This is an archive of past discussions with User:VasuVR. 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.
I have created the Indian taskforce now. I have also created the New articles page for the taskforce. Hope you don't mind me moving the Raga discussion to the taskforce talk page. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any help. Regards, Ganeshk(talk)04:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Ganeshk. Please go ahead and move the discussions as you have suggested, in case you have not already done. Initially will need some help here and there to ensure I follow good principles as part of the project group, in whatever little way I can. Some questions - (a) Will new articles list be generated soon by the Bot? (b) Can I add items to the list, which I find are lying piecemeal in different categories and spellings? (c) Can I merge some of the pages (some being very small), where we have same/similar content just with difference in spelling of page. VasuVR (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I will tagging articles in the below categories:
Indian classical music|Carnatic music|Carnatic Ragas|Carnatic music instruments|Carnatic musicians|Carnatic composers|Carnatic instrumentalists|Carnatic singers|Ghatam players|Kanjira players|Mridangam players|Carnatic music stubs|Gharana|Dagarvani|Etawah Gharana|Instrumental gharanas|Maihar Gharana|Vocal gharanas|Hindustani music|Hindustani instrumentalists|Hindustani musical instruments|Sitars|Hindustani musicians|Hindustani singers|Ragas|Carnatic Ragas|Thumri|Indian music|Indian styles of music|Bhangra|Bhangra albums|Indian pop|Indian pop composers|Indian pop singers|Indian rock|Punjabi music|Indian composers|Carnatic composers|Indian film score composers|Indian pop composers|Music festivals in India|Indian albums|Indian lyricists|Indian songwriters|Indian musical instruments|Music schools in India|Indian musicians|Malayalam musicians|Indian singers|Tamil musicians|Indian musical groups|Indian conductors|Indian musicians by genre|Indian classical musicians|Indian jazz musicians|Indian rock musicians|Indian musicologists|Indian songs|Music of Indian subdivisions|Kerala music|Indian singers by genre|Indian singers by gender|Indian pop singers|Indian music stubs|Carnatic Ragas|
I agree that we should tag ONLY those within Indian music categories and sub-categories. Should I add the specific articles that are not tagged in one of the above articles to Indian music project page? Also, the question about whether we should remove inappropriate categories from some of these pages. Example Adana raga page in Modes or Musical terminology categories or Kamaj in categories Musical scales, Modes, Melody types or Musical terminology.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that these kinds of pages must have only 2 or 3 closely related lower level categories and not world level categories, like Modes, Melody types.
It is possible that a few of the categories are not Indian? It could be in a neighbour country now (Indian subcontinent is OK for music?). I have not checked - I am just thinking aloud, that it could be possible. Say one of the Gharanas category, if the Gharana is now in neighbouring country?
We can't blindly tag general music cats under India music.. On the cats which the bot is tagging, I have made a skip criteria to skip if 'Pakistan and Bangladesh' are there in the talk page. Just to be safe. Btw the bot has already started tagging. You can see the progress here -- TinuCherian - 12:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I still have the question - Should I add the specific articles that are not tagged in one of the above articles to Indian music project page? This is with reference to you mentioning add them as Article 1, 2, 3, etc. Where do I need to add them, for the BOT to pick it up? VasuVR (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, what I meant was , the bot may not find articles that are not in the categories which we are using. If you find such articles , and add then at User talk:VasuVR/Music and let me know when the bot have to use the list. But please wait till the current bot exercise is complete. But If the list is small, you may manually add them -- TinuCherian - 13:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Tinu for helping Vasu with the tagging. I am not sure when the New article bot would run. Let us give it a couple of days. Regards, Ganeshk(talk)22:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Glanced through the results and have a few queries. Importance - is it assigned by points calculation in some manner? Is that standardized across Wikipedia articles? Are there guidelines? I feel that lot more articles should be tagged High or Mid importance articles (examples, Swara, Tala (music), Sruti, Raga, Thaat, etc.). Please point me to appropriate pages for guidance on these. Thank you. VasuVR (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None
None
This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.
The above table is the thumb rule for importance parameter for any project or workgroup. Why do you have different importance for WP:IND and WP:INMUSIC ? because importance of WP:INDIA may be of different importance for the workgroup like Mid for WP:INDIA but High/Top for WP:INMUSIC. It is the respective project members who has to take the call of judging and assigning the importance of the article for the project. Hope this helps -- TinuCherian - 09:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick reply. Ok. Now I have visited the assessment related pages. Hence, the assessment team members will assign the importance, unless it is a Stub / Start, which all team members can assign, right? Sorry to trouble you with such nitty-gritty questions (without being your adoptee :) ). VasuVR (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can assess the articles (rate the article for quality and importance). Class defines the quality of the article. Importance defines the priority of the article w.r.t the workgroup. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment for more information. music-importance parameter can be used to set the priority of the article in the music workgroup. Some Stub class articles can be Top importance. Some FA class articles can be of low importance. Regards, Ganeshk(talk)03:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Anyone can assess the articles (rate the article for quality and importance). What I meant was importance paramater (music-importance) rating criteria for the WP:INMUSIC may be formalised by the project members if they could , or the assessment can be done by pure common sense on relative importance of the articles. -- TinuCherian - 05:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Ganesh and Tinu. Ok, for example, I tagged the Project template in Talk:Mayamalavagowla with India importance Low (cannot be unassessed, I think, as it is the basic ragam taught to everyone in Carnatic music), Class Start, Music-Importance Top. Any comments? I will think up some guidelines and put them here for your first review and then can be put on Project page (I guess/ hope). Thank you once again for the guidance as I get to learn the ropes. VasuVR (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you could point me to some method of assigning these using some kind of list as input, it will be great. I could copy the full list of articles, choose the few ones that must be tagged based on my reviews and then just upload a CSV or Excel file. Then a bot could apply the changes - possibly Tinu's bot has the capability? Note that it is more to tag the music importance and music class (usually Start or Stub only). VasuVR (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I just re-read earlier comments from Tinu on putting things on the VasuVR/Music page. Please let me know any specific formats I have to follow, or a sample page for the same. Thanks. VasuVR (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I may not find many new articles to tag. This query is regarding changing parameters to existing tag of Wikiproject India or Wikiproject Indian music. For example, most of the tags will show ??? as class and ??? in importance. To assign class and importance of say 20 to 50 articles, which I feel will be useful for editors, it will be tedious to add this manually. Will the bot be able to help? If not is there any other bot.
in each line of my Music talk sub-page help? Thank you once again for your kind assistance in setting all these things up to help me out. VasuVR (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
My bot doesnt have that capability. It can add only fresh tags or add a non-existent parameter but not assess them as above. Moreover Bots can do only tasks that are approved. You may place a request at Bot requests to see if there is any bot that can do this ...Or if you use AWB you can do yourself easier -- TinuCherian - 09:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
As you are aware, some comments on above subject started this subgroup. I did not want to unilaterally start making the changes to categories using the suggested guidelines without some discussion.
I wonder what type of exposure to these comments will have some level of discussion, before revamp of categories can start. Though Wikipedia suggests that we should be bold, I feel this level of revamp will be better served with a pre-discussion. Thank you. VasuVR (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've moved this page to User:VasuVR/Carnatic music terminology, as it appears to be a to-do list or details of what you intend to do. If you can make it into an encyclopedic article, feel free to move it back. Please note that pages which are not about encyclopedia topics should be placed in a different namespace. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding that I should have done this in first place, before creating a completed article. I hope to complete it in next 1 or 2 days. VasuVR (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to add citations to every single one of them, but all articles whether they are glossaries or not should have some indication of a source used or at least an external links. How do you expect people to verify it and believe what is written and that it isn't original research? The Bald One White cat 16:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated one of your articles, Divyamani, as a 'Did you know' for the Main Page. That means that a fact from your article has a chance to appear on the Wikipedia Main Page. You can see the nomination here. Any article you write that is sufficiently referenced may be nominated for DYK, either by you or by another editor. Just contact me on my talk page if you have any queries. If the nomination goes through, you will receive notification of it on your talk page. Good luck, and thank you for your contribution. Elucidate(parlez à moi)Ici pour humor12:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
For the 72 melakartaragas and about 5 janya ragas, these have been completed in GIF format and uploaded. I do not have a tool that converts from GIF to SVG. I will have to check on that. I can try to do that in all future images. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You cannot convert from GIF to SVG. GIFs are raster, SVG is vector, so you need to use a free vector creation tool such as Inkscape. I've created a free base image for you to work on. Do this:
Thank you. Hmmm... The image is not seen in Internet Explorer, as documented in the SVG pages. Also, in Firefox, I am not able to view it at all, either in my page or in the image page. The only way to view it for me is to click the link on this image page and view the full size image. Need more help on this.
One other thought on this - there is no major advantage in having SVG, as there is not much to search - only name of the scale.
Temporarily I want to assign lower priority in my tasks, as current images are available in the interim and I would like to add more information into Wikipedia. For starters, I will try this SVG in Tamil Wikipedia, when I come around to that, which I plan to augment as well.
Yes, the image does not display for me too. I though I was having a cache problem, but as you cannot see it too, I've placed a request at Wikipedia:SVG Help#Image:Gavambhodi scale.svg. When you say "there is no major advantage in having SVG", I'm not sure what you mean. Our Image use policy mentions that SVG should be preferably used for line art. There are several reasons: Editing of images makes it easer to modify, especially for globalization; and the vector aspect makes it immune to pixellation. =Nichalp«Talk»=08:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I went through the image use policy in more detail now. Yes, I agree on those points. The niggle came from SVG where the info is a bit negative about the support for SVG. Also in case of Carnatic music scales, the no searchable text except for name of scale, pixellation does not really affect the information. I need to look into more on globalization (for Tamil script scales). VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kantamani, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Yagapriya. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
This was not a mistake. Information about Carnatic music musical scales (ragams) are similar when they are created like a stub article. Different images, scales, names, etc., in the articles in question can show the clear differences between Yagapriya and Kantamani. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Did not know about the old Carnatic sidebar. Can it be formatted a bit differently? The items in left side can be brought on top and articles within each head below it? Kind of looks odd in current format and can be made more balanced box, in my opinion. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've put that format straight in - it's a really good suggestion. I thought it was a little strange too, but I couldn't figure out why (I don't imagine I would've for a few months). :) I haven't added the extra items because I think some of the items don't really fit into it, while a few other items can fit in, but need substantial improvement so that it does fit. Will elaborate more when I get a chance later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
On a separate note, I have a couple of issues with your assessment of a few articles in terms of relative importance between each other - do you use email btw? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Assessment can be tuned further, esp. as there can be borderline cases. Yes, I do use email. I am presuming email through Wikipedia? Or direct regular emails? Either way is fine. For direct emails can go through our home page, which is linked (external link) in my user page. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree; but I find issues more with consistency relative to each one. For example, you've given Alathur Srinivasa Iyer low and mid, G Harishankar low and high, while Balamuralikrishna mid and high. And somehow the universal concept of Pallavi is low and high in comparison. I agreed with some of those assessments where notable artists/composers were mid and mid. But concepts like pallavi, anupallavi, charanam are certainly at least, mid and high. Do you follow? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I can understand where you are coming from, when we start comparing similar articles (at first glance). If we are going to use a strict thumb rule then there is bound to be a bit of inconsistency in my assessments. The idea was to give indication of priority to respective project teams for contribution to these articles (which I assume is primary objective of project importance assignment). In my view any Indian contributor may not be able to help on Pallavi - hence low, though for Indian music it is of high importance and a person from that project team can contribute to the article. Further inputs on additional objectives of assigning importance will be useful for me to facilitate more collaborative effort and your viewpoints can help me fine tune too. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I expect a bit of inconsistency (that's okay), but I think it's a bit more than 'a bit' which is why I brought it up. Importance is not how much an Indian contributor may be able to help on. Rather, it is gauging the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of India.
When an article is of top importance, it is of utmost importance to the project, as it forms the basis of all information. High importance is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge. Mid importance is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. Low importance is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
Putting it into practice (in terms of relativity, rather than specific importance parameters, so that I can check if you understand): Pallavi would be of higher importance in the sense that musicologists, as well as those who appreciate music are likely to look it up either when going on an article about Ragam Thanam Pallavi, or Kriti, or Varnam or etc. It'd also stem from the main Carnatic music article, as well as artist bios where they're famous for singing "pallavis". An artist like MSS would be of a similar rating. Harishankar, although an exceptionally famous ganjira player in India, would be of lower importance in comparison given that they may only look the name up if they want a bio of the artist, or if they're looking at ganjira players/instrumentalists.
Right. I understand these points. Contribution is not the primary point in my message, though I used it in the example. But I entirely agree that reader needs are primary. Notability is important and achievements (in case of persons) are. Let me air out my thoughts and hope the sequence of exchanges will lead towards a consistent collaboration.
The talk pages are still for the project team's prioritisation. India project team would rate importance of Harishankar as low (a musician amongs all the other information about India including history, politics, sports, places, etc.), while Music team would rate it as High as he is arguably top Kanjira player. Other Kanjira players may be marked mid or low by Indian Music team. In fact many other Kanjira players may not be given an importance rating at India level. My thoughts on Balamuralikrishna - he has higher notability across India including performing with North Indians, involvement in cinemas, etc. Hence India project importance of mid, while Music importance of high.
When it comes to rating of mid and mid for notable artists, sometimes I feel low (India) and mid (Music) would be more appropriate. In case the India project importance had already been assigned mid, I did not change it unless there is a real need to do that. When you next get some time, please let me know a few more examples of ratings along with your viewpoints. That will help me a lot. I will delay assignments of some of the debatable cases (in my opinion) until I get further viewpoints and only mark obvious ones. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You previously nominated this article for deletion using a PROD template. The template has since been removed from the article by the author, which most likely means he/she disagrees with your proposal. I have since nominated this article for a deletion with consensus. I agree with your reasoning and have used a similar nomination. ←Signed:→Mr. E. SánchezGet to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 21:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Why did you tag this as blatant vandalism. While it does sound a tad suspicious, especially without me being able to find sources, I don't think it's entirely implausible. Perhaps it's a better AFD candidate, unless I missed something. = Mgm|(talk)22:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
[author] I see that this musician (Vasu) incited a militarist (Sanchez) to delete one my articles, apparently on the ground of its daring to criticize capitalism, a system deemed sacrosanct by varna-honoring Varna-ashrama-dharma devotees. Domination by vaishya-s is a system enforced by violence in Bharata itself; just as Spanish plutocrats arrange for the massacre of labor-union organizers in Latin America. Right now you fascists are successful in maltreating the oppressed classes, and in suppressing all true science in favor of your pseudosciences (false economics, falsified history, etc. etc.). However, you accumulate unfavorable karma for yourselves (but are perhaps you all such hypocrites as to disbelieve against karma altogether?) -- but Yama will judge.0XQ (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOT the ONLY place for people to raise their voice. You have 1000s of choices in various websites and blog spots. Hence there is no oppression or suppression. Wikipedia is a service provided by Wikimedia foundation and it has clear set of goals and the type of service they provide. Your article did not meet the criteria for Wikimedia foundation's goals of having this as an encyclopedia and not a BLOG. Hence the article has to be removed. Importantly, it does not meet Verifiability and Reliable sources for it to be included in an encyclopedia.
For posting your viewpoints there are THOUSANDS of web sites that offer you free space. No one can stop you from posting to those sites, as long as you meet "their" criteria for accepting your ideas, theories and opinions. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Reflist in Carnatic Music
The question is not whether scrollable reflists are there in other pages or not, but whether it is going to help our article. I will add it in Delhi page now just to satisfy you, but the quality of the article is not a question for determining whether reflists need to be scrollable. The only criteria is whether they are long enough to merit the scroll box. Even otherwise, what harm does it cause to the page to have a scrolling one? Cheers. Kris (talk)17:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
No they are not good for any page. Any user should not have to do two separate scrolls to get to reference information! And if you still feel they are OK, please look into hundreds of other pages too and change them - don't stop with Delhi. Here are some of them. Sachin Tendulkar, India, United States, etc. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming that a reader needs to do two separate scrolls to get to the reference in the reflist. When you click on the reference number where it is cited, it directly takes you to the reference in question inside the reflist scrollbox, so no need to scroll manually. Kris (talk)17:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Probably I did not explain the scenario better. User has to click OUTSIDE the small window to be able to scroll! Why? Now there are two scrollable areas and the page-up, page-down, scroll-up and down using mouse have two contexts. Sorry it is not user friendly. Please try as much as possible with different methods that different users will be used to. You will find the difference. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 18:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
What is the reason for including picture of DKP alone in improvisation section, are there no other improvisers in CM? Carnatic Music by definition includes improvisation. A consensus was reached earlier that photos of modern musicians would not be included in the page. Kris (talk)20:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I am all for consensus. A consensus was reached earlier - can you please provide the details, and you can give that in the talk page also. Then I will also support such removal of the picture.
If you know such historical information and do not articulate in the edit summary (empty, or "not necessary", or similar words), it does cause a problem for other editors. I think we can take 2 steps here. (a) Have a section at top of Carnatic music talk page where important historical consensus are listed (and never archived) to preclude these kinds of edit-reverts (just like any other edit-reverts that the instructions at top of talk page is trying to avoid) and (b) Editors provide better edit summary. These will save a lot of time for all editors, instead of spending time reverting each other (without knowledge of some consensus reached earlier).
The top of Carnatic music page lists a warning that editors should read all archives before writing or editing. Going through the huge archives for each edit by other editors, in order to validate every point of view is nearly impossible, esp., when many of us are doing this as a serious hobby only and not a full time job. Even people who have good information to contribute will run away, if it becomes mandatory! To help we can include idea (a) above - I can initiate it. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Noted and thank you for the details. I plan to include a non-archivable section (above the first section) called Important past consensus in Carnatic music talk page. This is for editors who may not have had a chance to look at full archives and for new editors. Let us put in a few bullet points in that, including Consensus reached that no modern artists pictures will be used in the page.
On an aside, I have found that in life many people change their mind over long period of time (and even forgetfully too). I see it with all my friends and relatives and hence this strong statement that it is very prevalent. People make high-flying statements about why we are wrong and they are right, but after a year or two state vehemently that they never had such staunch views! My humble request for the need to work together rather than calling names. Also, I prefer that comments on a third person, especially giving a negative tone, are not included here - even though the third party may have this page on watch (but unlikely) - it is like talking behind the back (irrespective of this same comment in edit summary of the page in question). It is better to directly discuss with that person and get things resolved. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Vasu, thanks for the reply. I am the last person to wound someone's feelings, but it becomes a do or die situation sometimes and some people dont understand unless you go hard on them. It is a part of their learning curve, as well as mine. I will try to remember your words above, but sometimes it's pointless. I got vexed and left wikipedia a year back and am now returning to see the same POV pushers and other characters still ruling the roost. The "No picture consensus" was just one example in a long list of things. Know why the Carnatic Music Article is still not a featured article? Because of some people that wont let it become so. Kris (talk)21:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The next item I wanted to cover in my next post at the Carnatic music talk page is that it should be at least a Good Article, if not FA. Let us work towards that as usual.
Though I have watched some of these proceedings on Carnatic music, I have not been deeply involved. Reading some comments after a long period of time is not going to give me a true picture. I am not here to take sides, but to keep contributing to Wikipedia and improve Indian articles to the best extent possible.
Having said that, though it may be true that many people are holding to POV, we have to work with or around such people. The article is more important than the POV. At the same time I have a question for you. Are others also holding to an opposite POV? It takes two to clap. How come there is not much contribution happening to overall article (my personal opinion only) - i.e., areas other than those in contention? If at least some are being neutral, then there should be some NPOV contributions that must be happening over time, isn't it?
Let us leave the past and only concentrate on the Good article to Featured article path. The world keeps moving not waiting for any of us - only Carnatic music and Indian projects will be losers if we don't move forward. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The eLearning Guild
Vasu, I am confused. I had an earlier objection from another admin, and I thought I had addressed those objections. The eLearning Guild is a professional organization with world-wide membership. I notice that other professional organizations (for example, IEEE) and their publications (for example, T+D which is the publication of the American Society for Training and Development) are permitted to have pages on Wikipedia. Why do you see us as different? Please refer to our web site http://www.elearningguild.com for further information about The Guild. Thank you for your help with my understanding. WmBrandon (talk).
Here are some of the points that may help you understand more the goals and guidelines of Wikipedia.
First thing I would like to point out is that there is no deadline for Wikipedia. Take your time to write a good article.
Please also go through other links from the above pages that may be relavant.
Finally, self-publishing is discouraged, especially due to possibilities of self-promotion (advertising) and conflict of interest. It is best if third parties start the article, and since you claim that the guild is notable, there must be many people who would like to start the article. Neutral point of view is another cornerstone of Wikipedia. You can still edit any content that may be incorrect in articles about you, your company, etc.
There are many more pointers at the top of this page about Wikipedia - please spend your time with those and you should be well on your way to contributing to Wikipedia. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 01:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Carnatic template
Vasu, the carnatic music template was created by me, but now I feel it does not add value to the article unless significant changes are made to it. That's why I removed it. About the TOC, it is better to leave it floating either left or right since otherwise there is a big vacuum and u need to scroll down a lot before u reach the contents. Kris (talk)02:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not able to understand why it does not add value? How does it not add value? Kindly refer to other articles of similar concepts in world arts and culture and this seems to be along the lines of such wikipedia articles. If you think it must be enhanced, please feel free. At the same time, I hope we don't need these kinds of reverts - i.e., previews are done, similar content on Wikipedia are compared and final shape is the one that is saved. As a long time contributor in my opinion, I would like to see you take such a professional step forward. New editors are the ones who are eager to contribute, but don't take time to even think of professional editing, or think that there could be spelling mistakes, wrong links, etc.
On the second point, I am surprised that this is the second item you are hung up on scrolling issues. I have even pointed out so many articles that have similar structure. There are going to be HUGE articles - and they are warranted. There are going to be items with big TOC - that is also warranted. Remember user has the option to shut off TOC in their preferences - Misc tab. There is no issue here. Moreover, Wikipedia needs to be uniform. I hope such non-conforming and unique changes are not done, unless you have enough examples in the Wikipedia to warrant such change. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 03:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
You are taking the average article as a barometer for TOC length, but the average article is not a good article, which is what we want CM to be. They add value where they are huge. I would presume 90% of readers who are seeking info on CM are not logged into wikipedia as users to turn it off, and even most users may not choose to turn off the TOC even if they dislike long TOCs. The only reason a floating TOC exists is to be used where the TOC is long. What are your reasons against floating TOCs? Kris (talk)10:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I have already pointed out enough LONG articles. Take any article of cities, states, countries, music, etc. Why don't you point out some good articles that follow your suggestion - then I will not even come near such improvements you are suggesting? VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Howdy from a regular at WP:RfD... I just want to let you know that WP:PROD does not apply to redirects (only articles themselves). If the redirect cannot be speedily deleted (WP:CSD), you can nominate it for deletion discussion at WP:RfD instead. Cheers! 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
As soon as the PRO-D was changed to RfD, I learned that. I only put down the reason in the Log of 23 Nov, so that the reason for RfD is known (instead of Procedural. Redirect was Prodded). That is why I said Reason for PRO-D given was . . . Hope it clarifies. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to let you know that I've restored this as per a user request at today's DRV, per the usual PROD procedure. You may wish to AFD it. Stifle (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much :-). Anyway, I wish to give you one good piece of advice. It is the quality of edits which matters more than the number of edits. So, ignore these edit counters for the time being. -RavichandarMy coffee shop15:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Elections
Hi do you think you could be a bit more concise with your pages, Either merge them in a few and/or add a bit of text to explain what it is. They are still taking up encyclopedia pages so should be written according to style guidelines. Wikipedia is not a directory. Aside from this you are not using any categories, stub categories or references whatsoever and could easily all be speedily deleted from wikipedia. The Bald OneWhite cat16:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok. The intention is to first clean-up templates. Such trivia should not be on templates. Kindly see Category:LS2004 templates for example. I am planning to remove them and have already nominated a few on 9th December. I will explain in more detail in 5 mins. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
If you plan on expanding them and are working with them please add a {{under construction}} tag or some notice to let other editors know what you are doing with them.Thanks The Bald OneWhite cat16:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Here is latest status. I am done with these. The idea was to create sub-page in place of a Template to hold this data (which I think is not appropriate for Wikipedia in first place - but I am not going there for now). Then the templates can be deleted and so can the categories. The templates were used in 1 or 2 pages - constituency page / state level page. To explain a bit more, for those interested - I was hoping to keep "similar" concept of transclusion where possible (hence sub pgaes), but in some cases, I have just substituted. This data has been substituted into the state pages in most cases. Later discussion may delete the whole thing - but I am not going to hypothesize or speculate on that. Please refer to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 10 for latest nominations and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 9 for earlier nominations. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
OK as long as they are replaced and are written into articles with proper categories and guidelines to style. Not sure though about why you need the - in the title. The Bald OneWhite cat17:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Like I said before, this data is probably too granular for Wikipedia, but that is a different matter to take up. Right now, I wanted to get rid of these (non)templates, as they dont fit into Template namespace guidelines.
Hyphen is hangover from current template naming convention and state level article naming convention used by previous editor. I could have avoided it, but did not. There are many such minor issues, but first concentration was to get rid of templates. Examples of minor issues - multiple links to same person, party or other such articles from each of these data.
By the way, I have also notified 2 editors - one person who started this in 2006 and the person who cloned this for Tamil Nadu (which is the one that triggered my investigation and mass edits). The second person has acknowledged that he is new and just followed other states' information done by other editors earlier. Anyway, am surprised that these are hanging around since 2006!
With 2009 elections around the corner, I did not want some overzealous new editor (like the person who had done about 40 templates this past 2 months) to start creating another 544 templates!
Hi, how can I contact a sysop or admin urgently. An edit of a highly visible template had a small bug. The editor and admin/sysop were contacted by posting talk messages. The fix is a simple removal of }} in the template {{WP India}}. Diff can be used to check out the addition of these extra characters. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Got it checked+fixed (I'd missed 2 lines of code) - I think it should be fine now though. Let me know if you find any other errors. Cheers for letting me know, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Thank you. I like your TB box as well as the response. Makes me smile and hopefully that can be passed on to others! Keep it going.
BTW. Can you point me to some links in Wikipedia on how to contact admins / sysop? I am doing something wrong in my search in Help - because have not got to correct pages that lead me to them! VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick and detail response. Yes, that is swell. I will copy this conv. into my talk page - and so it will be there or in my archive. Hope that is OK. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 06:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I have done the same with Arunachal West (Lok Sabha constituency). Another option to consider, if it should become useful to you at some point to transclude this elsewhere, is that you might simply transclude from there. To demonstrate what I mean:
I have transcluded that from the current article (and please feel free to kill it or neutralize it at any point; it's just here to illustrate), by putting <onlyinclude> in front of the starting point and </onlyinclude> after it. (Please note that this order is important; using includeonly will give very different results!) You may want to see Help:Transclusion#Partial transclusion for more information if this option appeals to you. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Noted. The first step for me was to just get rid of ALL the templates. Detail data is not for templates, as per the guidelines. I personally dont feel this level of data (how much votes people garnered in each election and their percentages) are Wikipedia worthy - just a prose of 1 or 2 lines indicating winner, etc. would be sufficient. I had raised a discussion in WP:INDIA too. I was not aware of the sub-page rules and hence will look into removing them too. It may take time to work on these - as I had just noticed these templates and wanted to help removing them. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 00:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on cleaning them up, and I do have an idea how very much time and effort you put into helping out here. :) I've substituted or pasted a good many into the articles and deleted the subpages. Wikipedia is a big project, and I'm sure that none of us could ever be familiar with every rule. I find new stuff all the time. Thanks for working on the unnecessary templates. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. Yes, it was good amount of work in first substituting / transcluding the data into the respective constituency pages / sub-pages. I think that, come 2009, we are going to have a problem in transcluding. We will have 2004 and 2009 data in the Constituency page, while the state level pages are by year. Hence 2004 data must go into one state level page, while 2009 data must go into another page! My personal opinion is that this data is too granular for Wikipedia. Hence, we can together ensure data is in the Constituency page and leave it at that. Future editors can solve this issue in 2009. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you have been helped. Replies to your questions. 1) It is better to have the content directly in the article than transcluded from sub-pages. Sub-pages are generally used outside the articlespace for archive pages, taskforces, documentation pages etc. 2) Yes this type of detailed information (votes per candidate) can be added the constituency articles. Regards, Ganeshk(talk)22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I do not agree this level of detail is required. At the same time I did not want to remove the hard work by others. So, I thought of this process and have now learnt the better way to do it. Thanks you all. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 00:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to be a good idea. The scope for Carnatic music within rāga seemed to be a little restrained by the context of rāga in all forms of Indian music.
Couple of thoughts I want to share on this. Scope can be expanded to other forms of music in South India that either use Carnatic scales and those that contributed to them. Examples are folk songs, chanting, villupattu, etc (as appropriate based on references we can locate). Another area of thought is the duplication of information in multiple pages - this page seems to share with Carnatic music page. Can we work on them in some way that there is less of duplication (causes problems with info is added to only one article)? VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure what to do about duplication - summary style can be annoying to that extent. If you have any ideas, I'm open to them. I think folk songs, chanting, villupattu etc. are very good ideas worth putting into the article - if you have any refs and starting points, please do include them when you get a chance. :) Appreciate your note, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I was told by Sriram V about Valluvar Kottam being the Mylapore long tank. i also verified the same with the help of 'Madras - The Architectural Heritage' a book brought out by INTACH. Sriram V is very popular for his writing in The Chennai edition of India Today and he writes on various streets in the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shillika (talk • contribs) 04:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know more about it. The reason I ask is that they are so far apart. Also, Thiruvalluvar Salai is near Mylapore tank. Is it possible that they are mixed up in some way? Please check and let us know. Thanks. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Even i was a little sceptical about this, but after a little digging through old map, the long tank has been referred to as mylapur tank and nungambakkam tank [1]--PlaneMad|YakYak11:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
In regard to Gurbeny mangar, the article certainly deserves to be speedily deleted, as it is an incoherent rewrite of Emily Osment with a non-notable person's name substituted. However, it cannot be considered a copyright violation, because Emily Osment, like all Wikipedia articles, is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), and thus can be used on any web site that complies with the GFDL, which, of course, Wikipedia itself does. --Metropolitan90(talk)09:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to mark as G3 - vandalism. Misleading information intentionally added through edited copy of Emily Osment. The problem was I did not know how to provide this extra information - probably should write in Talk page, after marking G3 (using Twinkle)? Guidance will be useful for future work. Thanks. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that a G3 vandalism delete is probably the best thing to do with this article. On the other hand, I don't think there's any provision to include supplemental information in the {{db-vandalism}} template. One alternative, besides using the article talk page, would be to use a {{notice}} template such as the following: {{notice|This article is a hoax based on copying the [[Emily Osment]] article.}} That would at least ensure that any admin reviewing the speedy deletion candidates would understand what the problem is. --Metropolitan90(talk)09:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. That is exactly the extra bit that I was looking for, not only for this, but some other similar issues I had seen in the past 3 months. Will do that henceforth! VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Help...
Please help me with Actress Meena Filmography table.. The space for Co-Stars is too little and the space for Notes is too much. If you can, make tables for each language and don't put everything in the same table.. and help me write down meena's website on the info box.. thanks
unsigned comment by Deva21Simbu (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Please enter information in co-stars column. That will automatically adjust the table. Don't worry about the layout when there is no information. After completing the work I can review and see if there is any possibility of improving. Usually the algorithm for forming tables is pretty good (browser level I think), which should be pretty fine in most cases. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 03:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Admin help needed
{{adminhelp}}Jason Delane Burger meets G11, A1 and A3 for WP:CSD. But author removed CSD notice - still has not added ANY content or context. The only item there is a link to the home page of the person. I still think it should be CSD on G11. Procedurally should this go through an elaborate AFD? I dont think it is worth the time and effort of Wikipedians to debate such things - it should be CSD. Kindly do the needful. If you still think AFD, then I will do that on an admin's reply here. Thanks. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Aitias knows about it (see here) and chose not to remove it, so I do not think more action is necessary. Regards SoWhy13:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
R3
Hello. CSD R3 only applies to pages that have been created as redirects. In general, redirect pages that have useful page history should not be speedy deleted. Especially not if they are the first content contribution of a new editor. There is no harm in archiving it under a redirect and explaining why. Cheers.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
First, a detail article already exists with redirect target. The content is a sub-set of the target page. Hence there is no useful info there.
Second, there is a big typo in the name (Tesing and then has a full-stop at end of name). Hence it is not a useful title!
Can you please suggest what should be done with such unnecessary items?
I understand both problems. But the speedy deletion criterion you chose is for redirects and not for making effectively a decision that content is not worth saving. Therefore WP:CSD explicitly states: "Redirect pages that have useful page history should never be speedy deleted." In general redundant info can be safely archived under a redirect. It may not be useful, but it is also often not harmful. More generally I'd suggest to
Consider the other editors' point of view and at least let them know about the redirect. Items may be unnecessary, editors are essential. Once engaged in discussion, maybe they happily improve the existing article and tag their own for deletion themselves. If we don't even write a welcome and delete both the article and the redirect we leave them bewildered and may never see them again.
Separate problems, e.,g a spelling issue from a content one. E,g, move the article first to a better title and then redirect with a note or in more complex cases after merge tag and discussion. Or the other way round I've now moved it to Liquid penetrant testing. I'll remove the remaining redirect later as it now has no edit history.
Consider RFD for redirects that do not fit the deliberately narrow CSD, but i think in this case we're done.
Ah well, it was a copyright violation of [3] anyways ;-) so it's gone now. But let's add that type of check to the list of suggestions. But if I had considered that earlier we wouldn't have had this chat. Cheers.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Ya want fries with that? 
l'aquatique || talk 05:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS talk 11:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](https://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~poyntz/India/images/Madras1893.jpg){kind=link}
