Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 5

Anon message
U know u dont mention that it was known as land of the aryans..u dont mention that it could be older then what u stated..u dont mention that it may be the original homeland of the aryans..what gives u the right to put down whatever u feel like? 71.107.62.213 08:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you be more elaborate please? utcursch | talk 05:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

McMahon Line
Hi, I'm trying to write more about this topic on the Chinese Wikipedia and I'm wondering if anyone here can enlighten me on this: what's the Indian government's view?

The Chinese Wikipedia only has the Chinese government's official point of view, which is:
 * 1) The McMahon Line was negotiated in the Simla Conference of 1914;
 * 2) Britain, China, and Tibet took part in it;
 * 3) Tibet had declared independence in 1913, but neither Britain nor China recognized that;
 * 4) Britain and Tibet signed the agreement, but China refused;
 * 5) Since Tibet was not recognized by the other two parties as an independent country, its signature was not legally binding;
 * 6) So actually, only one side signed it (Britain);
 * 7) Since only one of two sides signed, the treaty was not legally binding;
 * 8) Hence, British India's claim over Arunachal Pradesh was illegal;
 * 9) And India's control of Arunachal Pradesh is an illegal occupation.

What is the Indian government's official point of view? Why is the McMahon Line a legitimate international boundary? Was the Simla Conference agreement legitimate? (if so, how?) Or is there some other reason? -- ran (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the Indian government treats the McMohan line as the international boundary between India and China. I really don't know much about it. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Biographical articles... titles: is there a convention?
As part of my 10 Random Pages Test diversion, I'm improving the Bismillah Khan article. In my research, I've found that the man is commonly referred to as Ustad Bismillah Khan, which I've discovered to be a title for master musician in India. The general convention basically states that one should use the name that is most common. As I know relatively little of Indian culture, I am asking here. Would it be more common to search "Bismillah Khan" or "Ustad Bismillah Khan"? 02:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, "Bismillah Khan" would be more appropriate. That's how other articles like Zakir Hussain, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Ravi Shankar, Amjad Ali Khan, (Cheb) Khaled (musician), etc have been done. The only exception I found was Cheb Mami, where Cheb in Arabic means the same thing as Ustad in Farsi. deeptrivia (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We should follow the conventions at Manual_of_Style_(biographies) and Naming conventions (names and titles). So having Ustad in the lead section is fine (as long as it is not in the title). See Elton John for instance. But I think we should think way of informing non-India users that Ustad is a honorofic title, in a non-obtrusive way. -- Pamri • Talk 05:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC).


 * I echo the above comments. Ustad can be wikified in the lead. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup, it's fine in the lead text. I meant it shouldn't appear in the title. deeptrivia (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Spoken language samples
Hi all, In learning Hindi and becoming interested in it, I've found that Wikipedia's coverage of the language would be greatly improved with some spoken samples. Specifically it would be great to have a native speaker record the pronunciation of each Hindi character and release it under a GFDL or creative commons license suitable for hosting on Wikimedia Commons. This would enable a free version of what is done here for example. There are of course many additional places where spoken pronunciation examples would help. Some helpful links about how to do it are at Media and the related wikiproject WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The same would undoutedly be valuable for other languages. Anyone willing to help? - Taxman Talk 18:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

FAs first
Please update the date on which Indian featured articles gained featured status and the corresponding edit id here. I've done for 3 articles. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.deeptrivia (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Figured that out! deeptrivia (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Indian names
I received a request from User:Kerowyn to look into this article. I've done a lot of copyediting but am hopelessly confused about how to organize all of the content into sections. Everything seems to be thoroughly mixed up. I'll appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.deeptrivia (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming
Which is more appropriate name Wai (Indian city) or Wai, Maharashtra?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 06:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The latter (district, state) is more appropriate and a used for most American cities. -- Pamri • Talk 07:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope. See WikiProject Indian cities. Use just the city/town name. If there is a national dab, use case 2, if there is an international dab, use case 1.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WIKI-INDIA moniker
Image:600px WikiIndia 1.png Hello All, on the left is a Wiki-India moniker design based on the Wiki-Foundation logo. Comments welcome. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 07:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ooh, it is splendid - great idea and good execution; I was just wondering how it wd look if saffron and green are switched (only if you hv time to spare) --Gurubrahma 11:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you svgfy it? =Nichalp   «Talk»=


 * Thanks for the comments, Gurubrahma. Well, the green in the middle goes with the theme of the original Wiki logo (where it is green in the middle). I did have both versions, but this one looks more "in-line". --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 13:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fantabulous work Miljoshi !! Can we have a scalable one, as Nichalp asked? deeptrivia (talk) 14:31, 13 December 200a (UTC)




 * Well, I don't have CDraw! or Illustrator at the moment. Sorry. However, can surely share the PSD or upload ESP version if it helps. On the left is a high-res 600x700px version which I have used on my user-page in a user-box. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 10:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Inkscape is a free drawing utility that supports SVG natively. Best of all it's free! =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I know Inkscape, Nichalp. But the output it creates is not visible from wiki servers. See left. Some wierd issue.

Anyway, lets stick to the png (above) for the time being. Its doing the scalling fairly well.--Regards. Miljoshi | talk 12:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a temporary bug in the png rendering engine. I too had the same problem yesterday. I hope it can be resolved soon. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  04:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like it is working now. Uploaded a newer version as well though. One may choose between PNG or SVG as both files have the same name and dimensions, except for the extension. --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 14:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you look carefully at the thumbnail of the SVG version, the chakra looks a bit weird, although at full size it's perfect. Dunno how serious this is. deeptrivia (talk) 06:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess it depends on the SVG to PNG conversion capabilities of the server at real-time when the vecrot image is resized to create the thumbnail for the page. The same is applicable to the svg on the left when you reduce it to a thumb. On the other hand, the PNG version (above) is a dithered version with (as it appears) better anti-aliasing because it came from the capabilities of specialized graphic editor. In any case, I guess its difficut to dipict a wheel of this small size as a wheel unless you reduce the number of spokes of Ashoka Chakra from 24 (?!) --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 06:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Got the concept now! A fast and dirty real-time algorithm without anti-aliasing makes perfect sense. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Guys, could you speak English please? ;) --Gurubrahma 07:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry Gurubrahma :-) All it says is, that let's live happily with a mental image of a perfect Chakara in the moniker, no matter what the image shows ;-). Well, I just though to check the color of the chakra. Does it appear slightly lighter than navy-blue? What you guys think? --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 08:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Zach has designed the SVG version of the flag and hence, I guess the chakra as well. He originally made a different version, which he changed to a better-looking one at my request. You may want to sound him as to the source he used for making it, etc. --Gurubrahma 08:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please suggest which of these two appears more appropriate? I think 1b is more suitable. Gurubrahma, could you help deleting the one that we decide to discard? --Regards. Miljoshi | talk 10:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I too prefer 1b. btw, if u want something that you created to get deleted, you can tag it as G7 under WP:CSD - any admin wd then delete it. And btw, there are ten Indian Admins senior to me ;) --Gurubrahma 13:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a heads up that image 1 has been updated with 1b. Hence 1b has been marked for deletion. Removing it from here as well. --<FONT style="color:#5A3696">ΜιĿ</FONT>ː<FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 09:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The license should be changed to &#123;{Copyright by Wikimedia}} from &#123;{gfdl}} since all wikimedia logos & derivatives are copyrighted by the wikimedia foundation. -- Pamri • Talk 12:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, but still, I guess GFDL should be okay as this is "inspired" by the Wikimedia logo and not strictly a derivative. Also, no claim is being made about the official status here, so it shd be okay, no? --Gurubrahma 13:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As long, as it does not seek to represent wikimedia/wikipedia, it should be ok, I guess. -- Pamri • Talk 13:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:India independence movement
Hi All,

There is a new template that provides a fundamental links database for all topics related to the freedom struggle, so as to provide one base for the sprawling network of articles. Please check it out.

Template:India independence movement

Jai Sri Rama!

Rama&#39;s Arrow 16:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One suggestion. Maybe the "More..." at the end of Organizations can point to a new subcategory of Category:Political parties in India containing organizations involved in freedom struggle. deeptrivia (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Spelling question
Hi, I'm working on a disambiguation page for Tawa, which has a number of meanings that I have listed at Talk:Tawa. Currently, Tawa is a very short article about the Indian cooking implement, and there is a similar article Tava. Somebody has suggested that the two articles should be merged, and I agree.

My question is: in relation to the cooking implement, is there a spelling preference for Tawa vs Tava, or are the two spellings completely interchangeable? --LesleyW 22:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The IAST Transliteration scheme recommends Tava over Tawa. deeptrivia (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree for merger and Tava. --Regards. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 06:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll continue building the disambig on Talk: Tawa and then look at doing the merge (shouldn't be too difficult!) --LesleyW 07:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent / South Asia
FYI, User:Siddiqui has been quite busy replacing the words "Indian subcontinent" with "South Asia" in articles and article titles. I'm not too sure if this is a policy that might have been discussed elsewhere, but I thought you guys would be a little more knowledgeable about the use of those words. Looking at his contributions, he seems to dislike the word India. --NormanEinstein 18:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There should be a mechanism to address such revisionism. deeptrivia (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think any arbitrary change should be allowed as such, unless it subscribes to the definition of the specific geography markup. For e.g. consider the discussion and vote on Australasia vs. Oceania. In this case, however, no clear demarcation is mentioned between South Asia and Indian subcontinent, and there is in fact a redirect that leads to South Asia (?!). Unless a distinction is put in place, use of either of the terms may be considered valid. --Regards. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 08:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * PS: The merger of Indian subcontinent into South Asia was carried out by User:Dbachmann. I couldn't find any discussion regarding the merger agreement though. --Regards. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 09:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I merged entirely for practical reasons, there were two stubs treating the same area. Far from suggesting that the terms are identical in all respects, the merge allows us to discuss their subtle differences in one place rather than twice. I have no predilection for which should be the article's title, and I don't support arbitrary change of wording in article bodies, of course. So don't confuse the merge witht the replacements by Siddiqui. dab (ᛏ) 09:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to stick around much with this issue, but such replacements can be misleading, since "South Asia" sometimes includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It certainly includes Afghanistan. Therefore, in many contexts, replacing Indian subcontinent with South Asia makes no sense. Are we going to do anything about it? A policy regarding what is suitable when will be quite empowering. deeptrivia (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "South Asia" could probably be made a stub - explaining how diffrent sources have different conceptions of South Asia. e.g. SAARC's conception is very different from the one where former territories of USSR are included. Thus, Indian Sub-continent would be retained as an article and South Asia - looking at various conceptions. In fact, it was me who proposed the merge between Australasia and Oceania but it did not go through (probably since both are still nebulous concepts). Indian sub-continent is not a nebulous concept unlike South Asia, so I am all for the de-merger. Once the de-merger is done, some one can revert the changes being made by the user. --Gurubrahma 17:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your views, Gentelmen and Agree for de-merger of Indian subcontinent and South Asia. The existing content that is falling under "South Asia", which largely speaks about the "Indian subcontinent" per-say (pre-merger, I believe), must be retained under the appropriate title and gradually expanded. --Regards. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 06:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Malwa
I've been working on this article, and now I think it is almost good enough to be nominated for an FA status. I request everyone to have a look, and suggest any possible improvements. Thanks :) deeptrivia (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nomination

I have nominated the article. Please see the nomination: Featured article candidates/Malwa deeptrivia (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Have updated Malwa with two historical maps dating 1823. Some para alignment/adjustment in the Geography section has been done as required due to this. Would like to urge for your comments and vote for a speedy resolution of the nomination (above). --Regards. Miljoshi | <FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 13:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Indian Philosophy template
I created a template to provide link between articles related to Indian philosophy. I'll appreciate comments and suggestions. deeptrivia (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I felt that it may be better as a bottom bar rather than a sidebar. As per the contents, it appears good, tho I shd confess that I'm an ignoramus in these matters.
 * Sure, I'll be changing it to a bottom bar. Can't say when though, coz I'll be out from today on Christmas break. deeptrivia (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Poll on Talk:Hindu-Arabic_numerals
While I believ that polls are evil, the situation above seems to indicate that a poll is in order as one of the parties is unwilling to accept sources such as encyclopaedia Britannica. The poll is about the naming of the article. --Gurubrahma 17:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This poll is now on for 10 days, and the admins who called for this fourth poll despite there being clear consenus on the three previous polls, do not seem to be in a mood to declare the poll over. These admins have also taken very strong positions on the issue.      I think someone should moderate and declare the results. deeptrivia (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Tava and Tawa
I'm ready to post the new disambiguation content on Tawa, but I need some help with merging the existing text into Tava. Could somebody who know something about Indian cooking please look at my proposed text on Talk:Tava, fix it up as required and put it into the article? (I feel it should also be marked as a stub.) Once this is done, the proposed disambig text from Talk:Tawa can go into Tawa. (I'm happy to do that part myself, also happy for someone else to do it, this is Wikipedia after all.) --LesleyW 00:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. utcursch | talk 04:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've now done the disambig (my first ever, so thank you for assisting). --LesleyW 11:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Please add this to your watchlists
WikiProject Deletion sorting/India helps by listing those AFDs related to India. As it gets inreasingly difficult to wade through AFD nominations, a need for better alternatives is being felt. The above link addresses that need by bringing together India-related AFDs. I request you all to add it to your watchlists. Tintin has been active in updating the list and we can all join and help him in his efforts, at least by adding it to our watchlists and voting on the AFDs. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 16:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
Merry Christmas and a very happy New Year to everybody!-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

A Question
As I was trawling through a number of India related articles, I noticed a bit of a discrepancy with regard to the Kolkata, Mumbai, Calcutta, Bombay issue. Would like a bit of clarification. When editing/updating articles particularly those with a historical bent, is it the practice to stick with what the city was called at the time, or to just use the current name? Kaushik twin 16:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I also encountered this problem, and I mostly used the current name. I would request other editors to please give their comments. Thanks. --Bhadani 17:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest it should follow the format:


 * Blah, formerly known as Blah, is a city in _________ern India...


 * As for Bangalore and other soon-to-be-renamed cities, it should say:


 * Blah, soon to be renamed Blah, is a city in _________ern India...


 * [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 18:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I see what you're suggesting Deano, but wouldn't that be a bit cumbersome in articles not really dealing with the city at all, but that just mention the city. I mean, to take an example, in the Transport in India article in the part regarding Trams, do we call the cities Kolkatta or Calcutta? The city would have been called Calcutta when the trams were introduced, but is now called Kolkatta. That's in essence what's making me confused. Regards Kaushik twin 19:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what you mean. I thought you meant for the principle article.  I would suggest that the new name should always be used.  There is no justification in using the old name, and provided it is properly linked, no confusion should arise.  [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 19:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Use the current name. The first instance where the city name occurs should be written as : Mumbai (Bombay)... OR Mumbai (formerly Bombay).... Thereafter refer to it as Mumbai only. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  15:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

MPs from Andhra Pradesh in 1957
Can someone please let me know the name of the Lok Sabha member from Visakhapatnam in 1957, and who the MP from Bobbili constituency was (if there was one) ? I have looked through the Indian parliament site, but it provides conflicting information. Thank you, Tintin 19:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

India-bio-stub
I have made a proposal to split &#123;{India-bio-stub}} at WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals.-- Pamri • Talk 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Andhra Pradesh Template
I have created an updated template for Andhra Pradesh in my sandbox. I have sourced my changes from U.S. State templates. Please check it out and give your comments. If it is fine, we could adopt the same for other states too. Thanks, Ganeshk 00:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

category/templates
Just to re-iterate - Wikipedians/India is being replaced by Category:Indian Wikipedians. By adding any one of the userbox templates to your user page, you will be automatically categorised in the relevant section. Deano (Talk) 13:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:MalayalamScript
Template:MalayalamScript has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Templates for deletion. Thank you. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Can people please comment on this? Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is the support needed for the Malayalam script different from that needed for other Indic scripts? If not, I guess there's no reason to have this template. deeptrivia (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, details on what is required for Malayalam is listed on the how-to page that is linked by the template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

New project
After talking about it for months, I finally created a project page for Indian cinema, WikiProject Indian cinema. We've had several low-level, continuing conflicts over matters like pictures, links to fansites, content of trivia on actor pages, etc. I think we need a place besides individual user pages to discuss such matters.

Maybe it's a delusion to think that the Project is needed, on the order of "If I build it, they will come". But we'll see. I invite the editors who've been working on Bollywood articles with me to sign up and start debating guidelines. I'd also like to invite Indian editors knowledgeable re the other regional cinemas (Bengali, Tamil, etc.) to join and help with articles re those cinemas. That's why I started an "Indian cinema" project and not just a Bollywood project. Zora 22:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Its a good idea. We should try and get one actor up to Featured status and use that to model other actors' articles. =Nichalp   «Talk»=


 * Does Amitabh Bachchan look like a good point to begin with? deeptrivia (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A first step, but it is far from getting the Featured status. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean working on the AB article can be a good start. deeptrivia (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Manmohan Singh
The main image on Manmohan Singh was deleted because it was unsourced. Where can we quickly find a free image? deeptrivia (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * US govt sites is a good place to start with. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I found the pic at the PMO website and updated it. Happy New Year! - Ganeshk 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

New Stub Proposal - Splitting India-stub
I have proposed creating state-level sub-stubs under the India-stub so that the category could become smaller. Please vote for this proposal. - Ganeshk 07:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nathuram Godse article
I've been watching this article for many months, and trying to keep the Hindutva editors from turning it into a hymn of praise for Godse. I just had a re-read and decided that it had turned actually hagiographic. I rewrote extensively, but I'm still not happy with the result. But I'm afraid to be too forthright in expressing contrary opinions, since I do intensely dislike the whole BJP/RSS/Hindutva crowd and I'm afraid of being POV. I would appreciate it if other editors could take a look at the article and make sure that it's not too BJP-slanted. Zora 09:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've looked through the article and made some suggestions on the talk page and on some related articles like Hindutva. The other problem I see is that all the removing of POV info seems to have slimmed the article down a lot. Regards, Kaushik twin 16:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | Talk

is J&K a part of India?
that is the question being asked here at Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir. And based on that, the article has been flaged as NPOV-disputed!? Sigh... If you can have a look and mark your advice...

PS: If I mistake not, this is the same editor who did mass updates of replacing Indian subcontinent (see this thread above). --<FONT style="color:#5A3696">ΜιĿ</FONT>ː<FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 18:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you folks for looking into this. --<FONT style="color:#5A3696">ΜιĿ</FONT>ː<FONT style="color:#008000">talk</FONT> 09:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hyderabad, India
The article on Hyderabad, India needs some help. 1. The artcicle is too large. 2. The article contains several links. 3. Just have created a wikiportal for Hyderabad, to encourage users to post details elsewhere and only have summary.

Chirags 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you be willing to clean up the Hyderabad article and raise it to Featured status like we have for Mumbai and Chennai? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Culfests - Criteria for being notable
I categorized all the Indian college festivals under Category:Culfests category. However, I find that all of them are not notable. While Mood Indigo (culfest) and some others deserve a separate article, not all culfests are notable. There are thousands of colleges - all of them have names for their culfests, techfests and other fests. Some colleges have different names for fests every year. Instead of having an separate article on each of these culfests, it would be more appropriate to merge these pages with the respective college articles (my personal opinion). But the question is what makes one culfest notable and another non-notable? What should be the criteria for allowing a separate article on the culfest - prestige of institution, media coverage, budget...? Please comment. utcursch | talk 07:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India
I have done a lot of work on this artice and removed mostly all of the concerns brought out in the Peer Review. Please copyedit and improve the article, especially by adding more images and help elevate it to Featured status -- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Well first of all, I'd like to commend you on an excellent job with the article. I've gone through it and rephrased a few sentences to improve the flow a bit. The only slight niggle that I had with it was that it was a tad text-bookish. But I feel that that can't really be helped as the topic itself is rather dry. Re: Image Ideas, does anyone have a suitable image of the Indian Constitution perhaps? I mean, since the article deals with an important part of the Constitution, it is a valid image. As for other pictures, a pic of the Supreme Court in the part about the Right to Constitutional Remedies?

Also, how about adding the Politics of India template to the article? Unfortunately I'm unable to do the same myself, due to lack of know-how. Regards, Kaushik twin 14:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Permission to use images by Ashish Vashisht from IRFCA website
We now have permission to use any photos taken by Ashish Vashisht that are on IRFCA's website under Creative Commons Attribution. I confirmed this with both Ashish and the IRFCA webmaster, who added:
 * "It would be appreciated if you acknowledge the photographs as being from Ashish Vashisht. A pointer to IRFCA would also be appreciated. Please check with me before using any other material (photographs or otherwise) from IRFCA."

I think there are lots of nice photos to be used on the Delhi Metro and related articles that can be picked up from there. deeptrivia (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah I know. I have interacted with the IRFCA webmaster and he has given us permission for quite a few images. There is also an exclusive tag in commons:  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Main articles in Category:India
Hello all!

Happy New Year to you all!

It's been a while I have been out here. I notices that the main articles of India like History of India, Geography of India, Economy of India, et al! are no longer in Category:India?

Is there a change in policy/direction or something? Would'nt it be appropriate to have those main articles under the main category of India rather then just in it's own sub-category?

Any insights would be helpful.

Thanks,

21:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually there is not official policy which prohibits you from categorizing these articles in the Category:India, but this clutters up the category (as everything related to India would be categorized as Category:India). Subcategories offer better organization, which the main purpose of categorization. For improving navigation, alternative systems can always be used. utcursch | talk 05:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Utcursch. Glad U're still around.  I'm all for categorization.  Few months back, the standard was that main articles like History of India would be in Category:India, which would give an overall view, but then there would be category Category:History of India which will have all the history related articles.  I thought that was better as all the main acrticles would be in the main page itself.  What do you think of reverting back in that fashion?

23:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have any problem with that, but I think only few main articles (such as history, geography, culture, education etal) should be in the Category:India. Putting less important things related to India in this category will make the category hard to navigate through - subcategories are better for such things. utcursch | talk 04:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Difficulties India is facing
Hello, all. I think this is the best place to add this, but I'm not sure, so redirect my elsewhere if necessary. We are writing an essay on the difficulties of a certain nation in World History, and I was given India. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about India, other than a tiny bit about Hinduism and the culture. What are some difficulties India is facing? 23:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atropos (talk • contribs)
 * Here are some that I can remember at the moment: Adversities such as Terrorism, Population rise, Corruption, bad education system, Castes.
 * Thanks, I didn't see any page specifically about issues, and didn't think to check categories. Atropos 01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)