Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is a noticeboard for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Click here to add a new section
Article alerts for WikiProject India

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(115 more...)

Proposed deletions

(12 more...)

Categories for discussion

(1 more...)

Templates for discussion

  • 25 Dec 2024 – Template:Indian cricket seasons (talk · edit · hist) TfDed by Vestrian24Bio (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Redirects for discussion

Files for discussion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(3 more...)

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

(13 more...)

Articles to be merged

(22 more...)

Articles to be split

(13 more...)

Articles for creation

(56 more...)

This table is updated daily by a bot
Shortcuts

Wikipedia Meetups edit
Upcoming
none
Recent
Outside India
Past meetups

Discussion at Talk:Disney Star#First sentence & infobox

[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Disney Star#First sentence & infobox that may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Guite people for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Guite people is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guite people until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

It is alleged that this clan fails WP:GNG, and the sources in use require review by a WP:GSCASTE expert. No comments by other users directly address this concern. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a cursory glance sources such as Shakespear, John (1912), Bertram Sausmarez Carey and Henry Newman Tuck (1896) and Shaw, William (1929) should be discarded per WP:RAJ and for being severely outdated. Lalthangliana, B's master thesis should also be discarded unless proven to have had a significant scholarly influence per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Rest, I do not have access to, so I cannot evaluate them. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Template_talk:Bangladeshi_wedding#Requested_move_25_December_2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Template_talk:Bangladeshi_wedding#Requested_move_25_December_2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Bongan® →TalkToMe← 12:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There is an ongoing proposal for WP:Indicscript Velthorion (𑲀𑲰𑱺‎!) 11:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

[edit]

Hello,
Please note that South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

[edit]

There seems to be a new editor (at least on South Asia related pages), user:Van00220, who seems to be employing a very dubious mix of mostly Raj-era census sources and a few less controversial (but hardly contemporary) sources to create large, unsightly, census tables and then to plaster this mix of what at least to me appears to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, on dozens, if not hundreds, of pages. I tried to reason with them on their user talk page, but received a very generic reply. As far as I am aware—the awareness forged in the crucible of writing some caste-related articles with user:Sitush—this sort of thing is a no-no on South Asia-related pages; otherwise, dozens of editors would have already done it, their efforts not being thwarted over the 18 years that I have been watching South Asia on WP. That these tables are outlandishly large does not help either. Pinging some administrators and old South Asia hands. @Bishonen, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Abecedare, TrangaBellam, Joshua Jonathan, Kautilya3, and Sitush: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC

There is also Wigglebuy579579 who has been adding tables of demographic data from the pre-independence era into many articles especially those related to social groups [1][2][3]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS2 Van02200 has added "religions" related data, but as user:Ratnahastin points out above and user:Fylindfotberserk has pointed out on my user talk page, others have added such demographic data to an even more dazzling variety of pages Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS3 There are acceptable historical demography sources, such as Tim Dyson's A Population History of India, OUP, 2018, but these editors don't use such WP:TERTIARY sources as they usually do not have district-level data, only higher level prose descriptions. Instead, these editors have in their tables a more or less verbatim repeat of a census table from, say, 1901, in conjunction with a journal article from, say, 1908. I have now removed an even larger "religions" table from the British Raj page. I note too that user:Van02200 is pretty much an WP:SPA for now. I think this is a very troubling trend. Also pinging @Diannaa, DrKay, Drmies, and Anupam: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contesting this claim: Historical demographic data is a personal interest, hence the primary focus. Moreover, adding said historical demographic data to various South Asia related pages does not constitute a single purpose account, given the range mix of other recent and prior edits on a plethora of other pages, which can easily be viewed via edit history. Van00220 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS I encountered their table on Delhi, but as you will see in their contributions, they have cast their net wide (over hundreds of pages) to further whatever aim they have. A bigger problem, and I have this gripe with those who add climate-related tables, often also unsightly, is that they run against WP's policy on summary style, i.e. the primacy of text (i.e. prose and not to the bells and whistles of infoboxes and tables.) The infobox- and tables- warriors hardly ever summarize in English prose. We may need to revisit the existing consensus on Raj-era sources and perhaps expand it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the "very generic reply" to User:Fowler&fowler on my user talk page is below:

Decreeing sourced data is acceptable versus which is not based on one premise is faulty, given the very same Raj-era sources have been used in academia for decades, if not close to a century at this point in time.

There are thousands of papers, journal entries, media articles and other forms of encyclopedic material that reference census data from the Raj-era, many of which are sourced on a plethora of Wikipedia articles that either specifically delve into demographic-related topics or have sections that are dedicated to the demographic-related topics.

Proceeding under the premise regarding the the removal of every single mention of these topics, any historical demographic-related note, table, or refrence from the colonial period of South Asia would be required to be purged, not just from Wikipedia, but also from all of academia and various media sources as well as anything else which has been published across the public and private spheres since 1947.

This indicates a complete contrast regarding the constant addition of encyclopedic-related data and materials on a free, publically available website such as Wikipedia. Rather than proceeding with a complete purge, I would suggest a compromise that would benefit the reader(s): Any page that sources Raj-era censuses should include a disclaimer regarding the contemporary discussion surrounding potential inaccuracies. Any source(s) that can serve as further reading on the subject would also be helpful.

Regarding other sources: historical demography sources, such as Tim Dyson's A Population History of India references Raj-era census data down to the district level when addressing the demographic change that occurred in Punjab between the censuses of 1941 and 1951.

Any additional feedback is appreciated. Thanks. -Van00220 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical of any interaction with user:Van00220. Their contribution, i.e. a table, is entirely devoid of prose; their engagement on a talk page is full of nothing but non-specific prose. OK, I think I have made my point. I will bow out for now so as to allow others to participate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using Raj-era census sources for prose isn't acceptable - there's consensus and precedent that we don't consider those reliable. Using the same sources for a demographic table seems pointless more than anything. We are not a database - statistics without context don't belong on Wikipedia, and if reliable sources are analyzing the Raj-era censuses, then we should be reporting those analyses, not reproducing the raw data. Van00220, how does a table like the one you added to Jhang district benefit the reader? There is no context for those statistics. There is decadal data for the Raj era but nothing between 1941 and 2017. If Dyson cites these statistics, as you say, why aren't you adding what Dyson says about them, rather than attempting to turn Wikipedia into a census database? As a complete aside, this is a good example of why Wikipedia:WikiProject South Asia is needed; much of this content refers to present-day Pakistan. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy pasting raw data is not helpfull for anyone....As prose text is preferred, statistical charts and diagrams that lack any context or explanation such as; historical population charts should be converted to prose text that explains why population go up or down. WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS. Data dump as seen at East Punjab is an accessibility nightmare that deters readers. Moxy🍁 16:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the reply, Vanamonde93. My responses to your main points of contention below:

    1. Regarding the context on statistics
    1.1: Given various statistics have been added in the "demography" section of articles, the context is inherently implied (i.e. the comparison of population from one census to the next, or the comparison of one religious group from one census to the next, or the comparison of one age group from one census to the next). Another example of this on Wikipedia is the addition of a climate table/graph in the "climate" section of an article, whereby data is presented in a section which requires data similar to a "demography" section of an article; as a result, the context to the reader is inherently implied.
    1.2: As indicated above, the "demography" section of an article implies the context of all data that is added into the section will be demography-related, whether that be a population history table, an ethnicity table, an age group table, or a religion table as is contested at present.

    2. Regarding the census data gap between 1941 and 2017
    2.1: I am in the process of addressing these gaps (see edit history, for reference) as I have recently begun adding 1951, 1961, and 1971 census breakdowns on the Indian side. This is still very much a work in progress, and while gradual edits are not fully complete given all censuses are not covered, it is still useful and informative data.
    2.2: Unfortunately, as old censuses appear as the original photocopied documents, it is a painstakingly long process given the number of pages regarding provinces, districts, or cities exist across the regions which I have primarily focused on (i.e. northwestern South Asia).
    2.3: Moreover, the data can also take a significant amount of time to find, while at the same time ensuring numbers on old documents are copied over correctly hampers the ability to add and expand historical demographic tables in a timely manner. For example, a recent addition included the 1951, 1961, and 1971 census breakdowns for Delhi. Unfortunately, all of this was deleted yesterday by one user under the guise of Raj-era sources being unacceptable for use on Wikipedia.

    3. Regarding the Dyson material
    3.1: Various sections that reference Dyson delve into his claims of demographic change between 1941 and 1951 across Punjab province indicate that throughout the eastern regions, districts that were 66 percent Hindu in 1941 became 80 percent Hindu in 1951; those that were 20 percent Sikh became 50 percent Sikh in 1951, while in the western regions all districts became almost exclusively Muslim by 1951.
    3.2: It is pretty clear the reference of 1941 is derived from data in the census taken in that year, while the reference of 1951 is derived data in the census taken in that year. Taking this into account, as the 1941 census took place during the Raj era, the claim negating any additions of said census data on Wikipedia should be null and void to avoid any questions regarding a lack of consistency with one editor over another arising.
    3.3: Expanding on these claims with a table illustrating the specific set of census data which was referenced in the source material should not be considered controversial. Conversely, this should be seen as a helpful addition for the reader given the claims can be backed up with the data that is referenced.

    As a final note, I would also like to add (for the record) that these additions are being made in good faith; there is no hidden agenda or conflict of interest(s) I am attempting to wedge in, and I believe the accusation made earlier by the other user was quite unwarranted. The lack of easily accessible demographic data (moreso historical than contemporary as already touched upon above) has always been a personal bother, and given the subject is already of great personal interest (i.e. a hobby, not stemming from a conflict of interest) explains why I have made a plethora of additions to countless articles over the years on various demographic related topics. Van00220 (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When you synthesize primary sources and make deductions on "religions" in a historically contentious article such as Partition of India, dickering over religious composition in the East Punjab (mostly Sikhs and Hindus) versus the West (mostly Muslim), please don't preach to us that we have to assume good faith. Meanwhile as there is a clear consensus against such original research not just here, but on Wikipedia, I will remove your outlandishly sized tables one by one, starting with the major articles. That you are a single purpose account is evident from your editing history. You do nothing but plastering tables en masse. When this has been done in hundreds of pages, it becomes a headache for those of us who have to watch over the articles. You have no editing history in these pages. You make no qualitative descriptions anywhere, only plaster tables. Believe me this is one of the most egregious example of disruptive behavior I've seen in my 18 years on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of climate data in articles isn't in any way a justification for census data. Again, we are not a database, and once multiple editors have raised concerns with your addition of statistics, you need to discuss those additions and reach a consensus on what is acceptable. Please note that changes made in good faith can still be disruptive. I am not accusing you of having an agenda, but your additions are still problematic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helping identifying two places in India

[edit]

Hello. The article Hannah Snell references two places in India: "Devicottail" and "Cuddylor". I can't find either places referenced outside of the article (or sources relating to the article) so I assume they are misspelled. Perhaps someone with a good knowledge of Indian geography could figure out which places the article is referring to and correct the spelling? McPhail (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not appear to mention Devicottail, although it mentions that she was hospitalized at Cuddylorom (perhaps Cuddalore?) after the siege of Pondicherry. There is also this which you can check as well. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance - Palani Falls

[edit]

In May 2024, I created an article on a surge waterfall located in Himachal Pradesh, Palani Falls. The article has remained unreviewed ever since, primarily due to a lack of sufficient reliable sources.

While an editor, User:Voorts, pointed out that the article clearly lacked enough reliable sources and questioned its notability, he did not rule out the possibility that the subject might merit an article. He referred me to Wikipedia:WikiProject India for assistance and help.

While I admit some of the sources in the article are questionable, I believe the subject does meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for geographical features. Other published articles in the same or similar category would be Ninai Falls, Rehala Falls, Hirni Falls or Purwa Falls, to name a few.

In the context of Indian geography, and more specifically the geography and ecology of Himachal Pradesh, I hold that the topic of the article, Palani Falls, is relevant and notable. I request help with referencing on the article. This may be a stretch, but I would also appreciate co-authors, if any.

If this isn't the right place to ask, do give me a heads-up. Regards, Dissoxciate (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bhavanishankar

[edit]
Notice

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

Unreferenced and unimproved over 15 years. No reliable sources online Google news, newspapers, books, or scholar. Not enough information to merge.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harewali

[edit]

Can somebody please source this? Bearian (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jhaptal

[edit]

Can somebody with knowledge of Tala please source this? Bearian (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ling Liang Chinese Church Trust, Calcutta India

[edit]
Notice

The article Ling Liang Chinese Church Trust, Calcutta India has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. No Websites.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Maharajaswaas

[edit]
Notice

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

Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 years. No reliable sources online on Google, and none at news, newspapers, books, or scholar. Run of the mill, very small village. Not enough information to merge.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. P.S. I tried spelling it a couple of ways. Bearian (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mavichery

[edit]

I'm looking for help with verification that this village exists, its coordinates and sources. Bearian (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meenoor

[edit]

One last unsourced article that I can't find anywhere. Please help. Bearian (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a few variants of the name in https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/data/population-finder. No luck. Suggest PROD. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&oldid=1267986463"