Template:Did you know nominations/Dinesh Trivedi
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Orlady (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Dinesh Trivedi[edit]
- ... that the Indian rail minister Dinesh Trivedi (pictured) caused a change in the script of a James Bond action sequence, when he insisted that people not be shown traveling on the roofs of trains, as it is illegal?
- ALT1 ... that the Indian rail minister Dinesh Trivedi (pictured) applied to be an actor before deciding to become a politician?
Created/expanded by Tinpisa (talk). Self nom at 15:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Article on living person has been made 2x. Hope it does not need a 5x like asked for earlier!
Quoting "within the past five days, the article has had its prose portion expanded at least twofold (only applies to BLPs that were completely unreferenced before expansion)". Trivedi had references. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
This needs fewer than 200 characters to pass the length threshold. It's doable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The double criteria is for BLPs which are completely unreferenced. Here the article was referenced. Hence 5x would be needed. I really loved this original Hook. Hence if other reviewers want to approve this, I have no problem. (I havent gone through the article tough.) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I know the rules. However, the version I looked at was approximately 3800 characters. The version before expansion was 782 characters. Hence, 5x was almost reached. Now it most definitely is. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The double criteria is for BLPs which are completely unreferenced. Here the article was referenced. Hence 5x would be needed. I really loved this original Hook. Hence if other reviewers want to approve this, I have no problem. (I havent gone through the article tough.) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The article length is fine now, as it has been almost eight and a half times expanded. (Note: I haven't looked at anything other than the expansion.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 11:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Went through the article now. Have few "citation needed" and "When" tags added to it. Please take care of them. One point. We dont make a seperate section of controversy. We blend it in the rest story. Especially when its just one incidence. Also the expansion seems to have been done just for the sake of it. Many quotes, huge dialogues, have been added. Are they for character count? We dont write subject's speeches. We dont write his opinions on all things he has on. We just write a jist of it in a line and use quotations only for main stuff that should be credited only to the speaker and not be paraphrased to avoid misrepresentation. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. When there are three facts all supported by a single source, does one refer to the source after each sentence, or at the end of all the three (the para)? Adding 'cn' tags after each sentence, when the source is mentioned after three sentences (all supported by the same source) is meaningless. Second, adding 'when' tags, with the source indicated (Which mentions the year) is not required. If a man has changed four parties, its not important, in which years he changed the parties, but only the fact that he changed four parties seems encyclopedic. The quotes have only been added to give the viewpoint of the person. The gentleman is the first rail minister with a diametrically opposite viewpoint compared to all his predecessors. This is why his viewpoint is important. e.g. restructuring the Railway Board or introducing a rail regulator. Note that only his viewpoint on important things have been mentioned, not all his viewpoints. And if a gentleman calls up the Prime Minister to intervene on petty issues, it shows his (party's) position of strength. Or lambasting the PM for not providing funds. No other minister has done this in the past. Surely then, his point of view can be mentioned. Also, there are no dialogues (which is always between two or more people) in the article. And I also do not agree with your comment that the expansion seems to have been done just for the sake of it. You seem to have a grudge against the article. Please note that this article meets the 5x criteria, even without most of the quotes in the 'railway minister' section. I don't care one way or the other if this DYK is accepted or not, as I have no ego. But I certainly feel that the article can be improved further, and would appreciate if you could chip in. --Tinpisa (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Have nevertheless added sources after every sentence and removed the controversy section, per your objection.--Tinpisa (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I didnt put CN tag after every line. I did only where it seemed that it was his actual quote. Quotes need citation. The year in which a politician changes party is important as his change is usually due to some party's action or the change usually triggers something else in future. And if the info is available in the source there is no harm in adding it in the article, as you did now. I dont see why you have to go all bold and strongly disagree with it. And with your reasoning why do we even write these articles then? Just give links to references and readers will go there. Lets be a search engine. But i still stand my comment on his quotes. In a year's career as Rail minister if we see 5-6 quotes like these on what he feels about government's policies, the article will be mess as he goes ahead in his career. Had they been any important ones i wouldnt have objected. For eg, why do we have to write a quote like this one; “When I came to the ministry, I found they [Railway Board and so on] were working in silos. I changed that, made the working more democratic and created greater synergy among different departments.” ? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- And as you feel that i have grudge against this article, i will ask someone else to review it. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't his quote. Clarified the issue. You have the right to hold your POV, while I can have mine. Differing POVs are important to make Wikipedia articles better, and that is why I invited you to improve the article. The particular quote that you have mentioned was provided to highlight that the minister believed each department in the railways was functioning as a separate entity/company (which he correctly identified as the malaise with the railways). Anyway, I would be extremely glad if you could help with the article. Even after taking away all the quotes from the 'railway minister' section, the article measures 4200+ characters. If you think removing the quotes would enhance the article, just go ahead. I'm not writing the article to please myself - am trying to help improve Wikipedia.--Tinpisa (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Have nevertheless added sources after every sentence and removed the controversy section, per your objection.--Tinpisa (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree. When there are three facts all supported by a single source, does one refer to the source after each sentence, or at the end of all the three (the para)? Adding 'cn' tags after each sentence, when the source is mentioned after three sentences (all supported by the same source) is meaningless. Second, adding 'when' tags, with the source indicated (Which mentions the year) is not required. If a man has changed four parties, its not important, in which years he changed the parties, but only the fact that he changed four parties seems encyclopedic. The quotes have only been added to give the viewpoint of the person. The gentleman is the first rail minister with a diametrically opposite viewpoint compared to all his predecessors. This is why his viewpoint is important. e.g. restructuring the Railway Board or introducing a rail regulator. Note that only his viewpoint on important things have been mentioned, not all his viewpoints. And if a gentleman calls up the Prime Minister to intervene on petty issues, it shows his (party's) position of strength. Or lambasting the PM for not providing funds. No other minister has done this in the past. Surely then, his point of view can be mentioned. Also, there are no dialogues (which is always between two or more people) in the article. And I also do not agree with your comment that the expansion seems to have been done just for the sake of it. You seem to have a grudge against the article. Please note that this article meets the 5x criteria, even without most of the quotes in the 'railway minister' section. I don't care one way or the other if this DYK is accepted or not, as I have no ego. But I certainly feel that the article can be improved further, and would appreciate if you could chip in. --Tinpisa (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Went through the article now. Have few "citation needed" and "When" tags added to it. Please take care of them. One point. We dont make a seperate section of controversy. We blend it in the rest story. Especially when its just one incidence. Also the expansion seems to have been done just for the sake of it. Many quotes, huge dialogues, have been added. Are they for character count? We dont write subject's speeches. We dont write his opinions on all things he has on. We just write a jist of it in a line and use quotations only for main stuff that should be credited only to the speaker and not be paraphrased to avoid misrepresentation. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
