Stateless peoples? If they are, why arent all Indian ethnicities? (Except Bengalis, I suppose.) I would have gone ahead and removed it myself, but, as I said, I am trying to keep my blood pressure low these days. Hornplease 11:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the cat from Category:Tamil. And moved stateless cat to Category:Tamils of Sri Lanka. That cat sure needs some discussion though. -- Ganeshk (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarila

The contribution of Narendra Singh Sarila to the history of the Partition of India certainly needs to be incorporated into the article about it. Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently Wiki-knowledgeable to do it myself (can't figure out how to log in or write). He wrote _The Shadow of the Great Game— The Untold Story of India’s Partition_, and is certainly well qualified to understand the issues. Won't somebody please look him up, or at least look at the book reviews, which give the gist of the Mountbatten-Jinnah negotiations he witnessed in 1947? -- Marshall Price of Miami, Florida, November 22, 2006; email d021317c@yahoo.com

Sorry, we can't email you but why don't you get make an account and we get to know you better? Then we can discuss the issue and perhaps you can author the article yourself as per wikipedia standards? How does that sound? =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Atrocity#Atrocity_in_India

I think this is somewhat POV (to say the least). Can somebody fix this? utcursch | talk 04:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.-Bharatveer 05:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delhi, a state?

Someone has changed the entry on the India main page to show Delhi as a full-fledged state. I haven't come across any bill or act that has given such a status to Delhi. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be included under what looks like a category:India states. However, I can't seem to find such a category. Perhaps someone else understands how that "inclusion" works. --BostonMA 15:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It is was stored under Template:India states. I have "fixed" it. Feel free to change the format if you choose. Sincerely, --BostonMA 15:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

reverted self. Edit history for the temlate had an edit with the comment, Delhi now a state per . --BostonMA 15:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)