Gurubrahma (talk | contribs) →Featured picture: 6th century |
Aksi great (talk | contribs) Indian Cabinet, Ministers and politicians |
||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
:Good one for FA. No idea about the dates though. -- [[User:Sundar|Sundar]] <sup>\[[User talk:Sundar|talk]] \[[Special:Contributions/Sundar|contribs]]</sup> 04:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC) |
:Good one for FA. No idea about the dates though. -- [[User:Sundar|Sundar]] <sup>\[[User talk:Sundar|talk]] \[[Special:Contributions/Sundar|contribs]]</sup> 04:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
::The image description on the image page gives it as 6th Century and I'd go with it. --[[User:Gurubrahma|Gurubrahma]] 10:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC) |
::The image description on the image page gives it as 6th Century and I'd go with it. --[[User:Gurubrahma|Gurubrahma]] 10:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
== Indian Cabinet, Ministers and politicians == |
|||
There are a lot of missing articles on Indian politicians, especially ministers currently in the Manmohan Singh cabinet. Also the list of the minister on the following pages is quite out-dated - [[Manmohan Singh]] and [[Indian Cabinet Ministers]]. The entire and accurate list can be found on the page - [http://cabsec.nic.in/coumin.htm List of Council of Ministers]. I would have updated the list myself on the Manmohan Singh page, but the list is too big, and would occupy too much of space on that page. Should the entire list be put on that page? Or only the "important" ministries? Who decides which ministers are important and which are not? |
Revision as of 14:55, 8 February 2006
Infoboxes
- Gujarat used another box [1] - I reverted to the standard box.
- I moved some infoboxes. The name should allways be like "Infobox Foo" with capital F.
- I used Infobox State IN, Infobox District IN, Infobox City IN. Maybe town is more apropriate? I used the two letter country code as I have seen it for some other subdivision templates. I used the subdivision term before the "IN", so in Infobox listings all state/city/disrict templates would be grouped together. One could also argue it is better to have all India templates together and thus use "Infobox IN state". - But than all the subdivision boxes will be very much dispersed. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Some minor adjustments have to be made: Some districts are classified as 100% urban, so we would have to have an extra template. Also union territories use another infobox. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Srinagar (city)
Could any of the admins please do the following,
- Delete Srinagar. It is a disambiguation page.
- Move Srinagar (city) to Srinagar.
This is the convention we follow when creating city and district articles with a similar name. See WikiProject Indian districts.
I have updated the Srinagar (city) article with a link to the district one. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Indian district project
I'm launching an ambitious project to populate and disambiguate all Indian districts. See: List of Indian districts.
- Part 1 -- If a district and its district headquarters share the same name, then split it into two articles. The town gets the name (eg: Mysore) and the district will have the word district appended to it (eg Mysore district). Note that the word district is in small case.
- Part 2 -- Populate all red links
- Part 3 -- Add infoboxes to all districts. (A bot probably will be needed)
Any volunteers? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Done:
- Andaman and Nicobar, Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Chandigarh, Sikkim, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Meghalaya, Tripura. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- +Arunachal Pradesh
- + Maharashtra
Tom and me and some others allready did a lot of these splittings. Actually you reverted Tirap and Lohit. One should not only look for whether the town and district have the same name, but there can also be other things in the world having the district's name. In most cases better add the word "District" now, than to fix lots of links later. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm aware of the Tirap and Lohit dab pages. I had created a River Lohit page to compensate for the loss. I've also been doing the cleanups while moving. Double redirects are a problem, but a bot can easily solve those. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
But you changed links that referred to Lohit District to Lohit. Why? BTW I moved your "River X" to "X River" as this is the naming used for other articles in Category:Rivers and Category:Rivers_of_India Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Having the uppercase title "District" is against wikipedia conventions, so I suggest that we effect the changes as soon as possible instead of worrying about fixing double redirects which are a more of a minor issue. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- WRONG. Please read Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 09:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Anantapur district (NDTV), Anantnag district (ToI), Kinnaur district (Hindustan times). As I've pointed by these three examples, the word district is in small case.
- Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors: I don't see why this is a conflict between readers and editors. It has to do with the correct capitalisation of a word. Hardly something a reader would misunderstand.
- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers : River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X", depending on location and most common usage. River X is more prevalent in British English and since Indian English follows BE, there's nothing wrong with having "River X".
Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- For rivers I would prefer using X River.--Raghu 16:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Done:
Assam - Ganeshk (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Vote
Let's put this through a vote:
what nonsense is this? to vote ont the notice board? you can also vote on your userpage and invite your friends. Tobias Conradi 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- And why do you have problems with the vote being placed here? This notice board is meant to discuss India-related topics, the ideal place for such a vote. Secondly, I don't need to set my userpage or invite friends over. Please note that we are seeking a larger mandate, and are following all wikipedia procedures of fair resolution. As the opposing party, I though it would be fair to invite you over here to share your opinion, and so have messaged only you. I don't see the need for you to be so obstinate and defensive. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- It makes lot of sense to have the vote here; else, people would turn back and say, "you held the vote on your user page and invited your friends - it should be in a more public place etc." ;) Anyways, polls without discussion are evil; not polls per se. People who vote here would obviously have a look at the discussion above, before voting. Or may be, should we call it a straw poll? --Gurubrahma 04:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
X district
- =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- --Gurubrahma 12:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ganeshk (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- --Raghu 16:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
X District
Portal:India
We must get portal:India up to featured status. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, this is certainly a good idea. We all should plan to achieve this status for our portal:India. --Bhadani 12:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Some suggestions and comments:
- Remove Hinduism template.
- Somehow make the world map showing India link fit into the box (expanding the lead text is the easiest way.)
- Why does the quote section have so much empty space?
- There are other empty spaces that can be avoided by "horizontalizing" lists.
- The left and right columns should be roughly equal length.
I'll be making some of these changes. deeptrivia (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Something needs to be done for the Life in India section. The title is repeated, and it's looking a bit weird even otherwise. deeptrivia (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Featured picture
I'm thinking of nominating this picture for FP. Is it a good idea? Does anybody know when this might have been painted. The Ajanta article isn't very helpful. It just gives a date between 200 BCE and 600 CE for all paintings. deeptrivia (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good one for FA. No idea about the dates though. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- The image description on the image page gives it as 6th Century and I'd go with it. --Gurubrahma 10:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Indian Cabinet, Ministers and politicians
There are a lot of missing articles on Indian politicians, especially ministers currently in the Manmohan Singh cabinet. Also the list of the minister on the following pages is quite out-dated - Manmohan Singh and Indian Cabinet Ministers. The entire and accurate list can be found on the page - List of Council of Ministers. I would have updated the list myself on the Manmohan Singh page, but the list is too big, and would occupy too much of space on that page. Should the entire list be put on that page? Or only the "important" ministries? Who decides which ministers are important and which are not?