Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
 | India Project‑class  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Noticeboard for India-related topics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 November 2011. |
| Noticeboard for India-related topics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 26 December 2007. |
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
+ in the names of electoral alliances[edit]
On our pages, occasionally an electoral alliance of a major party in India is indicated with the + at the end, say, "Indian National Congress+". Is it a standard practice (I did not see it anywhere beyond Wikipedia)? If yes, what does it mean? Викидим (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is usually referred for the party and its coalition partners, since the formal coalition names such as National Democratic Alliance (NDA) are difficult to identify and remember for common readers than simply BJP+. Also, BJP+ can be seen as a more informal term for even those who are not in NDA, but have coalition with the BJP. Thanks,
- See:
- BJP+ retains Tripura, wins 33 seats; Tipra Motha shines | Latest News India - Hindustan Times
- Exit Poll Results Live Updates: BJP+ may win Tripura and Nagaland, but hung assembly likely in Meghalaya (cnbctv18.com)
- Election Result Tripura 2023 analysis: How BJP+, Left-Congress, TIPRA performed in the polls (indianexpress.com)
- Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 17:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at RSN that requires input[edit]
There's currently a discussion on RSN about a several books on Indian history, it could use an editor with some subject are knowledge. See WP:RSN#Are these sources reliable?. Any help would beuch appreciated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I am trying to understand if these are, in a sense, the "same" people, and if they are, if their pages should be merged. There are even more terms for this general group of Indian shepherding peoples, but these are the only three dedicated Wikipedia pages that I could find (for example, "Baghel" appears on the Gadaria page as an apparent synonym). The sources I have consulted on this generally tend to lump all these people together (e.g. [1]), with the different names being regarded as merely different names for the same group. However, obviously, the mere fact that this apparently unitary group is found in so many places and referred to by so many disparate names suggests it is not a unitary group, but nevertheless there are many similarities between such communities, which raises the question of how Wikipedia should handle the subject. Presently the presence of three different pages seems to imply Wikipedia thinks of them as three different groups—although it is not really clear to me why, for example, "Baghel" or any of the other dozen terms for these people(s) does not also have its own page. But, conversely, List of Kurubas and Dhangars seems to lump all of these peoples together (and not just the two in the title; see article body). I am curious what others think. Personally I am leaning towards merging all three, but I am not super committed to this.
This table from the aforementioned source might be useful; it lists the names of these people(s) by state.
Anyways, what do people think? Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with Wikipedia's standards for Indian castes please review this article? It was created evading a salt on Bamraulia and was recently expanded from G4-eligible status to a substantive article by an editor with very few other edits. Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Also Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests - this seems to be a reasonable topic for an article, but it's evading a salt on Rajput resistance and I would not be surprised if the creator, who has no blocks but very few other edits, is part of the same sockfarm. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Separatist POV in Northeast India article[edit]
Recently, the sockfarm Tasumluke has been adding substantial content on some proposed country/separatist movement - WESEA in Northeast India and related articles. While I have reverted obvious POV, that is change of longstanding content based on census data as well as clubbing diverse ethnic groups within their preferred 'groupings', My point is whether this large chunk of info anout the proposed country/region (WESEA) be included in an article on administrative division, considering information on Khalistan movement or Tamil nationalism aren't mentioned in respective regional articles, not even in the Punjab and Tamil Nadu. Even Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) has a passing mention of the widely covered separatist activities in the state/UT. I believe, the newly added content related to WESEA should be merged to Insurgency in Northeast India, something similar was done by the sockfarm here. We already have a section 'Northeast India#20th century separatist unrest', which is more than enough. Pinging @Gotitbro, Chaipau, DaxServer, Chronikhiles, Manasbose, PadFoot2008, RegentsPark, Utcursch, Usernamekiran, and Vanamonde93:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with @Fylindfotberserk. The added content should better be added to Insurgency in Northeast India or maybe even deleted as the article already covers the added information in great detail. This is, as already mentioned by Fylindfotberserk, also keeping in mind the fact that separatist movements in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, and Tamil Nadu recieve no or minimal mention in the articles about their respective states/territories. In my opinion, even the section Northeast India#20th century separatist unrest is too much and should be converted into a single line. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- yes. This will also establish a consistency/protocol for similar articles. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)