Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

ANI defamation case

Some of you might know that Asian News International (ANI) is suing Wikipedia in the Delhi High Court for defamation. The first hearing was on 20 August, which doesn't seem to have been covered in the press. Now we learn that the High Court ordered Wikimedia to divulge the identity of the editors within 2 weeks, and when Wikimedia failed to comply, held it in contempt. If anybody knows what happened in the 20-August hearing, please let me know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. What is ANI? There used to be a UNI, or was it UPI, or both? Any connection? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

UPI is American. My bad. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the name above and added a wikilink. See also WP:RSPANI.

An earlier article in The Indian Express points out that ANI is treating Wikipedia as a "social media intermediary" (like twitter, for example), which is just a "transmitter" of information. That means that the editors who wrote the content are the original "authors", the real targets that ANI intends to sue. Wikimedia looks like it is out of depth in figuring out the Indian law. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

:) Presumably, these editors have cited sources for said content. What did the court say about the cited authors, especially if they are Indians? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess the case hasn't gotten to that point yet. That is why I am asking, what happened on the 20th August hearing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

On the hearing held on August 20, 2024, in the ANI defamation case against Wikipedia, the following key events took place:

Wikimedia's Appearance: Representatives from Wikimedia appeared in court. ANI contended that Wikipedia had not disputed the involvement of three individuals, who were also defendants in the case, in editing the contentious content.

Court's Directive: The Delhi High Court directed Wikimedia to disclose the subscriber details of the three individuals involved in the case within two weeks. This information was demanded because ANI had accused Wikipedia of defaming them by allowing edits that labeled the news agency as a "propaganda tool" of the Indian government.

ANI's Complaint: ANI reinforced its claim that Wikipedia was permitting defamatory content and sought ₹2 crore in damages along with the removal of the alleged defamatory statements.

Contempt Petition Filed: ANI filed a contempt petition against Wikipedia for not complying with the court’s earlier order to disclose the required information.

In other words : Wikimedia Foundation was ordered to present a representative in court due to their failure to provide the requested subscriber details of individuals involved in editing ANI's Wikipedia page. Wikipedia's legal team argued that the platform's content is created and managed by volunteer editors and that they do not interfere directly with edits. However, the court was displeased with Wikipedia's non-compliance and delay in submitting the required information. Justice Navin Chawla warned that continued non-compliance could result in the platform being blocked in India. The words were "I will impose contempt...It is not a question of Defendant No 1 [Wikipedia] not being an entity in India. We will close your business transactions here. We will ask the government to block Wikipedia...Earlier also you people have taken this argument. If you don’t like India, please don’t work in India." The court issued a contempt notice to Wikimedia and directed a representative to appear at the next hearing scheduled for October 25, 2024​ DangalOh (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Source please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Information is available through multiple Indian news sources. I just summarised it. However, if you are referring to "the sources" that Wikipedia deems infallible and most reliable, I am not certain. The objective here is not to introduce this material into Wikipedia with citations to further any agenda. The intent was simply to inform. Whether one chooses to believe it or not is not my concern; that responsibility falls on Wikimedia and the editors involved. This issue extends beyond ANI; it affects all Indian news sources that do not align with leftist, globalist, or Islamist ideologies. Funnily enough, ANI is labeled as a propaganda tool for the Indian government, regardless of whether it's the BJP or Congress in power. It's even a further step towards an anti-India bias, not just anti-right wing. Notably, the primary source used to defame ANI was Alt News, run by Mohammed Zubair. Unfortunately, I do not have Alt News reporting on this matter. Whether you choose to accept this information or not is entirely up to you; it is not my concern. If you have any other contradictory information from 'most reliable' sources, then please share or i would request you to at least give some benefit of the doubt. DangalOh (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

For reference, here is the link to Delhi HC - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/dhc_case_status_list_new?sno=1&ctype=CS%28OS%29&cno=524&cyear=2024 - Case Type CS(OS) (or CS(OS) - S), Case number - 524, Year - 2024. It was not immediately clear to me who the defendants 2, 3, 4 (WP Admins as stated in the order) are. Does anyone know where to lookup?

Also, direct links to orders: 9 July 2024, 20 August 2024 — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The names of defendants 2, 3, and 4 in the ANI defamation case against Wikipedia were not publicly disclosed in the available reports from August 20, 2024. However, it was noted that these three individuals were involved in making the contested edits on the Wikipedia page of ANI, and they are subject to a court order requiring Wikipedia to disclose their subscriber details. ANI contended that these individuals were not administrators on the platform, which led to the Delhi High Court ordering Wikipedia to reveal their identities within two weeks. DangalOh (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The case was listed yesterday (case history link) but the order is not (yet?) available (link). Is there an update from yesterday? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 09:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There has been no specific update on the order from the September 5 hearing that I am aware of as of now. The developments I initially mentioned to Kautilya are the latest updates, especially Justice Navin Chawla's vocal warning. I will keep my eyes and ears open. This situation could seriously escalate. I would personally hate to see Wikipedia get banned in India. India has the largest English-speaking population in the world, especially as a second or third language. A ban could affect access to a valuable source of information for millions, and it would certainly impact Wikipedia’s presence in one of the largest user bases in the world. I don’t know if it will affect Wikipedia Hindi as well. Only time will tell. DangalOh (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

India certainly won't be the first to censor Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but India banning Wikipedia would seriously be impactful. Most of the countries that previously censored Wikipedia are not even English-speaking. We are talking about one of the biggest user bases of Wikipedia here. The impact will be felt if such a scenario occurs.

Unlike other countries that have restricted Wikipedia, India is not only one of the largest contributors in terms of users but also generates a significant amount of content, including in multiple regional languages. This would create a ripple effect, especially on the availability of regional knowledge and the diversity of perspectives online. DangalOh (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

ANI contended that these individuals were not administrators on the platform, which led to the Delhi High Court ordering Wikipedia to reveal their identities within two weeks. I'd be curious to see what the reasoning there was. Why is it relevant whether the editors were administrators or not? jlwoodwa (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the comment in OnManorama?

Since we don't have news coverage of what happened on 20 August (which is itself quite suspicious), the newspapers have been trying to reconstruct what happened on that day. This one is ANI's version of what happened. I guess that the ANI's meaning of "administrators" is Wikimedia-appointed staff, not "administrators" in our sense. All members of the community would be "volunteer editors" from a legal standpoint, and they would need to represent themselves in case of a legal suit.

I will try to find some right-wing commentaries on Wikipedia which give us an idea of how they think.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Post them here if you find some — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't find any reputed articles opinionating on Wiki by reputed right-wing circles like RSS and VHP, but few organisation (Hindu Raksha Dal for example) are of the opinion that Wikimedia foundation is a CIA front etc... VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The crux of the case as far as I could read is that the editors did not quote proper sources and other citations while doing so. If they did, the defamation case would have been against the source rather than Wikipedia. It is always advised to edit Wikipedia by citing proper reliable sources rather than framing the self-made opinion of the editors themselves. The job of the editors is to culminate the information available across various platforms and put it together so that readers can obtain it in one place. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. The sources are fine. ANI is trying to portray the article as representing Wikipedia's own "opinion", and, so far, the Delhi High Court is siding with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This is what every anti-Wikipedia person in India does, especially when it’s related to the BJP. They don’t look at the sources; they just accuse Wikipedia of making things up. But they actually know that Wikipedia cites sources—they just refuse to acknowledge it. Because, their motive is always to discredit Wikipedia’s name. GrabUp - Talk 11:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

It follows from the comment defendant no.1 submits that they have no connection with defendant nos.2 to 4 (20 August order) that the defendants 2 to 4 would need to appear before the court themselves. What exactly is the legal status of English Wikipedia? DougWeller, do you know? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You probably pinged the wrong @Doug Weller account — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 17:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. As this Wikipedia is part of the Foundation they are suing them. I can’t imagine they would reveal any names. That would set a terrible precedent. They haven’t revealed no names before. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If that happened and they disclosed the name, it would be a really big issue for Indian editors. Others might also start filing cases, such as OpIndia, for writing that it spread ‘fake news’. The interesting part is that the editors who added that part may have left Wikipedia forever, and one day, the court could come to their door, saying, ‘Go to jail or pay a fine.’ GrabUp - Talk 17:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely that Wikipedia will disclose any real names, and I seriously doubt whether Wikipedia even possesses the actual identities of the individuals involved. What could they potentially share? IP ranges, fabricated usernames, or random email addresses, which are not even required for creating new accounts these days. In the rare event that Wikipedia does decide to share IP addresses or ranges (which is highly improbable), a legal notice to the ISP would be necessary to obtain the exact subscriber details tied to the specific IP address at the time of the edit. If the individual was using a VPN service, however, this would significantly complicate matters, making identification nearly impossible.

Moreover, Wikipedia is known for its staunch commitment to protecting user privacy. In this case, it is likely that Wikipedia itself, rather than the individual editors or even the sources cited, would bear responsibility considering wikipedia wont reveal anything. As I understand Indian law, Wikipedia, as an intermediary, is primarily accountable for what transpires on its platform — whether it concerns the sources its community deems reliable, those it disqualifies, or how it handles users who revert edits to a preferred version or block dissenting views. This also includes the types of communities it allows to flourish within itself and which it systematically restricts. My understanding is that the issue here, compared to platforms like X (formerly Twitter), is that users on Wikipedia are often exposed to a single narrative, with certain viewpoints censored to push specific agendas (referred to as POV pushing in Wikipedia’s terms). You even have to adhere to a NPOV, based on sources that are more or less ideologically similar, as many sources from the other side are outright dismissed as unreliable by the community or removed by mob rule (coincidence that only one side is most of the time considered correct?). The fact which makes wiki more important is that Wikipedia, unlike X, is an educational platform involved in shaping future minds. This does not bode well for Wikipedia’s operations in India. They may be required to pay fines to continue their operations, or possibly face some form of a ban.

However, I doubt that any individual editor will be identified. What if the editors are foreign nationals? Will they face restrictions on entering India, as was the case recently with a British-Indian writer who was barred from entry? Only time will tell. Wikipedia may be reverting to its roots. It was initially meant for Western audiences, and it might end up being read only by Western audiences in the end. And I suppose that's fine. DangalOh (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• In the light of this, there might shortly be an article on Navin Chawla (judge), and I hope experienced editors will watch it to ensure its content remains scrupulously appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller: Some IPs are directly threatening Indian editors with legal action on the talk pages of ANI and the recent Kolkata rape case. Should they be blocked per WP:LEGAL, or can we protect the talk page to autoconfirmed? GrabUp - Talk 07:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @GrabUp I can't find them. Can you be more precise? Doug Weller talk 08:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Doug Weller: Most of the time, one IP range is consistently threatening Indian editors. It seems they may be associated with an organization called ‘Hindu Raksha Dal,’ as the same IP repeatedly claims they have filed a complaint with the ‘National Task Force for Doctor Safety’ against editor @VSankeerthSai1609. They are repeatedly sharing this email on the talk page of the Kolkata Rape Case. For example, the IP range initially threatened Tito Dutta, an Indian editor and admin, and other editors with legal action. Today, the same IP range has again threatened editors who opposed the removal of the victim’s name, warning them of legal proceedings. I believe a block is not the solution, but temporary protection for 3 to 6 months with autoconfirmed-only editing might be necessary. GrabUp - Talk 08:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  This one from Asian News International. GrabUp - Talk 09:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, found some biased and threatening message on my talk page a few days ago. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Please report and/or block this IP 49.36.178.108 VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Here is the IP range, [1]. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  What complaint have they filed. Is this supposed to be a serious issue? There is nothing offensive about anything on the page of National task force for safety medical professionals wiki. I have just added the names of the members of the taskforce. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @GrabUp Protrcted. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  Is this the same Hindu Raksha Dal?

  https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/noida-news/ghaziabad-police-may-invoke-nsa-against-hindu-raksha-dal-leader-101723401345231.html VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  @VSankeerthSai1609: I think so. GrabUp - Talk 11:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Funnily enough, when I clicked on this section, I was actually expecting it to be about defamation on WP:ANI. That poor acronym… jlwoodwa (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• And now... Netflix What is going on with ANI? — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 10:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is the one that I find funny - ANI complaining about someone using third party material, which they quite frequently do themselves. "PTI advocate Rajshekhar Rao said that there was “no apology needed” and that the video was a third party content. He said that it is “a case of pot calling the kettle black”. Media lawfare. Ravensfire (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

Hello Noticeboard for India-related topics:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Port Blair

The official name of Port Blair recently been changed to Sri Vijayapuram. As usual, we have IDs and IPs changing the common name in various articles (I got to know from Andaman and Nicobar Islands), including two attempts at moving it to Sri Vijayapuram (and another iteration), both of which I reverted citing WP:RMUM, undiscussed unilateral moves. Hoping, people here will keep a tab at it. Pinging @Arjayay, Gotitbro, Ekdalian, Kautilya3, Ravensfire, and GrabUp: among other. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Another Allahabad problem surfaces. If the powers that be have a go at Renaming of cities in India#Proposed changes be ready for a regular occurence. Gotitbro (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Facepalm Exactly Gotitbro. Also people, see [2]. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Remind the editors about WP:NAMECHANGE, expecially "When this occurs, we give extra weight to independent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change." and ask them to help show that this has been done. Clearly local media would be doing this, but also India-wide and international media as well. Ravensfire (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

You must be joking, right? TrangaBellam (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

And don't call me Shirley Ravensfire (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Port Blair#Requested move 13 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Port Blair#Requested move 13 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Ravi Modi - Need help (article is eligible or not)

Hi, I would like to get some clarity regarding the article Draft:Ravi Modi as it has been declined 5 times. The article was made live once and later it was removed from livespace to draftspace. Please check the history for content. The current version which is rejected is the full content version. The reason I am mentioning it here is because it was again guided by Live Chat as help. I get full support from Live Chat & they have done with fact-check as well for the Forbes article which was released in the print version as well. Request to check the article and suggest whether it is eligible to create an article or else I will drop the plan. This is my last resort. Read many Wiki pages, notability, perennial sources, etc. I am getting mixed reviews that's why not feeling well. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 18:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @VKG1985, I read the Draft: Ravi Modi, and I have some thoughts. I typed in "Ravi Modi Vedant Fashions" in google and had a quick look. Ravi Modi seems to be somewhat notable. It does look like there is some coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. However, some of those sources look promotional. My advice, looking at the draft of the article and googling him, it is obvious Ravi Modi is notable for his success in business, therefore you should expand the section on his career. You can add more notable information and then reference the information with other reliable secondary sources. Make sure these sources do properly cover him though (see: WP:SIGCOV). MohReddy (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks MohReddy, I have searched as guided & made changes accordingly. Have submitted for review. -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 18:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

WP Project Add/Remove on Hindutva-related articles

Hi Team, I added WP Discrimination and WP Terrorism project in Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, but, User:Rasnaboy has removed it citing there has been an discussion that took place last month in the Talk:Narendra Modi#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discrimination. Their I noticed @Abecedare: said that he is against removing these projects' templates systematically from all wikipedia article talkpages. @Rasnaboy has already removed wikiprojects (discrimination, terrorism, crime) from the some the articles which are mentioned in the talk page of Narendra Modi. My argument is there has been no consensus on removing these projects from all articles particularly related to BJP-RSS-Hindutva. But, @Rasnaboy has been systemically removed it from all these related to BJP-RSS-Hindutva. Moreover, article like Violence against Muslims in independent India, Violence against Christians in India, Hindu terrorism point out that right-wing Hindu organization who follow Hindutva / Hindu nationalist ideology are the main culprit against minorities in India. Shouldn't we go on a case by case basis rather than going all hog. Some of the WP projects are in active or semi-active status hence editors who are member of these projects can help do collaborative editing and contribute to these articles. WP Discrimination was in an inactive mode but now it is in semi-active mode. So editors who are members of these projects can contribute to these articles. And even if the project become inactive in future they might become active so new editors who become members of such project can contribute. And what is interesting is if you read the articles of organizations who follow the ideology of Hindutva / Hindu nationalism have commited some heinous crimes against minority communities in India and they're well sourced. I would like to know view from some of the experinced editors @Vanamonde93: @Doug Weller: @RegentsPark: @Fowler&fowler: @Valereee: @C.Fred: @S Marshall: @Girth Summit:. Thanks 2409:40E0:44:FEF6:C02D:6A0A:B8C4:D3EB (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Both of those WikiProjects are inactive. What's the benefit of adding them to this article's talk page?—S Marshall T/C 07:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @S Marshall: WP Discrimination Project is in semi-active status; earlier it was in inactive status. WP terrorism is inactive right now, but in the future it might be in active mode. WP Crime is a very active project. Point I'm making is that if WP projects are added, even if they remain inactive, semi-active, or active, editors who are members of such projects will be able to contribute to the respective articles, and if WP projects aren't added, then members won't be able to contribute to these articles. Today if some projects are inactive tomorrow they might be in active mode. New editors who have interest in these projects will contribute to these articles. Moreover, in the main article, the discriminatory action against the minority community is clearly mentioned, and they are well documented and well sourced. Hence, adding such WP projects won't be a waste; rather, it will be beneficial for such articles.--2409:40E0:55:459B:111D:B737:4409:CDA2 (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Are you adding those Wikiprojects to attract editors interested in improving the pages? Or are you adding them because you think that by listing Wikiproject:Terrorism, you are somehow tarnishing the image of the RSS? The latter isn't appropriate; the former seems to be a bit of a stretch. I personally could not care less which Wikiprojects are represented on the talk, but edit-warring over it is silly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I defer to the superior wisdom of all the others you have pinged. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Hi @Vanamonde93: How come adding WP projects can tarnish someone's image? It is an utterly ridiculous argument. The purpose of the WP project is where editors who are members of such projects would be able to contribute to the articles; their purpose is to add value. Moreover, I'm not adding anything unrelated projects, considering the article where heinous crime has been properly described, particularly where discrimanatory action and crime have been described. WP Discrimination and WP Crime can certainly be added; WP Terroism can be debatable. Thanks--2409:40E0:5F:620F:45E:A913:769F:E328 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  If other editors aren't objecting to my proposal, then I will add WP Discrimination and WP Crime Project to the respective Hindutva-related articles. And in articles where right-wing Hindu organisations are involved in terrorist activities, then WP Terrorism, I will add. Sir you can also share your views. @Jimbo Wales:. Thanks & Regards--2409:40E0:1002:F56C:D5EF:D258:716F:AD97 (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think the IP user is missing the point regarding WikiProjects. Going by the logic of the IP user, they should also add, for example, WP-discrimination in several Indian parties articles such as Indian National Congress article (because we have well-sourced section on dynasticism), WP-corruption in Trinamool Congress, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party and their members (we have sourced claims in these articles), WP-Terrorism in Tablighi Jamaat or Hamas, and so forth. Doing these is akin to adding WP-Hinduism in Narendra Modi article (see Talk:Narendra_Modi#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discrimination), again per the IP user there. While similar articles like Muslim nationalism in South Asia do not have WP-discrimination (or other WPs), and even the talk pages of articles like Hamas insist in using these terms with care/avoiding per policy, the IP user(s) appear to conveniently ignore these in Hindu nationalism-related articles. As User:Vanamonde hinted, that'd only appear as the ulterior intention of the editor to tarnish the image of the person/party/organization. It now appears like POV-pushing to me. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rasnaboy: First of all, the WP-Corruption project is a dead project; forget being in an inactive status. So there is absolutely no point in adding a project; however, if you want to add a dead project, then go ahead. Secondly, in the Hamas article, the WP Crime and WP Terrorism Project has been added. Please check carefully. And dynasticism can't be called discrimination because in India most political parties are dynastic, including the BJP. Articles like Violence against Muslims in independent India, Violence against Christians in India, and Hindu terrorism point out that the right-wing Hindu organisations that follow Hindutva or Hindu nationalist ideology discriminate against the Muslims and Christians. There are countless academic sources that state that clearly. By the way, adding a WP project is not pushing POV; it is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. I don't need to explain the purpose of the WP Project; I have already said it several times. Check Nazi Party article WP Discrimination is added, because it has systemically discriminated against the Jews that has been described in the main article, whereas in India BJP/RSS/Hindutva systemically discriminates against the Muslims and Christians. You're pushing a pro-Hindutva agenda in spite of knowing the real truth. Read the articles that I have mentioned over here. All academic sources point out that right-wing Hindu organisations that follow Hindutva/Hindu nationalism idealogy are real culprints against the minority community in India. Having said that, don't get confused by the real Hindu organisations like Ramakrishna Mission or International Society for Krishna Consciousness or Yogoda Satsanga Society of India or Sri Aurobindo Ashram. These organisations have done extraordinary service; they don't promote hatred against minority communities, i.e., Muslims or Christians. Some of the activities of ISCKON have attracted criticism, which has been mentioned on their website, but they don't directly propagate hate against the minority community, whether it is Christians or Muslims. Thanks--2409:40E0:1029:9571:45D6:F543:984D:272D (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you for adding WP-discrimination in analogous articles like Muslim nationalism in South Asia? It's not just about that article but all the related articles. The Hamas page is just for citing the policy. WP-Terrorism should be added in articles like Hindu Terrorism or Tablighi Jamaat but not in others. Please do not add without reaching consensus with other editors on the talk page or at the discussion at Talk:Narendra_Modi#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discrimination. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You're bringing irrelevent topics in between. Don't digress from the main issues, we're discussing about BJP/RSS/Hindutva and their discriminatory ideology and crimes some of the right-wing Hindu organizations have done. Don't try to push your pro-Hindutva agenda / narrative over here. Thanks--2409:40E0:E:9754:1CC8:CEEB:637F:99F9 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear IP user. As you can see, we're only discussing and no one agreed yet. Please stop adding without consensus. First obtain consensus as to what to add and what not to add for every nationalism-related article (not just Hindu nationalism). It's ironic to see your logic to add "Discrimination" WP in articles is itself discriminatory. Rasnaboy (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal of content by W170924

W170924 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Could someone with time investigate the removals by the user? I don't think they're warranted, atleast one of them — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

They don't seem like a new user to me. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

...probably should be reworded per sources — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Please give them any appropriate warnings. That will help. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Sheikh Hasina#RfC about Indian interference in the lead

Sheikh Hasina, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gotitbro (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident - photo and name of the victim on the article

Hello, there's an ongoing [rfc|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder_incident#RfC:_Name_of_victim] at 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident about if the victim's name should be included. Your participation there would be helpful and appreciated. the article on 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident states the name of the victim and the puts up the photo of the victim. As you may know the Indian law is clear on the issue that indetifying information of sexual crime victims and survisors cannot be published. I tried to explain that to the editors but they have come back with WP:Notcensored, I tried explaining that noncensored does not mean that we will actively go against the law, we need to weigh in the benefits and the potenatial harm and reach a consensus through meaningful discussions etc. There is a RFC going on at [3] may I request you to please weigh in. Legaleagle86 (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

When you're asking for outside input, please leave a neutral message inviting them to the discussion. This is not neutral and violates WP:CANVASS. Ravensfire (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Please let me know which part of my post violates neutrality. I have explained my position and have asked for the editors' views. I did not ask them to vote in favour of one side or the other. 16:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC) Legaleagle86 (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

And you presented it with your view being pushed. That's not neutral. Simple as that. Read WP:CANVASS. What should have been done is something like "There's a discussion at 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident about if the victim's name should be included. Your participation there would be helpful and appreciated." And stop. That's neutral - your aren't presenting your arguements at all which is what you did. Short post, here's what the topic is, here's where it is, ask for participation. Done. Ravensfire (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

In light of the recent consensus reached regarding the handling of victim names in the 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident, I believe it is essential to establish a norm for similar cases, including the 2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder case. Given the sensitive nature of such incidents and the potential distress caused to survivors and their families, it is crucial for Wikipedia to align its policies with cultural norms and legal requirements in India.

Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code prohibits the disclosure of a rape victim's name, and the recent discussions highlight a strong community sentiment favoring the exclusion of victim names to respect privacy and cultural sensitivities. I propose we create a guideline that explicitly states the approach to be taken for all articles related to incidents of sexual violence in India, ensuring that we prioritize ethical considerations and legal compliance. This would not only uphold the dignity of victims but also reinforce Wikipedia's commitment to ethical reporting.

I invite all editors to weigh in on this proposal and discuss how we can best implement such a norm moving forward.I.Mahesh (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hindu University of America

User:Presearch asked me to raise attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu University of America (2nd nomination), so, hereby. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Article about a letter of the Sindhi language

I've had a go at creating an article on جهہ, a letter of the Sindhi language. However, my knowledge of this topic is poor, and the article leaves much to be desired. Does anyone here know this topic well enough to improve this article, or can you point me to a better forum for asking this question? — The Anome (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/India-related_articles#The_Kolkata_"case",_wider_implications?

For the interested. If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Hindu American Foundation

Editors are requested to take a look at Hindu American Foundation and ensure compliance with NPOV. I do not see any violations of the policy but as the primary author of the article, I might be biased. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Quality images of Zanskar on Commons

I've posted 300+ Quality Images of Zanskar from my trips in 2022 and 2024. The images are categorised by monastery, etc. I hope these will be useful in Wikipedia articles on Zanskar, Ladakh and the Himalayas. Tagooty (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 24 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 24 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Removal of vandalism from article ‘Chozhia Vellalar’

Hello,

I'm writing to ask if it would be possible to intervene on the ‘Chozhia Vellalar’ article to restore it (or modify it, depending on your assessment) to the state it was in before its last vandalism. In the meantime, I've asked to protect the article, leaving it untouched. However, as I'm not authorised to modify protected articles, I can't retouch it subsequently. So the article is still in its vandalised version (oldid=1249691125; contribution by the user Anirudhahalarama). If it would be possible to restore it to the last previous version, or if you would like to edit it again, I thank you in advance.

Drusekoana (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

I've created this, but nearly all sources were behind a paywall for me, so much of it was created using the first paragraphs of sources. If anyone has access to the sources, expansion or correction would be great. For instance, I have no idea whether that's the actual name of the lawsuit, so I just used a typical US lawsuit title format. Thanks for any help! Valereee (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and if you'd rather just email me the text of the sources, happy to do the work myself. Valereee (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: I have sent you an email. GrabUp - Talk 19:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Valereee (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: See [4], the name of law suit is "ANI MEDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC & ORS." Ratnahastin (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I guess I won't move the page there, but maybe a redirect? Valereee (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect seems like a good idea to me. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ahmad Hasan Dani

Ahmad Hasan Dani has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Santhosh Suvarna

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Santhosh Suvarna? I don't know if there is a specific WP:SNG that covers professional poker players, but this article was created directly in the mainspace and doesn't ever seem to have been assessed. It also looks like an attempt to WP:COATRACK content about two professional poker tournaments instead of just focusing on one particular player. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

thenortheasttoday.com?

We have a number of articles which cite articles from thenortheasttoday.com, for example Operation Bluebird. That domain no longer exists. However, I see there is a https://www.northeasttoday.in/. Is it possible these are the same publication under different domain names? RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Supreme Court has dismissed the allegations against Isha Foundation

Since Wikipedia aims to present facts impartially, I respectfully request a review of the “Isha Foundation” article for neutrality and overall quality. In my view, the current representation of several allegations throughout the article lacks proper context regarding potential vested interests from certain groups that are not offering genuine criticism but rather inventing controversies to harm Isha Foundation.0nelight505 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion on Akali Sahib Singh Kaladhari

The page Akali Sahib Singh Kaladhari is currently the subject of a deletion discussion here. If you can assist in improving the page please do, otherwise it will almost certainly be deleted shortly. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

NPOVN discussion for Aaj Tak

See WP:NPOVN#Aaj Tak, please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Political marriages in India

This is a historical article and it is heavily edited in last few days with unreliable sources like low quality newspaper articles and local publication books even sources are cited fraudulently to write something which is not present in the source itself. Specially, the Rajput and Mughal section is full of crap. Lack of attention by even established editors in reverting such poor addition has been degrading the quality of articles on English Wikipedia and it seems that like several websites floating on internet, Wikipedia is also backing pseudo-historic claims. Adamantine123 (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge between List of Air India Express destinations and Air India Express

I have proposed a merge for the article List of Air India Express destinations to be merged into the article Air India Express, you may feel free to join the discussion at either Talk:List of Air India Express destinations#Merge proposal into Air India Express or Talk:Air India Express#Merge proposal with List of Air India Express destinations Metrosfan (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Asian News International

This discussion may be of interest to members of this noticeboard. Valereee (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Asian News International

This discussion may be of interest to members of this noticeboard. Valereee (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Shiledar

Hi, I'm hoping someone here will be able to add some refs to Shiledar - I see mentions in a few sources but I can't really access them. I suspect others might have access to better stuff. Thanks and good luck. JMWt (talk) 07:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films#Requested move 1 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of highest-grossing Indian films#Requested move 1 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Ram Mohan Roy

Ram Mohan Roy has been moved to Raja Ram Mohan Roy; doesn't that violate WP:HONORIFICS? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan I agree. It should be moved back to Ram Mohan Roy. Asteramellus (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree because there is also a Raja Aziz Bhatti. You can start a new page move request after some months if you want the page move to be reversed. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin Is there a reason to wait for some months to start a new page move? Is there a process where we can request revert for the page move? And sorry, I am not able to find the original request for this - can you add the original request link here. Thanks. Asteramellus (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

In general, one should wait for at least 6 months before starting a new page move request like it has always happened at Talk:Bangalore.

If you want to dispute this days old page move then do read WP:MR. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin thanks so much. see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)#Titles and honorifics. Asteramellus (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Telangana State Wakf Board#Requested move 27 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Telangana State Wakf Board#Requested move 27 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Buffen meat hoax?

On Buffalo meat it says "it is known as [...] buffen in India" and then uses "buffen" throughout the article.

But I couldn't find any independent sources confirming this. Is it true or a hoax? Commander Keane (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I ended up removing all mention of "buffen" to stay on the safe side. Commander Keane (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Need for a community response to WMF on revealing an Indian editor's identity

Discussions on Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) have revealed that in connection with Asian News International, WMF intends to reveal the identity of an Indian editor to a Dehli Court on 8 November. There seems to be support for a community response to dissuade WNF from taking such action but I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the procedures involved. It has been suggested a letter should be drafted to WMF expressing our concerns. I could draft such a letter but need advice on how to proceed further.--Ipigott (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott:, soon, I expect today, there will be coverage in The Signpost at WP:SIGNPOST. I was the lead organizer for this story and can be a point of contact for questions with regard to Signpost reporting.

If you want to publish your letter in the next issue of Signpost in about two weeks, then The Signpost would accept. There are also other publishing options to share individual opinion articles or other presentations of facts. I cannot help with everything, but I can support with journalism if that helps. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Bluerasberry, but we need to respond to WMF today or tomorrow. Perhaps you can help?--Ipigott (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ipigott: Perhaps I can help. What can I do? We already have a lot of news coverage for this story. You can preview it here - Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue. There are four articles. If you come up with a letter, then can make it prominent in the comments. I am open to discussing other kinds of help. We cannot publish another issue of The Signpost tomorrow, after publishing one today. We publish about every two weeks.

I am sure I can come up with ways to help circulate a letter and help formatting it if you have one. Are you thinking of a petition, a list of questions, or what? Bluerasberry (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Bluerasberry, for offering support. You will no doubt be interested to see that discussions on preparing an open letter to WMF are progressing on the Village pump (WMF) page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, there is an active discussion about a potential open letter to the WMF about this issue. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Open letter now published for support

An open letter has been published and is taking signatures.--Ipigott (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Now the Central Government

The Central government has sent a notice to Wikipedia asking it to explain as to why it should not be treated as a publisher instead of an intermediary. The notice has been sent citing complaints of alleged bias and inaccurate information on the web page, said people in the know.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This is concerning. Can anyone access the full text? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

• Wikipedia spokesman denied receiving such a notice.[5] Seems like Godi media is working as a pressure group to create anti-wikipedia atmosphere. Dympies (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Lol GrabUp - Talk 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That would just mean the usual bureaucratic delays. The current government is an expert at headline management, and the timing is everything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Shiv Sena (1966–2022)#Requested move 11 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shiv Sena (1966–2022)#Requested move 11 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune

Could someone from WP:INDIA take a look at Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune and assess it? It was created yesterday and doesn't appear to have ever been reviewed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

IAC: legal threats and intimidation

Comments by Shyamal Bagchi in April 2022 on behalf of India Against Corruption in this public comment at ICANN was full of legal threats, intimidation, and threats of violence, including against representatives of Wikimedia. Who is this person, and do they have the right to portray themselves as a spokesperson for IAC? Should something be added to the IAC article about this? Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Dilettante 21:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Maurya Empire

You are welcome to participate in discussion at Talk:Maurya Empire#Rfc on the Map Edasf (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comments at Talk:Banaras Hindu University

RfC regarding history of the college preceding the university is at this page. Please share your thoughts there. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 15:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comments at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

You are invited to join a request for comments at MOS/Dates and numbers. Toadspike [Talk] 20:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comments at WT:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

You are invited to join a request for comments at MOS/Dates and numbers. Toadspike [Talk] 20:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Sanskrit epigraphy

Hi, all. I've gone about as far as I am able with Draft:Sanskrit epigraphy, so I leave it to you for improvement. The body of the draft is a copy of Sanskrit#Epigraphy with a lead stuck on top, so when released, the section at Sanskrit § Epigraphy should be chopped down to a summary, with a {{Main}} link in summary style. There are lots of images available at c:Category:Sanskrit inscriptions in India to make a gallery with. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Never mind; I released it. Contributions still welcome. Mathglot (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Lakh and crore RFC

There is a RFC discussion on the use of lakh and crore at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions. Please make comments there, not here. Thank you.  Stepho  talk  23:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Tanks of Bombay

Interesting article but it’s been unsourced and unimproved almost 15 years. Please find and add references. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tihawali

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

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. No reliable sources online Google news, newspapers, books, or scholar. Run of the mill, very small village. Not enough information to merge. Can redirect if necessary.

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) 15:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for comments/help at WikiProj:Archaeology

Just asking for people interested in India-related topics for help or input at my discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Archaeology. Thanks. Tolozen (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Dal Lake

Dal Lake has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Khandoba

Khandoba has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of the Pakistan Armed Forces

There is an active proposal to merge Criticism of the Pakistan Armed Forces into The Establishment (Pakistan). Please share your thoughts on this. Thanks. 109.204.231.244 (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Indian Institute of Management Rohtak

Indian Institute of Management Rohtak has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ujjal Dosanjh

Ujjal Dosanjh has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Joy Chatterjee

Hello all! I'm in the process of making some pretty extensive edits to this article (mostly removing portfolio-esque content copied from LinkedIn), but need some additional sources for verification. My searches in English are turning up very few results. Any help getting this off the ground would be appreciated - thanks! jellyfish ✉ 23:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Moving Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshwadeep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Administrative Service to Danics

Due to the excessively long name of this article, I think it should be moved back to DANICS (which is currently a redirect to Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Administrative Service to DANICS) due to it being the most common name used by sources. I put this topic here instead of the main article due to how little traction it gets. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 14:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kalikave

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

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. No reliable sources. Run of the mill farm next to an open pit mine. 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) 15:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Kantallur

Can someone please source this? I can’t find any information or references. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bearian seems it has some notability based on google news search. e.g. see this (uses "kanthalloor", but must be same as Kantallur). I can try to find better source(s). Asteramellus (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh seems there is a page for Kantalloor so now not sure if this "Kantallur" is a different village. But will try to look. Asteramellus (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Krishna Mandir, Barohiya

The article Krishna Mandir, Barohiya has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 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) 16:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Mutholapuram

This stub is a disaster. Please let’s fix it. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Kothayam

I’m proposing to merge a hamlet and a school into this small community. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Pithalai patty

I was going to propose deleting it, but that was already rejected. The text and the title don’t match, but I’m unsure if it’s vandalized or an error. Can you please fix this? Bearian (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems there are many pages like this (e.g. see Bacharam) - maybe they are notable regionally (but I was not able to find many sources), and someone added them originally. Anumantharayan Kottai mentioned in the lead seems a different village! so must be a mistake. Also, seems city is spelled differently (Pithalaipatti) in google maps. And interestingly, google maps quick facts shows wiki's lead paragraph with the incorrect village name. Asteramellus (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting! Can you fix it? Or send it to WP:AfD so we can start from scratch? Bearian (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sita Marhi Natyashala

The article Sita Marhi Natyashala has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

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

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) 05:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hullickal

Please find sources. There is no Tamil language article. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Inai

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

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. No relevant and reliable sources online Google news, newspapers, books, or scholar. Not named on Open Source map. Apparently very small village. Not enough information to merge. Willing to redirect.

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) 21:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gandhali

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

Unreferenced and unimproved 15 years. No reliable sources online Google news, newspapers, books, or scholar. Run of the mill, very small village. What little is on the page is trivia. Not enough useful 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) 05:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Added a ref, de-prodded since it now meets WP:NGEO, and removed unsourced fluff from the article. The same ref can now be used for any unreferenced article about a village in Jalgaon district. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The state of Indian media

A thought-provoking interview of Rajdeep Sardesai [6]. I remember him being cocky about it a year or two ago. Now he sounds completely despondent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, about 9 to 10 years ago, Indian media became deprecated. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:ICTFSOURCES and User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Even on Wikipedia they are mostly unusable for establishing any form of notability, not to mention how most of them support the ruling party. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This month, Caravan profiled News18 and it cannot be nearer to truth. The amount of ludicrous junk they have pushed on Sambhal Mosque boggles my mind. Probably, nothing except The Indian Express, The Hindu, and The Dainik Bhaskar are worth relying upon anymore. Upd Edit (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The freedom allowed for each media house has been circumscribed individually. Nobody is immune. Even we are not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Greeshma Kuthar, a freelance journalist who in my opinion produced the best reporting on the Manipur violence, also made a lot of remarks on the state of media coverage in an interview with Frontliine. There is also full transcript of the interview.

She didn't get into it in the interview, but revealed on twitter several times that she had a lot of difficulty getting her articles published even after she wrote them. We can only imagine why. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mondipalayam

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

Unreferenced and unimproved 15 years. The Bhavani taluk does not exist any more, and the Mylambadi subdivision does not exist. Unverified, 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. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bearian Not sure if you saw the comment for the other proposed deletion of Gandhali, but looks like these villages articles may meet WP:NGEO. I am not quite clear after reading WP:NGEO, but I am guessing that they need to be kept and not deleted. Asteramellus (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't emphasize enough that it's very important that you need to put in a source before it can be deprodded. If you insist, and want to be difficult, I'll take it to WP:AfD. Again, the easy-peasy approach is to add a reference. Thank you for improving this project. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bearian Oh I too support the proposed deletion for this page and other such minimally developed unsourced pages! But I was just highlighting what I saw & mentioned by the other editor regarding WP:NGEO. Asteramellus (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Srinivasa Higher Secondary School, Melaiyur

The article Srinivasa Higher Secondary School, Melaiyur has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Several searches with Google and sub-engines show nothing besides social media posts and Wikimapia, which both fail WP:SELFPUB. TL;DR, no sources, no notability.

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. So many PRODed article messages here. Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 05:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

We Wikipedians are in the process of cleaning up a 15-year backlog of unsourced and unimproved articles. I plan to take a two-week break over the Christmas holidays, but I'm still volunteering on my birthday. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Left unsaid is that many of the single purpose accounts who created these articles and pages are no longer volunteering. It's an excellent example of Brandolini's law. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

More eyes at Zakir Hussain please

See my note regarding the page protection. Would be good if some experienced editors could add the article to their watchlist. Abecedare (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Done, also welcome back! @Abecedare:. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Banajiga

Expert input needed please at Talk:Balija#Proposed merge of Banajiga into Balija, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Nalloorkonam

I can't find any English language sources. Can you please help? Bearian (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't get any results searching on the indian census site. Searching for "konam" only gives 2 results, neither of which are in Tamil Nadu. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Bechar Bhadani

I'd be grateful for any pointers about the notability or otherwise of this Gujarati politician Bechar Bhadani. I came across the article during my general monitoring of unreferenced BLPs, and declined a BLPPROD on the basis that there was one source and a subsequent PROD on the basis that there were some potentially reasonable looking sources on the first page of a Google search. I will look into those a bit more, but if anyone had better knowledge of the subject and could give an informal "yeah, notable" or "no, almost certainly not notable" I would appreciate it (this is not an area of expertise for me!). Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Temper (film)

Temper (film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Disney Star#First sentence & infobox

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)

Nomination of Guite people for deletion

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)

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)

Requested move at Template_talk:Bangladeshi_wedding#Requested_move_25_December_2024

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)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles # Proposal for WP:INDICSCRIPT

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

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

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

Assistance - Palani Falls

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)

Helping identifying two places in India

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)

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)

Proposed deletion of Bhavanishankar

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)

Harewali

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

Jhaptal

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

Proposed deletion of Ling Liang Chinese Church Trust, Calcutta India

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)

Proposed deletion of Maharajaswaas

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)

Mavichery

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

Meenoor

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

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)

More Raj-era sourcing issues on South Asia related pages

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 [7][8][9]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  Qualitative descriptions are not mandatory for all edits, otherwise there would be no statistical data of any kind on this website.
  Regarding the original point: The layman will not spend hours shifting through scanned documents of old census reports. As a result, having this information on a publicly available, and easily comprehensible on a website such as Wikipedia provides readers with an ease of accessibility to view historical demographic data should they wish.
  Regardless, I must digress. Despite my good intentions on display here throughout the discussion so far, I have received nothing but a torrent of ill-mannered pushback with no indication that this will change.
  Furthermore, it is also clear from my interactions with you on here that only one agenda exists, and it certainly does not stem from the vast majority of my good faith additions to this website, which at this point have likely taken up hundreds of hours pouring over old data.
  When I attempt to further my case in good faith, you immediately shut it down.
  This kind of behaviour is not at all conducive to creating a free space for for editors, when data is presented and sourced, whereby data may be presented and sourced in one fashion, but using the same source to illustrate it in another immediately turns into an issue that should never have existed from the offset.
  The scenario illustrated above is akin to a rigid set of lines, where confirmity is paramount. If one should dare step across the pre-set line, one must immediately be on high alert for threats, bullying, and harassment from the establishment.
  Some editors, armed with their Wikipedia "prestige", have clearly formed a coalition alongside other longstanding editors with the sole objective of limiting dialogue and discussion, indicating a complete disregard for deviation from an archaically set status-quo by the very same "prestigious" group of editors, as highlighted by your reply above.
  When this long-standing status-quo is challenged, accusations of preaching appear, further evidenced through the "please don't preach to us" note in the latest edit summary; "us" obviously meaning the prestigious group of editors as referenced above.
  I apologize if the contents of this reply isn't what you wished to hear, however, it is a point which clearly must be conveyed, based on all the contents of your thinly veiled threats from the onset, shielded under the guise of "talk page discussion" here.
  I project that my point above will be proven in short order, as further false accusations will be flung, alongside several warnings from the establishment, which could ultimately result in a ban.
  It is obviously disappointing that it may end in such a manner, but such is the way of life. Crucially, it can serve as an important warning and reminder to other good faith editors that this website is not functioning in the manner that was originally intended whereby the prestigious few continually practice their smartly disguised mantra stolen from a famous book where "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Van00220 (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

  Thank you for the respectful reply once again. I greatly appreciate that. It seems as though this may boil down to one point of contention: Whether the addition of sourced demographic data tables should constitute a "disruptive" edit.
  It seems counterintuitive that the addition of clearly sourced, factual information (in this case, census data) onto a website that prides itself on the addition of factually sourced information should not be considered disruptive, especially when similar information derived from the same sources (in this case, books, media, or academic articles) are not deemed to be disruptive.
  What is disruptive (which I believe we can both agree on) are editors, who clearly have an agenda, making a plethora of unsourced additions, that are not based in fact or reality. This is not what is at issue here at all as the additions in contention are the complete opposite.
  Additionally, what could understandably be seen problematic is the bloated size of these data tables, which can hinder readability. If so, there is an option to hide tables which is an easy edit/addition to make. Van00220 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Please remember that NOTDATABASE is policy. Adding tables from 150-year-old censuses, without any anchor in the prose, is in my view a violation of that policy. Even the addition of contemporary demographic material requires care, because the categories in a government survey do not necessarily reflect the messy realities of caste, religion, and economics. Raj-era surveys were not known for their reliability. The peer-reviewed content we have on places in the subcontinent often omit even contemporary demographics. For all these reasons, you really need to obtain affirmative consensus in favor of your edits before adding historical demographic data. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I can most certainly add anchor prose that accompanies the data tables if that is one of the main issues at hand.
  It would be helpful know if there is any specific age of data that may be considered more controversial, without any anchor prose. For example, anything post-1880, post-1900, post-1920, post-1940, etc, etc?
  On the Delhi page, the edit note stated that 120 year old data must be removed, but in the same edit, data stemming from more recent censuses was also removed. Is there simply a blanket rule that any demographic data for South Asia prior to 1947 is considered unacceptable to post, or should we take a more nuanced approach to this?
  Regarding peer-reviewed sources that delve into historical demographics during the Raj-era: there are some sources that derive data from the very censuses that have been flagged to be at issue, as already discussed above.
  Additionally, on the topic of more contemporary (i.e. post Raj-era) censuses: I have been left pondering why these were also removed on the Delhi page, as the original reason given being 120 year old data must be cleared due to its perceived inaccuracies. Van00220 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  When historians use Raj-era sources, they are presumably exercising their professional judgement in doing so. We are not historians: we don't analyze primary sources. If historians use some data, we should summarize what they say about that data, not present the data itself.

  Nuance is always appropriate: I cannot say that every single instance of a demography table must be removed, or that it is always okay after a given date; but you certainly shouldn't be adding the tables by default, and it is likely that they are inappropriate in most cases. I could see in some cases a "Demodgraphics of..." page being appropriate if and only if there is coverage of that in secondary sources. Where the census data are all we have, I don't see how inclusion of historical demography is appropriate.

  I know that's frustrating to hear, but this is a recurring theme over the years; the community has decided over and over that we are not a repository for uncontextualized information, from sports statistics to highway features. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining further context surrounding this issue.
  Regarding tables that exist: I would like to propose adding a two-part anchor prose, with (1) that includes a description of the table, and (2) alongside a cautionary note that indicates the potentially controversial nature of the data.
  The former could look something like this: "Decadal census reports took place during the colonial era. One component of the reports included religious affiliation, as detailed in the table below."
  The latter could look something like this: "Additionally, the role of British ethnographers in regards to demographic data on decadal census reports has been considered controversial by various contemporary authors in academia, which includes data regarding caste, tribal association, religious background, and linguistic affiliation." Van00220 (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's not quite what I mean by context. That doesn't explain why the statistics matter, and what the reader is supposed to understand from them. The description is probably a good thing, but it doesn't address the underlying issue, of presenting a database rather than a coherent narrative. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding the first point: I believe the existence of historical and contemporary demographics on this website matter for readers who may be seeking this information or simply browsing a place page and stumble upon it as a topic of interest, as with the plethora of other topics that exist here.
  As previously highlighted, readers will typically not spend hours searching through historic (and if we are honest, also the contemporary stuff, for that matter) census documents for demographic information, so having a more accessible viewing option on Wikipedia is a great way of illustrating the data in a fashion that is unfortunately not easily accessible or available from the source(s).
  The underlying narrative regarding this being that this information should be provided for all places, from the geographically large to the geographically small, from the administratively large to the administratively small, etc. Most of these pages have various sections, with demography (alongside others, such as geography or history) being an important facet that forms the backbone or anchor of an article about any place. I also agree that adding a description is a good thing. Van00220 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  With respect, you aren't hearing me. You believe that readers may find census data on Wikipedia interesting, but that is insufficient per both policy and precedent. I'm asking you to not to add century old data without obtaining consensus first, and I'm advising you that such consensus is going to be hard to come by unless you can elaborate on the statistics with secondary sources. If you persist, it this is not going to be the last time someone raises it at a notice board, and the next time is likely to be at an administrative board. This is the last I will say about this for the moment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  My apologies. The reasoning behind it being to my belief is given the topic has been equated with other similarly data-heavy topics which are permitted and already exist on Wikipedia, of which there doesn't appear to be any consistency from one to another.
  I understand the potentially controversial nature of the historic census data. However the solution should not be remove this material (including the bizarre removal of more contemporary material as well) especially given the very same historic census data has been referenced by published secondary sources as well, per previous discussion.
  Upon referencing secondary sources as general supporting material, as was suggested previously, I can proceed with the addition of anchor prose to the existing tables if that is considered acceptable.
  Regarding the wider issue at hand on policy and precedent on this topic, perhaps it is well overdue for a reform? Van00220 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  We permit data based on primary sources in some limited circumstances (e.g., elections), and disallow it in many others (e.g., features along roads CVs in biographies). In each case they are subject to consensus, however, which your additions manifestly do not have: indeed I don't see a single other editor supporting your plan of adding historical census data, though this discussion has been open for a week. I said I was stepping away, but I want to be very clear that I am not saying your plan is acceptable, as you seem to be assuming. If you have an issue with NOTDATABASE, you can propose changes at the village pump, though this is unlikely to be a good use of your time; you may not ignore the policy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Fatima Sheikh

There is some recent media-coverage like [10]. And OpIndia, of course. Article has bluelock, but knowledgeable editors won't hurt. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Iverkala

The Malayalam language article is no help. Can someone please source this article? Bearian (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kunamnenivaripalem

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

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. No reliable sources online any other language's articles, nor Google news or books. Run of the mill, very small village. Not enough information to merge. May be redirected.

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) 17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Moolappalayam

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

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. No reliable sources online Google news or books, under spelling with 'p' or 'pp'. Possible hoax. No articles in any other languages.

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) 20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Chettimedu

Could someone from WP:INDIA take a look at Chettimedu? A question about the article was asked at WP:THQ#Not sure if I should PROD this article or not, and I tired to do aome minor cleanup. Someone more familiar with articles about Indian villages, however, might be able to do much more and possibly even find some sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Vellarikaiurani

I can't verify that this exists. If it does exist, please source it. If it's not, then ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mufti Abdul Razzaq#Requested move 25 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mufti Abdul Razzaq#Requested move 25 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Girwar

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

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. No reliable sources online Google news, newspapers, or books. In fact, the only relevant source is a trip blog. Run of the mill, very small village. Not enough information to merge. Article created in 2010 by User:Anaskhankhurai, a now-blocked sockpuppet.

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) 01:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jogal Kasti

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

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. No reliable sources online Google general, news, or books. Unverifiable village. Not on any maps. Not enough information to merge. Article created in 2010 by an SPA.

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) 03:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The title is incorrect, the village is actually called Jogalakasti. It is on the Google maps at 13.0879176, 78.4068824 and Google books does have some results for it in various censuses and lists [11] - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Naming convention

Hi all.. per Wikipedia rules WP:NCP can you guys help me to convent this badminton players name:

• Venkata Harsha Vardhan Rayudu Veeramreddy
• Sri Krishna Priya Kudaravalli
• Sri Sai Sravya Lakkamraju
• Gowri Krishna T R
• Ruban Kumar Rethinasabapathi
• Kevin Chaen Chhang Wong

Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Reverting the FAQ on Adam's Bridge

Hi, I am just an editor to many people, but I have an issue to talk about and it involves Adam's bridge. I know many things I will say are stuff you have heard a million times before, but for just three reasons, I will tell you why Ram's or even just God's bridge is a must better name for the article

1: The etymology lists that the christian missionaries around 1030 gave rise to the name Adam's bridge and that the much older Ramayana, which was dated about 2000 years older gave the ram Rama's Setu or Rama's bridge. And that the therevada and vaishanivite populations of the Tamizh and Celyonese also use Rama's Bridge. So, an older, first seen, popular and reliable name for the majorities that live near, take care of (not to mention OFFICIAL GOVERNMENTAL NAMES of the countries involved) the bridge is not put into account. This has literally no defense.

2: Bureaucracy. If you can't beat them with logic, beat them using confusing bureaucratic procedures to force them into submission. WP:AT and WP:PLACE are the properly used procedures for the naming. The main procedural policies is to use names that are used in reliable English conversations often mentioning the topic. WP:SPELLING. A main tenet of WP:SPELLING is that the Centres for Disease Control is redirected to Centers for Disease Control for the purpose that it refers to the country that uses Center in its English spelling. But the Labor Party of the UK changes to the Labour party as per British English Rules. Therefore, for the Ram Setu, if we were to translate to Ram's Bridge, then wouldn't it be a paradox in of itself and same for Adam's Bridge? Because the preferred name in Indian English is Ram's Bridge but it somehow violates title conventions and vice versa? Well, actually no. Because the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/world/asia/india-sri-lanka-rama-bridge.html), Indian Express (https://indianexpress.com/article/research/why-the-ram-setu-debate-has-ignored-both-mythology-and-environment-8222105/), and the Official Gov. of Tamizh Nadu (the state where the bridge lies) (https://www.tamilnadutourism.tn.gov.in/destinations/ram-sethu-bridge) all "reliable sources" used by multiple Wikipedian sources and I believe the Deccan Hearald and the Wire as well. You may argue that these are all Indian sources and are biased but WP:SPELLING again. Also, the exact thing is entirely also a violation. It's a WP:WEASEL. Who? Which reliable sources call this bridge Adam's Bridge. Sure, there may be many, but none were cited so in of itself it is a WP:WEASEL.

3: WP:NPOV. Wikipedia's main goal is to provide a NPOV for all articles and let me give you one connecting to WP:SPELLING. If you say centre in the UK, there is no violation of NPOV because it is the accepted and widespread spelling there. It's fine if you want to use center in talk pages, WikiProject, CVU discussions etc but you can't change articles, that's forcing your own opinion against a regular NPOV accepted name. As stated in #1 and WP:SPELLING, accepted naming conventions in a nation bordering the areas are always Rama's Bridge in English, and any attempts to discredit it in favor of Adam's Bridge is like the centre-center thing. Please leave Indian English to allow them to name using their naming conventions. 2601:600:8D82:6200:F3:8C34:F3FD:F93A (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Invited on Talk:Rigveda

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rigveda § Title italicized?. ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 07:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

South Asia

This page is becoming a huge POV dump. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Delhi Metro

Delhi Metro has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Varanasi

Varanasi has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I have posted my assessment on the article's talk page.

Thanks for doing this @Z1720: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Periyar

Periyar has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Naraka (Hinduism)

Naraka (Hinduism) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Day of Deliverance (India)#Requested move 20 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Day of Deliverance (India)#Requested move 20 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Bimla Bissell

I just created Bimla Bissell. The article may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Kempegowda International Airport

Kempegowda International Airport has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Emergency movie

Need more attention over the article of this movie "Emergency (2025 film)'. Thanks - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Red Flag

The article Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) Red Flag has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. Difficult to search for sources due to similar names of various factions. We are not Ballotpedia.

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) 01:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian Thanks for being proactive in cleaning up articles, seems many such in India related. This particular one, even if is kept for any reason, those red links can be at least removed. Asteramellus (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Charyapada

Need some extra attention here. CharlesWain (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ahmadiyya#Requested move 27 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ahmadiyya#Requested move 27 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TiggerJay (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Tina Dabi

Tina Dabi has been deleted twice, once in 2017, which seems like the right call, but the article was recreated and AfD'd in October, and this time I'm not so sure. The deletion rationale in 2017 was that the only thing she was notable for was having come in first in the civil service exam, but that rationale doesn't seem to really cover her any more as -- unless I'm reading the sources incorrectly, and I'm open to that as I'm no expert in Indian sources -- she seems to have become an actual celebrity. Her ex-husband gets coverage because he's Tina Dabi's ex. Yes, she's simply a government official doing her job, but she's apparently become a celebrity too. Does it really matter that she only became notable for a single event if she's now nearly ten years later an actual celebrity? If every tabloid is covering her every move and even Economic Times is doing a feature and the Hindustan Times and ThePrint are covering the fact she's gotten engaged and Times of India is calling her out for extra coverage instead of just listing her under 'other notable transfers' in otherwise routine coverage, does it matter if the only reason she initially captured the public's attention was that single event?

Or is all this likely paid coverage? Valereee (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Hemant Dabral, @Oaktree b, @Macrobreed2, @CharlieMehta, @Ratnahastin who participated at the 2nd AfD. Valereee (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Likely paid coverage as the links you have cited with the exception of The Print have only generic bylines and do not identify a reporter, these issues are documented at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks...okay, so here's a byline piece from Hindustan Times that certainly doesn't have the puffery feel of paid coverage. Between that and ThePrint, that would be two instances of sig cov with a byline...I'm usually open to accepting two as long as they're both national publications. Valereee (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC) Valereee (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

And here's a lengthy byline piece from India Times. Puffery, but the writer seems to write mostly 'heartwarming and inspiring' stuff, does that mean she writes paid content? Valereee (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

And this piece from The Swaddle appears to be an analysis of casteism that uses her extensively as an example. Don't have any idea what The Swaddle is, but it appears to have editorial oversight, or at least an "editorial team". Valereee (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin That’s correct. Charlie (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any notable, in-depth, extensive coverage on her. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 13:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Sources 1 and 3 are in RS, but are trivial coverage. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with @Oaktree b right now. The coverage isn't in-depth, but rather superficial.

  Thanks for tagging me @Valereee. I might have previously voted to "keep" the article based on trivial sources. Macrobreed2 (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

References

• Comment: I still believe that being an IAS officer is just a regular government job and doesn’t deserve special recognition. In India, we often treat these positions as if they make someone famous or important, but they are simply jobs meant to serve the public. We need to stop thinking this way and view these roles like any other government job. Tina Dabi is one example of how some officials get too much attention. The citations you have shared are Indian and may fall under WP:RSNOI. I suggest not accepting her article now or in the future, as it could set a wrong precedent and lead to a flood of similar pages on Wikipedia. If you want to refer to a few IAS/IPS or any Indian government officer pages as a benchmark, then refer to these: Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, T. N. Seshan, E. Sreedharan, Kiran Bedi, Sanjay Malhotra etc. They all were/are heading national-level portfolios, unlike Dabi, who is just a District Collector, at a very early stage of her career. Charlie (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• I've created a draft at Draft:Tina Dabi. Feedback welcome. I've put a source assessment table on the talk. Valereee (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Should state-specific Wikiprojects be deleted?

The MfD for Wikiproject Northeast India has made me wonder, are the state specific Wikiprojects (eg. WikiProject Mizoram) too narrow in their scope to be actually useful? The aforementioned Wikiproject was never truly active and only ever had 11 participants, most of which are inactive. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The question is less the scope and more the level of activity. Inactive WikiProjects likely should be closed down, to try and pool activity at a workable level. Semi-active WikiProjects can be converted to task forces if need be, but this is a finicky process. CMD (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I personally think that most of the state specific Wikiprojects have too narrow of a scope to have a good activity level. I think they should be closed down. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 11:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Conversion to a task force might make the most sense. I'd suggest that you start with one of two of the smallest ones (either by scope or activity). e.g. DNH and DD have less than 200 pages each with over 100 being categories. Start on step 1 in the link mentinoed by CMD. I'd be happy to help on the further steps. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I think they should be merged in my opinion, they're part of the same UT All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 15:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I will only move DNH for now, using the UT's name. I can change it if desired. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 15:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

On second thought I don't think it really makes sense, even if it is converted into a task force I don't think it will gain enough traction and activity, it will eventually become defunct anyway. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 15:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• I don't generally see a purpose in deleting a Wikiproject. Inactive Wikiprojects should be tagged as such, perhaps with links to alternatives where people can find collaboration, but why remove them altogether? I cannot find the MfD you refer to above - can you link to it? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  Removing dead Wikiprojects from article talkpages hopefully means new users are much less likely to go to ghost towns when they have questions. We have the inactive and defunct statuses to help with this to some extent, but replacing them with a more live Wikiproject will be more useful to future editors. CMD (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  If a Wikiproject is entirely inactive, and someone wants to do the labor of deleting and deleting all incoming links, then sure. But I'd argue the same outcome is achieved with a note at - for instance - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Uttar Pradesh suggesting editors come here for whatever assistance they need. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, i think we should just turn them into task forces for now as the amount of labour for deleting every link is just too much All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 12:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  The point isn't to delete all incoming links, it's to replace templates. This would apply for a conversion to a task force too. However, either way, that particular stage is not much work, a bot can do it as it's a basic find and replace. CMD (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I totally forgot about bots, I think deleting inactive Wikiproject (like the ones mentioned before) is better for now. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 12:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Disney+ Hotstar original films#Requested move 14 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Disney+ Hotstar original films#Requested move 14 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Disney+ Hotstar original programming#Requested move 14 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Disney+ Hotstar original programming#Requested move 14 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Madras Presidency

Madras Presidency has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

A logo for this project

Hi everyone! I've made a logo for the project. Please tell if usable.This is the the logo page
Thanks,Xiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 11:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

beautifully made! Small detail: are the three small lines next to the green/blue/orange meant to be there? They look like stray markings. Oraclesto (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Oraclesto:I've noticed it too. But, the user who made it is retired. I will try to remove it. Xiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 10:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence article

The 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence article is completely biased. More editors need to get involved and make it more neutral. Facts about attacks have been presented as allegations. An IP has made a request at Talk:2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence#Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2025 and I had made a request in December which can be seen just above that. I don't know if I can ask for help here but I don't know what else to do.-UnprejudicedObserver1 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Who_is_Kubkullus?

If you can help, please join that discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:News Nation#Requested move 7 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:News Nation#Requested move 7 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Power sector of Andhra Pradesh#Requested move 7 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Power sector of Andhra Pradesh#Requested move 7 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Indian Railways locomotive class WAM-2/3#Requested move 4 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Indian Railways locomotive class WAM-2/3#Requested move 4 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thalaiyar Falls

The Thalaiyar Falls article seems to be based on a pair of blog posts by a single individual. Moreover, there is information in there that I cannot track down even to those blog posts. This definitely needs checking, and if necessary removal of any suspect material. — The Anome (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Prithvi Vallabh#Requested move 20 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Prithvi Vallabh#Requested move 20 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Camp Hanuman Temple

Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at Camp Hanuman Temple? It was recently expanded by what appears to be a well-meaning new user, but who in the process introduced quite few MOS and other formatting errors. I tried to clean things up a bit, but I've got no idea as to whether any of the content that was added is appropriate; so, I didn't really remove any of it. The user did try to add citations, but they were added to section headings and some for offline sources. Feel free to re-add them inline if there's considered to be WP:RS and cited according to WP:RSCONTEXT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bohara

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

Not obviously notable, no sources but 14 years old.

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. Delectopierre (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the geographical areas like villages are inherently notable on wikipedia. So, should not be deleted, in my opinion, but source request tag may be added. Riteze (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Merge Bull surfing with Maramadi?

Hi friends - are the above pages describing the same thing? There appears to be a range of other pages on similar topics but Bull surfing appears to be specifically about races in Kerala. Thanks JMWt (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alincuvadu

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

notability (conducted a search, no sources found), no cites.

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. Delectopierre (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hebbars

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

Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. It's better off being deleted and starting from scratch. Feel free to fix the issues tagged.

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) 12:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Misuse of Infobox Parameters in Articles

Many articles on Indian districts, blocks, and towns misuse the leader_title and leader_name parameters of {{Infobox settlement}}. These fields are meant to display actual governing authorities, such as District Magistrates, Municipal Commissioners, or elected heads, but are often incorrectly used to list administrative subdivisions and political constituencies. subdivision_type and subdivision_name should not be used for listing blocks or assembly constituencies either. These parameters are meant to indicate the larger administrative unit that the subject belongs to, such as the state or division a district is part of—not the district’s own subdivisions like blocks or tehsils.

• See examples of misuse: Category:Districts of West Bengal, Category:Community development blocks in West Bengal

In short, blocks and assembly constituencies should not be listed in the infobox. Instead, they should be discussed in relevant sections such as Administration and Politics. The only exception is that blank_namen and blank_infon may be used to list assembly or parliamentary constituencies associated with the district.

Your thoughts on this issue ? ~ MaxA-Matrix 🗨 02:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Kshatriya regarding Rajputs

There is an ongoing RFC at the Kshatriya talkpage that may be of interest to project members. Note that the RFC has been open for considerable time and is liable to be closed soon. So if you wish to contribute, please do so as soon as possible. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Telangana tunnel collapse

I'm writing an article about the recent tunnel collapse in telangana, and I need help in writing that article so if anyone wants to join me I would appreciate it greatly.

Telangana tunnel collapse DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Kaur B page

Can I suggest this article Kaur B (Singer) for consideration for your project.

Thanks ash (talk) 07:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Update: the page has since been deleted. Rgds ash (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Join Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025!

Dear Wikipedia contributors,

We invite you to take part in Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025, a global initiative dedicated to expanding and enhancing Wikipedia’s coverage of Ramadan’s cultural, historical, and religious significance.

📅 When? The event runs throughout Ramadan (Feb 25 - April 15) 2025. All entries must be submitted before 15 April 2025, at 23:59 UTC.

📝 How can you contribute?

• Create and improve articles about Ramadan, its customs, history, and impact worldwide.
• Expand content on notable figures, events, and traditions related to Ramadan.

🌍 Why participate?

• Contribute to a more comprehensive and diverse knowledge base on Wikipedia.
• Collaborate with fellow Wikipedians in an engaging and meaningful way.
• Help improve Wikipedia’s representation of Ramadan across different cultures and regions.

📢 Sign up and start contributing today! 📌 Also, register on Meta-Wiki: event page

If you have any questions or need assistance, feel free to reach out on the talk page. Let’s make Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 a great success together!

Wiki Loves Ramadan Organizing Team, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

yay! happy ramadan hello I am c ompu ter beeeeppp Thinker321 (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Article hijack attempt

Notice: The Secondary School Certificate page has been hijacked, with the entire content cut-and-paste moved from the SSC Bangladesh page without consensus. Please see that page Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 17:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Bhana

I've sorted out some formatting issues and removed some rather old vandalism from the Bhana article. I note that unlike the first quoted Sanskrit text, the second quoted text ("तं जातमभिव्याददात्स भाणमकरोत्सैव वागभवत्") has no English translation.

Machine translation translates it to "He gave him what was born and he didn't feel it and it was the same speech", but there's no way I'm putting machine translation output for a language I don't speak into an article. Could someone please review the article and add a translation for that second quotation? (and perhaps check the rest of the stuff too?) — The Anome (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@The Anome: See edit. Please feel free to further revise the formatting and explanation; the cited source is borrow-able on archive.org. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Request new Article

I want to request a new article named Aurangzeb Tomb Controversy. 獅眠洞 (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait for one week; it's a violent topic, and more information will come out. Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 12:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

There is 2025 Nagpur violence. GrabUp - Talk 09:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Aakash (tablet)#Requested move 25 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Aakash (tablet)#Requested move 25 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jatia

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

Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. No sources online Google, news, books, or scholar, reliable or otherwise. This is literally WP:BOLLOCKS.

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) 10:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Why not search for potential sources, rather than prodding? The issue of speculation of the link between Jatia and Pragjyotishpura is discussed in the proceedings of the 2007 Indian Historical Congress (p. 166) (seemingly, same text available on Jstor [12]). The Problem of Change: A Study of North-East India (p. 209) mentions issue of land access in the village. As a village, and one with a history separate from modern Guwahati, the location passes WP:NGEO. As always spellings in English vary, and in this case 'Jatiya' gives a lot of false positives in searches as 'জাতীয়' have other meaning in Bangla and Assamese. --Soman (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Chaush

Chaush could really use some attention from a competent editor. The history is full of sockpuppetry and additions of policy-violating material, but it is a long enough history that I don't see it being eligible for speedy deletion, and the topic itself is a notable and encyclopedic one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Which article?

This writer says "Cow Protection Laws: Wikipedia’s coverage of India’s cow protection laws illustrates another pattern of bias. The article frames..." Can someone tell me which WP-article he's talking about? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

According to an RS/N thread, this web "newspaper" was founded by an Indian ruling-party politician not long ago and is "tabloidesque" and "has highly questionable practices." There is no reason for Wikipedia pages to give the article or the "newspaper" publicity: see RS/N post of Tayi Arajakate. Although the RS/N thread did not achieve consensus, this might be the time to put the "source" under the scope for reliability. That particular article is written in ungainly English, where the register changes from sentence to sentence. I don't believe the author is a trained journalist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

PS Tayi Arajakate: Would you like to reopen that RS/N thread? Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Commented at Talk:Subhas_Chandra_Bose#Press-template, and I still like to know what article he is talking about. I have no intention atm to use it as a source in a WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I have replied there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I wondered if they were referring to Cow vigilante violence in India but I don't see the supposed quotes "Hindutva aggression", "apologetics for animal cruelty laws" etc in the article, talk page or edit summaries, or obvious concerns. Pinging @Vanamonde93: who have contributed in the area to see if they have a better guess. Abecedare (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Cow protection movement would be my other guess. GGG, I wouldn't necessarily recommend adding those links to the article talk pages: nuanced critique is useful, but I struggle to take this one in good faith. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 @Abecedare Thanks! For press-template purposes, I don't consider un-nuanced to be a dealbreaker, coverage can be quite interesting and potentially inspire constructive edits anyway, like IMO the coverage of Sambhaji did. Of course it was a massive pain in the ass as well, but then it's IMO even better if editors can see on the talkpage that such coverage is out there. My position is that the press-template is not restricted to "WP-nice" stuff, because media coverage of WP is not always nice, for good and bad reasons. Like the Supreme Court seemed to hint to the Delhi High Court, don't be too touchy when people write about you. Anyway, there's no rush. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind if they tell us our articles are terrible. As the Supreme Court notes, critique is useful, etc etc. And a good many of our articles are in fact full of the biases the author wants to talk about: orientalism remains relevant. But I don't particularly want to give a platform to someone who hasn't read the articles they want to critique, and who - according to GPTZero, anyway - used an LLM to write said critique. Some sleuthing also suggests the Levush 2016 citation is an AI hallucination. There's more I will not say here for Streisand reasons, but I can email you if you'd like. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Nah, I'm good. And published critique being crappy doesn't turn me away. Some of his readers will BELIEVE, and some of those might turn up here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussions about tmcft measurement unit of dams and reservoirs in India

There are discussions here and here about the unit tmcft (thousand million cubic feet), which is often used in sources and articles to specify capacities of dams, water reservoirs and related topics in India, but is probably unfamiliar to readers outside India. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Please comment in Talk Urdu: RfC on the collocation "Modern Standard Urdu"

Your comments in the RfC on the collocation "Modern Standard Urdu" on the Talk:Urdu page are most welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dhanu (month)#Requested move 7 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dhanu (month)#Requested move 7 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

L2: Empuraan

Can someone take a look at L2: Empuraan#Controversies? The section is devolving into a pro-censorship tone parroting RSS talking points. 2001:8F8:172B:38CA:E0EE:D3C2:85F0:2000 (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event#Requested move 7 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event#Requested move 7 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lajpat Bhawan

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

Unreferenced and unimproved for over 15 years. No reliable sources online Google; literally news article. Run of the mill auditorium used for weddings.

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) 20:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for feedback on Draft:Narinder Lamba

Hi everyone — I’ve drafted an article on Draft:Narinder Lamba, a pioneering Indian urban planner who worked closely with Le Corbusier on Chandigarh and served as Chief Town Planner of Punjab. The article is well-sourced (government publications, ITPI, Ministry of Tourism) and follows Wikipedia tone and structure. Would appreciate any feedback or help in getting it reviewed in AfC. Thanks so much! Wikieditorkitt (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Artwork_"The_execution_of_Raja_Shambhaji"

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of wars involving the People's Republic of China#Requested move 29 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of wars involving the People's Republic of China#Requested move 29 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Bhagavad Gita and talk page

Doug Weller talk 19:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Zeuxippus#Requested move 31 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Zeuxippus#Requested move 31 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 01:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kozhikode#Requested move 30 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kozhikode#Requested move 30 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 02:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Delhi–Karnal Regional Rapid Transit System#Requested move 23 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Delhi–Karnal Regional Rapid Transit System#Requested move 23 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § NDTV.com at Lingaa

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § NDTV.com at Lingaa. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

improvement needed 2024 Bahraich violence

If anyone's is willing to improve 2024 Bahraich violence article I'll be happy to help I already added as much as I could but the article still could be more detailed. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Apoorva Mukhija

Apoorva Mukhija doesn't haven an wikipedia page but Samay Raina does I think Apoorva Mukhija meets notability guidelines hence she should have a page.I'm willing to hear other people's opnion. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

If you can find significant coverage of them from before the ‘India’s Got Talent’ controversy, that would help, as the current coverage is high only due to the event, which might fall under WP:ONEEVENT. GrabUp - Talk 12:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find articles about her that are de-linked from the controversy. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cherrapunji#Requested move 31 March 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cherrapunji#Requested move 31 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Andh needs major changes

I stumbled upon the article about the Andh people while on my Scheduled Tribes rabbit hole dive and cannot make sense of it. It has no sections, bad grammar and strange claims like "They called themselves Tribals (??) and are relatively well progressed in education". I tried to amend the bad grammar problem, but have next to no knowledge on the topic (as well as general Wikipedia editing) and don't want to ruin the page further, so I'd like to request anyone with experience to take a look at the page. Thank you. PotatoEnjoyer (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Maratha Confederacy#Requested move 17 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Heraklios 16:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Laila Mehdi#Requested move 19 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Laila Mehdi#Requested move 19 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 04:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Northeast International Model United Nations

The article Northeast International Model United Nations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I had created this page, but am not fully sure if the sources currently listed or the sources available are enough to establish notability. So would love to get this into a deletion discussion, to get a consensus soon.

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. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Requested move 25 April 2025

An editor has requested that Firuz Shah Tughlaq be moved to Firuz Shah, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. PadFoot (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Kavya Maran

There are 2 date of births and 2 college details not sure which is correct.

• The date of Birth of Kavya Maran is November 3, 1991 as per English Jagran ,November 3, 1991 as per Insidesport while it is it is August 6, 1992 as per Hindustan Times.Further the Hindustan Times say that she did her masters in MBA from Warwick Business School and others state that she did her Masters in Stern School of Business in as per this

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Category:Indian Railways trains has an RfC

Category:Indian Railways trains, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Help request for caste-related article.

Hi all.

I wondered if it might be possible for an editor who has experience of dealing neutrally with caste-related article to read through Vanniyar? A recently-banned user made a complaint about the neutrality of the article, and while their behaviour was clearly unacceptable and they failed to actually say what the problem was, they specifically mentioned footnotes. I checked the footnotes and found one of them was indeed a misrepresentation of the source, making me suspect there might be more problems which I lack the expertise to detect.

Thanks for your time. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Tuhin_Sinha_and_Wikipedia

If you can help, please join the discussion there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat riots page move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2002 Gujarat riots#Requested move 25 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion about Swarajya

There is a noticeboard discussion about the use of the Swarajya website in the Guru Paramartha article. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Reference about Guru Paramartha in swarayamag. — Newslinger talk 08:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

India cut off from Wiki money

• India cuts off the Wikimedia Foundation's funding of the "Access to Knowledge" program, 1 May 2025, The Signpost

HaeB, Oltrepier, and I reported the halt to CIS-A2K funding in the 1 May 2025 issue of The Signpost, which is English Wikipedia's newspaper. If anyone has more to say then feel free to post in the comments section of that article. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mangalore International Airport#Requested move 27 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mangalore International Airport#Requested move 27 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Watson's Hotel

Watson's Hotel has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. C. Solanki - are the sources reliable?

The P. C. Solanki article has a number of references but in light of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, I'm not sure how to evaluate them. I invite knowledgeable editors to look at that article and then weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. C. Solanki. Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Lab Pe Aati Hai Dua

Can sometone please fix this page? It seems to have been redirected. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

2025 India - Pakistan military conflict

The number of articles related to this subject just keeps increasing everyday. So far, these articles have been created and most of them require not more than 1 article:

• 2025 India–Pakistan conflict protests
• 2025 India–Pakistan standoff
• Operation Bunyanun Marsoos
• 2025 India–Pakistan strikes
• Indo-Pakistani war of 2025
• 2025 India–Pakistan air engagements

Gaining consensus towards a reasonable solution is simply not possible because of heavy POV pushing from both sides. This attitude is also affecting the quality of these articles which are full of the claims made by either the Indian side or Pakistani side, contrary to our articles like 2019 Balakot airstrike, 2019 India–Pakistan border skirmishes which heavily relied on reliable independent sources. Such sources are available on this 2025 conflict[13][14] but their reports are not getting enough weight. In some versions, such reports have been wrongly termed as "third party claims".

How should we proceed to address these issues? @Kautilya3, Fowler&fowler, Abecedare, Capitals00, Ngrewal1, Vanamonde93, and RegentsPark: Share your thoughts. Thanks Orientls (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It is probably too early for the dust of rumor to settle. Why don't you open a separate talk page thread below, titled something like, "User Orientls's reliable third-party sources?" Then make a chronological list of reports from the major third-party English-language newspapers for international reporting: NY Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, San Francisco Chronical, Los Angeles Times, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail (Canada), The Times (London), Guardian, Financial Times, Independent, Le Monde (English), South China Morning Post, Japan Times, Sydney Morning Herald, and The Australian, with urls. I would avoid the Middle Eastern sources, whether Israeli or Arab, and, needless to say, South Asian. I would also avoid magazines (such as Newsweek, Economist, etc) or websites, such as BBC etc. At the top add a note: "Please do not add anything to this section." In other words, updating that section will be your responsibility. We can then examine the sources in a couple of weeks' time. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Some of the issues at these articles were an inevitable result of the events being so fast moving, and being clouded by actual fog of war as well as deliberate and partisan misinformation. Now that a ceasefire has been announced, hopefully the pace of events/news will slow down, both India and Pakistan will acknowledge (at least some of the) losses on their own sides, and more and better secondary sources will become available. And then involved and experiences editors can slowly work out which of these many articles should be retained, how each should be structured, and the specific content and sources. Abecedare (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

There has been a lot of disinformation over this conflict. I agree that we will have to rely on third party sources that are independent of both belligerents. I also agree with the above that posting a list of sources, whether here or on the talk page of the main article of all those listed articles, would be a good start. It may help other editors to finally replace the sources with the better quality sources. Capitals00 (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Ideally, there should be one main article, say 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, which summarises everything that transpired after the 2025 Pahalgam attack. WP:CONTENTFORKs can be spawned for substantial subtopics.

It seems to me that the diplomatic standoff warrants a subarticle, because two major treaties have been suspended, and their impact will be felt long after the crisis itself has ended. I don't know if the border skirmishes warrant a subarticle. Such articles tend to be dry lists of events without much narrative and I doubt if they attract any readership. But I guess we have good precedents for such articles. The protests article can be merged into the main articles mentioned above. The other articles are already gone. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

India–Pakistan conflict articles in general

Want to add to this thread about a spate of recent contentious changes at Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 and Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 by newer users. Visited this article to compare stable articles of past conflicts but was surprised to see much back and forth editing and significant recent changes particularly to the infobox with glaring sourcing and POV issues.

Particularly see Talk:Indo-Pakistani war of 1965#Contentious edits. I remember there being a past consensus for the lead and the result in the infobox but the recent changes target the losses, casualties etc. parameters which I don't think has been particularly addressed previously. I am bringing this here as there appears to be a coordinated effort to keep a quite problematic version of these articles online. Quoting my comment from the Talk below:

I am coming here after the recent clashes, expecting to see a stable article to compare with the newly minted ones. Surprised (though not really) to see much recent activity here. I am especially vary of newer users making major edits without first gaining consensus at the Talk page which is absolutely the case here. ...
Coming to the content itself, the losses are cited to WP:3PARTY [meant tertiary] encyclopedias, already a red flag, which themselves don't cite their sources. I am not sure how reliable Facts on File is, but it calls the 1947 war a civil war which Gandhi helped to stop! This itself should render the source unacceptable. Calling these "neutral sources" is also unnecessary (as we don't give any info regarding the claims of any side). ...
Also conspicuous was the leaving out of territorial losses (included in the ib here for a long time) all the while claiming neutrality.

If any sources for these are to acceptable, these should be reliable secondary sources. Agreeing with @Cinderella157:, I will be removing these from the article for now both from the body and ib, subject to much nationalistic sabre rattling, unless better sources are brought to light and aptly incorporated into the body.

The only consensus here on this article for a long time has been that for the lead.

I removed these poor sources and content both from the ib and body, asking for better ones. The same sources (with misrepresentation, for which see [15]) were added to the 1947 war article. Both of these articles have been restored by the same group of editors without addressing any of the content/sourcing issues raised.

I am sure better sources exist than the ones that have been recently added (or are present in the body) and these articles can be salvaged and stabilized. We established a consensus for Kashmir-related articles back in 2020 when the last crisis erupted. A similar approach is needed again now for these legacy articles.

@Kautilya3, Abecedare, Capitals00, Ngrewal1, Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, and Orientls:. Please provide your inputs. Gotitbro (talk) 10:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Taeyab @M Waleed @MrGreen1163 provide your inputs as well. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 11:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Eltabar243, @Golgooo, @User:Al-Waqīmī @VirtualVagabond Taeyab (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, all India-Pakistan conflict articles went through an avalance of POV editing. It wasn't even possible for me to check what has been done, let alone look into the issues. I would recomment RegentsPark's Enforced BRD edit-restrictions on all pages that are facing POV attacks. The new editors need to justifiy their content on the talk pages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

How curious then that a bunch of other new users is canvassed here by the same new users who have been co-ordinating edits over their articles. At this rate we might need Israeli-Arab style sanctions.

AGF if stressed when such a deluge due to recent conflicts happens. Gotitbro (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Heavy point pushing is going on by all sides of the conflict, now that the situation has began clearing somewhat, most of these new articles (except the articles about standoff and the strikes starting from 7 May) should be merged/deleted as they serve no purpose other than a POV push, moreover WP:RS reports should be taken above all other sources, yet there's been a lot of instances where the sources have been neglected and given less weight than they should've been, it's pretty clear cut that 2025 India–Pakistan conflict protests, Operation Bunyanun Marsoos, Indo-Pakistani war of 2025, 2025 India–Pakistan air engagements serve no purpose but be WP:REDUNDANTFORK pushing a certain POV𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 13:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Totally agree, @Extorc managed to merge the skirmishes article and a few others into the standoff article. Sure enough, another 3-4 articles have been made AGAIN on this very same dispute. The 2025 India-Pakistan conflict needs an immediate merging with 2025 India-Pakistan standoff. It is by far the most unnecessary article of the bunch. It also states the conflict ended which is simply untrue as of now. 2025 India-Pakistan conflict protests should also be merged into it under the 'reactions' section of the standoff article. Taeyab (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree with the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict one as there's been previous precedent with the 2019 skirmishes and strikes being separate articles, moreover it also has sufficient content, that being said I'd like to see viewpoints from other editors concerning the conflict article specifically 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 15:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• @ScottishFinnishRadish, CaptainEek, and Cabayi: Kindly take a note of this discussion. It is the India-Pakistan conflict that is seeing the ongoing disputes, not Indian military history. >>> Extorc.talk 15:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is correct, not an entirely suitable wikiproject for this discussion.

  @Gotitbro Again, you ignored my and @Lt.gen.zephyrs advice. Taeyab (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is an entirely apt forum for this (I have already explained this to you elsewhere), please don't assume and assess things when you are not familiar with basic overviews of the Indo-Pak procedures on enwiki.

  And what @Extorc: meant was that there is a fog of facts over recent dispute which shouldn't affect hist articles. Though I will let them clarify. Gotitbro (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Third Anglo-Maratha War

Third Anglo-Maratha War has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Need help with Indian cricketers

Some editors would like to get rid of more than a thousand articles about cricketers (called WP:LUGSTUBS2). A different editor has kindly split out the list of professional cricket players from India that could be affected by this. There are 278 cricketers in this list.

What's needed, as soon as possible, is for editors to find and add at least one reliable source that isn't "ESPNcricinfo". This can be anything, as long as it's a reliable source. The source does not need to be in English, and it does not need to be available online.

Can editors here please spread the word, and try to WP:PRESERVE this information on Wikipedia either through improving the articles or WP:MERGING them to a suitable list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Generals and decorations

See Aurangzeb Ahmed where I removed an image of medals and decorations.[16]

User:Lt.gen.zephyr told me "1. Why cant we use statement of the Pakistan Air Force which was posted by them in Facebook and X? It's not any random account, it is officially run by them 2. Most of the pakistanis are talking about them on X, Facebook and Instagram, hence it should be added. 3. Check other general's article of india & pakistan. We always use a seperate "awards and decorations" section. Only thing is the name isnt add here, which Ill be adding soon (the medals have a separate article, except the non-operational & service ones. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

" Doug Weller talk 13:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Raisina Bengali Senior Secondary School

Unsourced for 15 years, tagged as not notable for 5 months, and little more than an attractive nuisance for edit-warring. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Andrew's High (H.S.) School

This might be the first Indian article I've deprodded. Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)