User talk:Prameetc

Indic script
''It does not apply to cities as the language is unambiguous in that case. You can check that with Dubai, Karachi, Bangkok etc''. Here in wikipedia, there is no scope for dictatorship. The RfC WP:INDICSCRIPT has been a long established consensus and everything here works on consensus. So, it's time you stop adding Indic script across articles and making your own rules. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 12:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Check other articles is also an invalid reason for re-adding any content in any article. Read other stuff exists. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 12:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure there's consensus for such widespread removal? El_C 13:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@El_C: The wide consensus is not to use native names in Indic Languages. So the same rule should apply to all Indian pages. Prameetc (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Should it? I don't know. Maybe get some input at the project talk page, first. It's been used for Indian cities for many years. El_C 14:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Prameetc and LeoFrank - your interpretation of WP:INDICSCRIPT is different to mine. It states:-
 * " the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script" (my bold)
 * There is no mention of infoboxes, or other uses on the page, although I have tended to remove indic script from the entire lead section, not just the lead sentence. - Arjayay (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @Arjayay: Yes I agree. But don't you think that all the reasons that were stated to keep them off the lead section hold good even for the infobox? Won't the problems listed in the RfC occur if it is in the infobox too, after all it is regarding the name of the article. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 14:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, I was one among the users who took part in the RfC. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 14:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Arjayay and El_C - The point is that, any consensus about this needs to apply to all Indian Pages. So, if it applies to all Indian articles, then it should apply to all parts of the article as well. Double standards cannot be accepted. It is the same reason why Indian Cities in Google Maps are displayed only in English. There is a similar consensus there. We can replicate the same here Prameetc (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you should first make sure that such a consensus actually exists as such, by opening it to discussion. El_C 14:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Whilst I agree with your sentiments, as our Indian articles are full of ethnic/language warring, this was not what was agreed, so we cannot claim consensus. We could, of course, re-open the discussion, but that could be a long drawn-out process.  I don't know if User:Sitush would wish to comment? - Arjayay (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The RfC has been taken to mean no script in the lead, rather than just the first sentence. I think even the closer subsequently acknowledged that. There was further discussion that introduced exceptions for geographic places and (I think) movies. Regarding places, it was agreed that the only scripts which should appear were those in the official language(s) of the place. As far as infoboxes are concerned, they were not mentioned in the RfC close but umpteen people since (including me) have argued that the prominence of the infobox at the head of the article is equivalent to the lead itself, and that infobox vandalism is, if anything, even more prevalent than lead vandalism. Although scripts are permitted in such boxes, I'd much rather they were not and I do in fact remove them at the first sign of someone changing the content - who am I to know whether they're fixing a genuine error or introducing a communal slur etc. Starting a new RfC is not a good idea. Someone did suggest it very recently at WT:INB but, as so often, they had no idea of just what a can of worms would be opened. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that LeoFrank already knows the results of the consensus in totality, because initially I had this discussion with him. He confirmed to me that such a consensus has indeed been reached, therefore I have myself not read the whole document regarding WP:INDICSCRIPT. So Arjayay, you can speak to him for more clarity on this matter. Prameetc (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, from what I read in WP:INDICSCRIPT, it concerns with usage of Native languages in pages belonging to personalities. This is very natural, since a person's lifespan may extend to different ethnicities. A person may be born in Tamil Nadu and may have been raised in Kerala, in that case many people will take advantage of native language to prove their identity. However, the same reasoning fails in case of names of places, for the simple reason that a city or town can have only one linguistic identity. For. example "Bangalore can never be written in Tamil" and "Delhi should always be written in the 3 languages which are official there". These things will never change. Prameetc (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC) @LeoFrank @El_C @Arjayay


 * I just tend to expect there to be a wider discussion (at least an attempt at ensuring consensus exists), when changes to something that has been there for years are undertaken. El_C 15:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @El_C We could surely open it up for discussion again Prameetc (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I support that. Please do so. I'm concerned that a practice of years was changed seemingly overnight with little to no discussion/ensuring consensus. Thanks. El_C 15:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As I have just said above, opening a new RfC will be incredibly disruptive. What we have is not perfect but it's not too far off. You'll find that pretty much all of the experienced contributors will stand against relaxing the status quo, and perhaps even push for tighter restrictions, while the newer contributors plus a shed-load of sockpuppets/Hindutvas/people demanding a linguistic split in their state will argue interminably and with little care for the consequences of relaxation provided they achieve their narrow, selfish goal. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see this injunction by User:RegentsPark (an administrator). The policy permits scripts to be present in the infobox of geographical articles. I would advise User:Prameetc to please rollback his edits. Thanks, AnupamTalk 15:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @El_C I understand your concern. I have removed the native names of Indian places for the straightforward reason that it violates the Indic language policy. However, I fail to see any reason behind this policy as the points in the document do not mention naming of places. So there is some ambiguity. My initial edits of giving native names were reverted by LeoFrank citing WP:INDICSCRIPT. So until there is a broader consensus, it will have to stay like this. But if the ambiguities are cleared with a future discussion, I will be the first person to bring back those native names. This is because pages of cities across the world in Non-English speaking regions are written in Native names as well. Prameetc (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @Anupam Thanks so much for the information. So it looks like LeoFrank has misguided me. Today morning I was adding native scripts to a few Indian Capitals when he reverted all of them saying that it was against the rules. My point was that if it was indeed a rule, then it has to apply to all Indian pages and not some. Please have a discussion with him, so that I can rollback. I don't want my edits to be reverted again by him. Prameetc (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's like for other non-English language cities—why would Indian ones be different? El_C 15:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you read the RfC? Doesn't look like it. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No, that RfC is news to me. Anyway, I still don't see why Beijing or La Paz or Haifa or Ho Chi Minh City should be different than Indian cities. El_C 15:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if you actually read it then you will understand, and you will save everyone else a lot of time going over the same old stuff. A read of Languages of India might be useful also - 2001 Census apparently listed 122 major languages and 1599 others. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to read this RfC: where is it? To clarify: my own concern here are the infoboxes exclusively. El_C 15:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still nothing? El_C 01:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * LHow rude. Not only can you not be bothered clicking on the links that have already been given but you expect me to abandon my weekend just to appease your own laziness - WikiProject_India. The links are there. - Sitush (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @ El_C That is exactly my point! I am awaiting a reply from LeoFrank so that he can make things clear right here. Otherwise I shall rollback all the edits I have made. It sounds pretty silly to remove all Native texts from Indian Articles. But any edit must be consistant with all Indian articles Prameetc (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Prameetc, I think it's currently ok for you to revert all changes you made to the Indian states as it was always like that with the official name of the state in the beginning. You may have to wait for the cities, though. 31.215.192.164 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @ El_C Do take a look at the wikipedia page of India. It also doesn't have any native script. It was edited long back by someone else citing the same. Prameetc (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @Prameetc The reason India page does not have it is because Bharat Ganarjya can be Sanskrit, Hindi, Malayalam, Marathi, Konkani etc. Indian govt declared that Hindi is not a national language, making it have equal status with all other official languages. So It is not necessary to write it in Hindi. 31.215.192.164 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

31.215.192.164 I don't mind if you revert my edits. My original intention was to add native scripts to Indian States and Cities that didn't have them, however my edits were reverted by many users citing the policy. I would suggest you discuss with some more contributers before reverting my edits. Thanks Prameetc (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @Prameetc I am not going to revert the names of cities, I don't have time right now. However, the names of states should be added, as they are not just native names but also official names. The names of states don't have conflicts as it has remained that way for nearly one year. If the policy should change, there should be consensus again, and I don't think many people will be happy to have it as it took something like four months last time.31.215.192.164 (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok Prameetc, what LeoFrank said that it is applicable to cities, I believe. 31.215.192.164 (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * 31.215.192.164 He mentioned states as well. However as per Anupam's info, I will bring back the native names in the infoboxes as it does not violate the policy. Prameetc (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The consensus only applies to the lead (no indic scripts in the lead). Of course, looking at the messy infobox top at Andaman_and_Nicobar_Islands, it is fairly obvious why we should just remove them unless absolutely necessary (but there is no consensus for that so knock yourself out!). --regentspark (comment) 17:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Kanteerava Outdoor Stadium.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kanteerava Outdoor Stadium.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 03:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)