This is an archive of past discussions with User:SpacemanSpiff. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sorry, but adding random poor quality images from your cellphone is exactly that. Despite earlier images being deleted as out of scope, you continue to do the same. —SpacemanSpiff07:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Although for some reason or the other some images have been deleted (images with photo & autograph - copyright issues as well as images with some text. The question of personalising is - am I getting any personal benefit of a posting? Do you find me or a vested interest in a photo? And this photo also is something which was posting long back and only today you saw it and want to remove it. At no point you mentioned the issue of cell phone image. Still it is perfectly fine. Go ahead. Nothing personal from my side. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal does not mean that you need to get benefit from it, Commons is not the equivalent of Flickr or Picassa where any and every image that belongs to your personal collection can be added. Commons has a scope and these images are out of it. —SpacemanSpiff07:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Help in improving the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._Jayalalithaa - I have laid down various points on how article needs to show some sense. Acting career of Jayalalithaa is being ignored to a very large extent.
Help in restoring the version , i put, so that all toghther can improve upon it.
Its User Sitush who is indulging in Disruptive Editing - what does disruptive editing mean after all - removing facts and being adamant that others cannot edit the article / not accepting any argument and not reaching consensus with anyone and plainly reverting to one's own version.This is what this particular user has done. Since May 2011, thus user has boycotted the article.
Saw that user shifting focus on core issue of improving facts to making you suspect me.Typekept (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning India, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
You can not copy text from the sources to here or even closely paraphrase. In addition, you are also edit warring. Use the talk page to discuss addition of any content given that you've been reverted by multiple editors for different reasons. —SpacemanSpiff09:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, SpacemanSpiff. You have new messages at Talk:National symbols of India. Message added 15:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. I realize that images have to be confirmed using OTRS but the procedure given in the page seems too complicated and I am unable to understand it fully. If you don't mind could you explain the basic procedure in simple language? Secret of success (Talk) 13:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
If you're asking about File:Ko-movie-audio-launch-stills 21 155758123.jpg, you've given a license for it as CC-BY-SA-3.0. However, you have not provided the link for such release and infact Koodal explicitly prohibits commercial use of their images while saying other images are covered by the releases of the respective owners. In these cases a straight away copyright deletion would apply, but I just thought there might be something you have. You'll need to have someone from Koodal.com send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org in the format described here. —SpacemanSpiff15:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Goa cricketers
Re this, ok but (a) that's really ambiguous, and (b) if it's for people who played for that team, shouldn't 'cricketers' be capitalized? LadyofShalott16:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello- I am working on getting the authorizations on images uploaded and should have them within one business day. Thanks
rjr9868 03:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Rjr9868 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjr9868 (talk • contribs)
Ok, once the company sends the email permission, please add {{subst:OP}} to the different file pages. Then any admin will know to check on OTRS permission prior to deleting. However, if the OTRS permission is not sent before the files are deleted, don't worry, just post a note at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard and list the original file names and note when the email was sent, someone will be able to verify it and restore the files. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff06:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Might need some help here
See List of Kongu Vellala Gounders - a known haunt of a nuisance sockpuppeteer. I keep thinking of requesting page protection but then the unlinked/uncited additions stop for a few days. I am going to add a note to the talk page in a minute but, really, this is becoming tedious. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I already had it on my protection to do thought, was going to get to it in a bit once I finish with the FLC nom of the Women's Test centuries list. —SpacemanSpiff10:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, goodie. Thanks very much. I wasn't sure if RFPP would accept it because of the on/off nature of the disruption. Left a note on the article talk page as promised. I am half-minded to store that note somewhere for re-use, so comments would be welcome. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Some of these lists have to be taken to WP:BLPN to discuss a specific proposal because a lot of BLP additions happen without sources either within the list or within the linked bio articles. —SpacemanSpiff11:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Would it be worth pointing out the diff of my note on the article talk page at BLPN? Just to see if some sort of boilerplate could emerge from the situation? As you say, the BLP issue applies to a fair few of these lists (probably all of them, in fact). - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we'll need to get all these lists listed out and divvy it up into groups based on how much of a trouble they are and/or how these problems come up -- some are caused by IPs/non-autoconfirmed but the rest may be SPAs and so on. One of the derivatives of WP:BLPCAT should apply in these cases. Also, in many of these lists it's not just BLPs, there's the OR/POV issues too; e.g. Pandya rulers are (/were) claimed by many of these lists and so on. —SpacemanSpiff12:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding reverting my changes in Narayana Murthy's page in Wiki.
Hi Spaceman,
May I know the reason for reverting my changes in Narayana Murthy's page. The changes were authentic and the link provided by me is from a reputed news paper in India. Many people have little knowledge about the first company founded by this great entrepreneur and knowing that will give boost to first time stoppages. I request you to reply back on this.
Hello, I did not revert your additions. It was reverted by User:Bbb23. They noted in the edit summary that the text you added was copied from the source. He is correct. We can not accept content that is directly copied from other sources. You'll need to put them in your own words. You can use external sources as a source for information, but the prose should be in your own words. I'll leave a welcome note on your talk page with lists to policies etc. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff05:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
There were a lot of changes in the last few days; which ones, and which users are you wary of? I don't know enough about him to say what's right here; it will take some time. BollyJeff||talk14:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
He's been on many bollywood articles, so I figured you were aware of him. The recent socks of his on this article were Dilkyachahe and Joshejawani. He is mostly a fan of Rajesh Khanna and a range of Tamil/Telugu actresses. Almost all his socks will eventually land up at Rajesh Khanna. Some of the yesteryear actors and actresses don't seem to be on the watchlists of you bollwood regulars, so I thought I'd alert you. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff15:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Definitely problematic, but looks like he's told Malik and Ian.Thomson that he'll start using references now. Will take a look at his next few contribs (I'll be on-off for a few days). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff04:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
to mitigate user dougweller's seriousness and worries on what i talked to user truesecular i am mentioning here. ok
i asked him to give references.like if in some reference something is useful for article and you want to put that onto wiki then i suggest him to write in this manner - it is mentioned in so and so refrence that what ever content ....in .. the refrence.
i am new to wiki but i understood lot of things like donot infer anything of your own that is original research work so i faced lot of problems in this regard and lot of my edits were undone. when i realized it, i statred writing like this "it is wrtten there that .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ind knight (talk • contribs) 06:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello SpacemanSpiff. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of File:Stthomasblogo.png, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: wp:sofixit. Thank you.
Huh? "An official logo" with no proof of being in public domain or CC-BY release is ok for keeping here? Sorry, but this is not what sofixit is for. —SpacemanSpiff08:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello SpacemanSpiff. I like your looks. But which canine can decide that the St. Thomas College Logo is in the public domain. I uploaded while creating the page as the Hon. Secretary and CEO of the Trust that established and runs the St. Thomas College. And why the heck are you interested in the speedy deletion of File:Stthomasblogo.png, without any locus standi. Babudaniel (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
You can cut the personal attacks, but since you asked we require proper image licenses, if you can not abide by that, then you have the choice to not contribute. Simple as that. —SpacemanSpiff09:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I have great sympathy for Mrs Ruby Kolhe for the trauma she claims to have undergone ( http://www.indiareport.com/India-usa-uk-news/latest-news/762643/Maharashtra/1/20/1 ). But I am surprised that you seem to be agreeing with her when she is posting her marriage certificate and all postmarital problems on Wiki Commons. Pls check the following files - I presume you are well-versed in Hindi and can make sound judgement:
Please get your facts straight before acting surprised. I have only suggested to keep the marriage certificate as it serves a useful educational purpose. I have not commented on any other images. —SpacemanSpiff05:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I have uploaded slightly modified images (removing the personal text / names of Mrs Ruby Kolhe and her tormenting husband, etc,) and reuploaded the two files which can possibly used for some study purpose, as you would like to have. I feel that after retaining these files we can delete the rest of the files cited above:
My main contention is the personalised content. Remove the personalised content and it is perfect for study, ref, etc. Else, like Flickr we are giving scope for all sorts of image file posting. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you don't seem to understand policy, you are the one that's treating Commons as if it's your flickr account. The image you nominated for deletion does not fit into that criteria. —SpacemanSpiff08:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Regrettable as it might be, it is your tone which is arrogant and accusative. It is me who seeks compromise and consensus, and more importantly, an explanation for an addition or deletion. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I wonder whether the uploader should name a file "Hindi Marriage Certificate" or "Hindu Marriage Certificate" or simply me allowed upload any with any name, relevant or irrelevant, unchecked and uncorrected. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
No, everyone has been polite to you and explained things in the past, but you sit on your high-horse and keep uploading text box jpegs, poor quality images etc and then nominate an image that serves a useful purpose for deletion (and released by the subject) without following through on any process at all. This is an utter waste of time; hereafter, any discussion can happen on the relevant deletion discussions, I have no interest in this chatter. —SpacemanSpiff09:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. To clarify right away, I am not taking the factual discussion itself here, I am seeking more of a personal procedural advice. This is my first attempt at FL so chuck it all to learning experience if necessary. Is the concern you raised about the lack of the description of the higher education system in each state actually saying something like "do the research and resubmit in six months"? Unlike other concerns which were raised by yourself and other reviewers, which were either global formatting issues or point issues, and could be addressed in at most a couple of days, this is simply material we do not have. Frankly, I am not sure where to locate this material, and I don't think realistically it could be done in the time frame of FL (especially as the editors who assisted in the last four months working on the list are somewhat less available, including myself, but this is off the point). Actually, I'm not sure what the time frame is, but I presumed it is something like GA. --Muhandes (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
For starters, I haven't been active on FLC (reviews or submissions) for way more than a year, I only got back to it last week, so I may not be up to speed on some of the newer rules/guidelines. Also, the concern I have expressed is mine, and I don't know if others would share it. The reasons I brought it up are as follows:
The explanation for centrally funded/managed universities is quite good, and at the same time there's nothing about the state funded univs. So IMO there's a concern on WIAFL#2 and WIAFL#3a.
The other issue is the inclusion criteria. There are some points that need addressing: Why are AIIMS, JIPMER, PGIMER and other MHFW institutes not included when equivalent institutes that come under MHRD are included. My point is not in support of inclusion or exclusion, but that the lede should make clear which categories are included/excluded and why. I think the DAE/HBNI note kind of methodology works well. But there again is the other problem, why aren't they listed under the separate states if they are part of the master university of HBNI.
My familiarity with Tamil Nadu is high, so I only checked that and I will use that as an example here again: The list currently has five AUTs. They are now going to be merged to Anna University, Chennai. This wishy-washy system followed by the state govt will keep the list in sing-song mode, this is where a small topic introduction to each state's public university system is helpful. Over the past 8 years, the TN system has seen so much of change. A reader who looks at the list should be able to understand the whys of this. This concept is a lot easier in sports lists and music lists, but in complex topics like this, it takes up way more space and research.
Also, I think the size is a bit too much for easy navigation and the list IMHO could be split into 3-4 other lists and it would be much easier to make them all FLs. Think of the following: Your research on deemed universities as well as national institutes etc is pretty much complete. The public universities and non-MHRD institutes is where there are some troubles both in terms of content to provide context and list criteria itsel. If you split this list to those categories, I believe the first two will meet FL criteria quite soon. In my opinion it will take a little bit of research to address the public university system because there's way too much subtleties around that.
FL noms have been open for over two months in the past (possibly more, I can only remember 2+ examples), so it's not that these issues will need to be addressed overnight. Also, I may be a bit skewed in my interpretation of 3a in this case because of my familiarity with some of the subject matter and other editors may not necessarily share my opinion and may think that #2 and #3a issues are addressed. Procedurally, what I would do in this case, is to split it to either topical or geographical lists where you can actually add sufficient context within the lede to describe these universities and convert this to a dab. I'm not suggesting you do this, but it's something you could consider, perhaps check with a couple of other editors who have commented on the list? Maybe mine is a minority view, maybe it's not. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff16:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the time you take to think this over.
I must say my mind is split. On one hand, I see what you mean. I could probably easily get a list of deemed universities to FL. List of central universities is already available, maybe I can push that to FL too. For list of state universities and list of private universities to FL at least the inclusion criteria is clear, and discussion of state policies may be required only for the former. This would leave the hardest problem "list of autonomous higher education institutes" for someone else, maybe never to try FL.
But on the other hand, I have already spent the best time of three months on this project, delaying other projects I am now interested in returning to. Much of the time was spent getting the consensus on the inclusion criteria. I never thought I will have to get over this obstacle again in FL. I naively thought consensus is enough. Starting now to work on getting consensus to split, then researching all the states... I am not sure I have the will/motivation to do all this work and I have a very strong feeling that if I leave this, it will never happen. So if I could address any inclusion criteria questions quickly, and get this over with, that would be my preference.
What would be your opinion if the list took the view that since only UGC universities are officially called "universities", only they should be listed listed. This would resolve the inclusion criteria and shorten the list by 11%. It would still not address your other concerns though. --Muhandes (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's difficult for you to split this list: just move content and attribute it; if people don't like that it's being moved, then copy and attribute and leave the main article as is. As for your latter question, that's an option, and your qualifier is set: accredited by UGC. And if you make it one list with state as a column, then a generic overview is sufficient IMO. The reason you need a deeper overview currently is because of the structure of the list and the fact that you have gone into a great bit of detail about one group and nothing at all about the other. Eitherways, please don't take my word for it, I understand the amount of effort it takes to get something so comprehensive and I would really suggest that you ask another editor who writes FLs regularly for some feedback :) You can also check some examples: List of universities in Bangladesh, Bangladesh doesn't have the scale of India, but if you notice the topical categorization and the ledes for each topic, it gives the reader some context for the list. Likewise, List of medical schools in the United Kingdom, though it is organized a little differently -- by location, you can see some context for the list in the comments section for each listing, this is obviously not something one can do for an India list, but it serves as a pointer to what information could be helpful to a reader. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff18:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
There has not been copyright violation
Please state the link for copyright violation. There has not been a copyright violation. Muslims were charged but not stating Nahendra Modi is chief accused is misleading people.
I'm not entirely sure but I think I commented on this a while back, I don't remember what I said, but given that I think I might have voiced a position on this issue before, I can't take any action (unless of course I'm confusing this with something else), so RFPP is probably the best option for you on this one, as it isn't vandalism. —SpacemanSpiff09:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
IEP
Thanks for the note, The userspace draft was proposed long back when Some of us met Hisham at Hyderabad quoting Tamil Wikipedia Google translation project, but somehow dropped citing US program where students live edited. None of the Wiki's (includes enwiki now) has capacity to handle large influx of immature editors at a single go. Saw you proposal too, looks the way to go. Added MoS as criteria after seeing majority of work lacking it, INCLUDING USAGE OF CAPITAL CASES. Signed up for the online ambassador for this program and will be watching the project / related pages. Thanks again Srikanth (Logic) 09:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't realized about the MOS issues, perhaps I should include it in the FAQ too. Eitherways, I don't think Hm plans to use this now, he'd asked for it a couple of days back, but I think they're taking a different approach. I'll probably use it when I come across one of these. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff13:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Ashoka
Yeah I looked at the history—it gave me a headache, thanks.
Sadly I can't stomach policing/cleanup like you and DaGizza and other cops can—unless I've already invested significant time into building the content (read: "involved"). I've spent *many* hours recently tediously cleaning up Iranian and Indian POV pushers and backlogged sneak vandals on some other pages, and I'd be vigorously vivisecting my macbook screen if I do more.
On my formerly huge wathclist I used to see YellowMonkey/Blnguyen indef semi-protect random India pages right and left (and I think even most of his own FAs LOL) and I don't think he got much flak for violating policy.
Well, it's not that I wouldn't prefer to simply work on my choice of content, but some of messes are impossible to ignore. Many of the historical personalities articles are a nightmare (e.g. the Pandya rulers keep fluctuating between different castes, same with many of the rulers from the Gangetic plains and so on; likewise, the regionalistic approach that impacts the dynasties etc etc) and it's difficult to not do something. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff06:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Your edit introduced a typo, which I've taken the liberty of correcting. Otherwise I'm happy with the revised wording. Unfortunately I don't have time right at the moment to read through the whole article to see if I have any further feedback. I might be able to tomorrow (Sunday). JH (talk page) 09:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a community banned editor -- User:Vote (X) for Change, not welcome on any part of Wikipedia owing to his disruption. Along with that talk page, he went on to an archived discussion etc. It's a daily venture, others generally delete his comments to prevent restoring, I just revert. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff18:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your reply. I trust you read no criticism into my question? It's a pity in a way, as his post provided a useful list of articles likely to contain OR bollocks about non-notable crackpot calendar reforms. I've just deleted a lot from Symmetry454 on his recommendation, for example. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
No criticism read, I don't know the topic area at all, so I have no opinion on his input. I've only blocked his IP socks after his ban. I just left a note on the talk page anyway, as there might be others wondering why I reverted. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff19:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I just observed your reply here. Well, now I've already started a discussion in WP:IN but I've got no replies; another in WP:ANI got poor participation. So, what is the purpose in starting another. Now, User:Ssriram mt keeps reverting my edits as a tit-for-tat measure because I've reverted some of his. User:Ssriram mt uses archaic spellings as "Tanjore" instead of the official spelling "Thanjavur", does not bother to check for the notability of a subject of an article and keeps his/her articles somewhat messy. And when I do explain them to the user, the user appears to ignore them. Yeah, I do agree that these are all trivial issues, but considering the huge number of articles which User:Ssrirram mt creates, it becomes a nightmare checking for notability or cleaning them up. Now, if I revert some of the user's edits, I might be penalised for edit warring which is why I chose to raise the issue at WP:ANI.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service11:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand your point, however ANI is not the best place for this as it focuses on more specific issues of misconduct. WP:DRN is a better venue. If you post at WT:HINDUISM and no one else responds, it might be a good idea to solicit a WP:3O on one of the article talk pages and/or take one of the articles through a WP:RM discussion. Then you can see where consensus stands and use that as a starting point for other articles. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff05:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Spiff, can you help out here? I am not pleased with Bangalorebar's attempts to turn this into a brochure, with those claims about JSTOR access and such nonsense. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Some people dont like what Wikipedia has created about Munneswaram temple because it is based on relibale sources and a good article to boot. They like to say that it is a new temple without any history or Tamils just converted an old Buddhist temple into this one. That may be the case in some other instance but this onee seems to be a genuine temple with at least 1000 year history. Few websites have come up protesting this article, I amade an edit yesterday hence the vanaalism :)Kanatonian (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Why didn't you inform me or ask for a page move for the template? You deleted it just like that. The R2 condition says that "Consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect". But you removed it without informing me. Awaiting reply! Secret of successTalk to me11:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but you can not create redirects from mainspace to your user space. And "consider" is a suggestion. I'll admit that I should have sent you a tag notification though and for that I apologize. —SpacemanSpiff12:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Some of you cricket aficionados are nearly as geeky as me! I recall that Michael Atherton once stepped on to the sward at Old Trafford sporting dirty bootlaces but cannot recall the date or his team's opponents. I bet that you know. <g> BTW, the photo on Atherton's article is truly abysmal: is there nothing better out there? - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
There are more than enough English cricket editors around here to take care of that! But I don't think I've seen anyone interested in working on that article. Flickr seach maybe? —SpacemanSpiff10:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Reply of Notification of possible copyright violation image "Mother_with_Subrata_Roy_Sahara.jpg"
It currently says "All rights reserved". If you wish to upload the file, you can ask the PR person at Sahara to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The format of the email should be that listed at Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries and also make sure you include the file name for what was deleted -- "File:Mother with Subrata Roy Sahara.jpg". Let me know if you have other questions. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff12:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Shahid Balwa
Hey
You've removed an entire and very relevant section about Shahid Balwa.
Motives - suspect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.255.89 (talk • contribs)
I had a glance over the list: I'm not keen on the D-MMM-YYYY format: surely a full format would work better? Need to get to work on some of these red links! No idea on the {{crw}} I'm afraid! I'll look over the list a bit more over the next few weeks: I'm pretty busy outside of Wikipedia at the moment, so I'll be around only in fits and starts for a while. Harriastalk19:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Having looked at it I don't think it addresses the concerns from the AfD. I would suggest that you wait for reliable sources to cover this person before attempting to rewrite the article. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff22:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Kaustubh85 (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Dear User
Your views on my article regarding Indian cricket bats are very much valuable. If its possible for you I would like to have your inputs in it as well. Another issue is I m not able to find reliable sources for the article so If you have any please let me know , so that I'll start doing research as soon as possible.
You'll have to sign your name at the end of your posts, not at the beginning. As far as reliable sources go, you can search on Google using variations of strings such as "Cricket bat"+"Industry"+"India" or "Cricket bat"+"Kashmir" and so on. Reliable sources would be newspapers and magazines that have a reputation for fact checking, good academic publications etc. The sources that I listed at the AfD were all from such a search. You can use the article talk page to list any references and content questions (for other help, feel free to post here), I'll watch it and respond there. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff18:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thankyou for reversing my post on India - I would like Wikipedia to improve, and thank your attempt in this direction. I do not contest what you have done, and do not wish to enter into a debate. I would be grateful if you could take a minute to read the first sentences of Hindustan (says land of river Sindhu), East Indies, and the paragraph on Arab trade and SE Asia Economy. Would sourcing something from Wikipedia itself be considered 'unsourced'? Also, should a section on Etymology of India only include how the name came to be formed, or also include how the form and meaning of 'India' have changed over time? Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The India article is a "summary style" article and also a Featured Article, which means that everything has to be concise and well sourced. Other Wikipedia articles can not be considered as reliable sources. As far as the the bit about the spice trade, that one is WP:UNDUE, but mostly because we can't document everything within that article, so priorities are set and agreed to by talk page consensus. Also, the spices bit doesn't belong in the etymology section, even if it were to be included in the article. Some of these bits of information are kept out of the article based on editorial judgment on what's the most important/relevant information and those bits are discussed in the sub-articles where you found them. Like I mentioned in my edit summary, these things should be added after a discussion on the talk page, so if you'd like the opinion of other editors feel free to suggest these sentences with reliable source references and where you'd like to place them in the article, on the talk page. Hope this explains it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff18:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for your polite answer. The whole concept of what 'was' considered India probably needs more elucidation, and the 'summary style' would be unable to do justice. Names of India page just lists the different names of India, and is an inappropriate place for this information. This states that the entire Asian subcontinent region was labelled as "India" (with references). Probably, you could find a way to bring this up. What is important is that the Indians never called the country 'India' themselves, but 'Bharat'. Probably, this could be mentioned. Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the Names of India article is where this should belong. There are multiple variances for this -- the early Greeks considered only what is present day South Asia to be India whereas middle-Europe considered parts of SE Asia also to be in, these are (IMO) things that don't belong in the India article as you can not add such information without providing more details for clarity, and none of that has any significant relationship to the Republic of India (comparatively). However, some minimal amount of detail could be added to History of India as that article is about the region India as opposed to the Republic. Likewise, the level of detail on Sindhu --> Indus --> India and Sindhu --> Hindu --> Hindustan that's covered within the etymology section currently is quite clear. Likewise, it also states that India is externally derived while Bharat is internally derived from Hindu scriptures. I'm not sure that this should be expanded. If you think it needs expansion, feel free to start a discussion on the talk page. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff20:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
