Talk:India/Archive 18

message: In light of this discussion, I propose we create a Talk:India/Sandbox for those wanting to make major changes to the article. Since not everyone may like this proposal, those who wish to try it out may add their name below. As I said in the Boldness section, which is linked above, I hope this will spark a more egalitarian environment where accusations WP:OWN go away.
There are two ways it could be done as I far as I see. We can plonk the current India article and go from there except people who wish to make conflicting changes can't show it. I think each user having their own section, where they quote what sentences/section in their opinion needs improving and then reveal their planned changes. Other users can then copyedit the planned changes if there are issues with spelling, grammar and WP:MOS. Very major changes can also be objected of course and will be disabandoned if consensus disagrees.
If anyone sees any huge obstacles with this idea please let me know. I expect the users who agree to this to stop any major editing to the main India article until a consensus forms. Only minor changes and vandalism reverts would be allowed. This page is where essentially all the WP:BOLDness can be unleashed. GizzaDiscuss © 13:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree the first option of dumping the whole page doesn't make much sense for a long article like India.  Another option would be to make it a "text review" along the lines of the Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review (which is a lower-level version of the Feature picture review); in other words, people would leave their potential changes, say  from a sentence long to a paragraph long, and various people would leave their comments and suggestions.  That way the editor who initially put up the text for review, still does the final revising and has more of a sense of control at having created the text.  In in that way of thinking, it could be called Talk:India/Text Review, rather than sandbox.  Anyway, more anon.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:India/Sandbox]] 

message: Hi, In keeping with DaGizza's suggestions, I have created a peer-review and sandbox subpage Talk:India/Text Peer Review and Sandbox (shortcut WP:TITPRS).  It is modeled on the picture peer review for Featured Pictures, but in addition includes a Work Area or Sandbox.  The page describes how to request text for peer review or communal edit, with a demo example, DemoText.  Please take a look at it.  The page is for text that can vary in size from a sentence up to a large paragraph (approx. 250 words), but is not for entire sections of the India page.  Indeed one the underlying principles of the page is that addition of new text is best done in manageable bits.  I will set up a list of volunteer "reviewers" on that page as well. Please let me know what you think and please sign up if you like the idea. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of the day, if some users want to use the India page itself as a sandbox, we can't stop them, unless we get into mediation.  But this way, at least among the editors who choose to use this approach, there will be more camaraderie and less headache, and hopefully this will help in producing better prose as well.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes.  (Commitment to not making non-trivial edits directly to the India page without first submitting the edit to the peer-review and getting feedback from others.  This peer-review is for textual edits, not pictures.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Please also see the "principles" in WP:TITPRS.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok, thanks Nikkul 06:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk:India/Text Peer Review and Sandbox]] 

message: ;Note: Please see WP:TITPRS, especially the description and principles.  The only commitment required is that to using this process over unilateral edits made directly to the India page. Minor edits (corrections of typos or grammar, reverts of vandalism etc.)   obviously do not require this process.  Volunteering doesn't mean commitment of any specific time, just a willingness to help out when you can and in whatever fashion you can.
*User:DaGizza
*User:Fowler&fowler
*user:rueben lys  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  (Commitment to not making non-trivial edits directly to the India page without first submitting the edit to the peer-review and getting feedback from others.  This peer-review is for textual edits, not pictures.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS Please also see the "principles" in WP:TITPRS.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok, thanks Nikkul 06:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Willing to volunteer

message: I have created two sandboxes, one each for the Economy and Demographics sections.  I dumped the 'stable' versions of both sections on the respective pages and then proceeded to bring over the new additons/expansions.  Please check the history of the two pages to understand.  After bringing over the new additions, I proceeded to cpedit the economy page and have somewhat 'normalised' it to include both rueben/Otolemur's additions and the text that already existed.  Of course, there were some repetitions and I got rid of them.  I request that editors take a look at it and just start editing it.  The titpr idea seems lame to me in that I fear there will be more talk and less work.  Sarvagnya 18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sheesh.. i put in some forty minutes of effort into that /Economy page and an overzealous admin deletes it!  Can Sarvask or Gizza or somebody please undelete it asap.  Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Update - okay.. an admin has undeleted it.  So can we all start cpediting those pages instead of blogging on titpr?  btw, how can i find out who undeleted the page?  is there a way? Sarvagnya 18:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are of course welcome to your method.  I am sorry I shall not be a part of it.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[/Economy]], [[/Demographics]] 

message: ::In a post above in this section, user:Sarvagnya exhorted me to, "For a more in depth view into it, get your hands on this book by Shivarama Karanth, no less, and take your ill informed nonsense elsewhere."  Well, I did get my hands on the book (in the hard copy) and I read the relevant chapters, and I am now able to quote from user:Sarvagnya's source itself: 
:*From: Karanth, K. Shivarama. (1997).  Yakṣagāna (Forward by H. Y. Sharada Prasad). Abhinav Publications.  252 pages. .  "As I look at the traditional Yakṣagāna theatre of today, I feel impelled to look back towards its 'stage' ..." (p. 21)  Since the earliest known Yakṣagāna play belongs to 1564 AD, we can safely assume that Yakṣagāna plays or prasangas orginated prior to AD 1500.  A good number of Yakṣagāna plays are now available to us ...  The present theatrical form of the Yakṣagāna play consists of three different mediums of expression, language, music, and dance, besides costume and make-up.  The written songs and verses of the early plays have survived, ... Its spoken prose, never learnt by heart but always improvised on the spur of the moment, has vanished. (p. 24)  "The Yakṣagāna folk-theatre is no isolated theatrical form in India.  We have a number of such theatrical traditions all around Karnataka... In far off Assam we have similar plays going on by the name of  Ankia Nat, in neighouring Bengal we have the very popular Jatra plays.  Maharashtra has Tamasa. (p. 26)  In some Indian folk plays we find songs and speeches interwoven as in Yakṣagāna or Tamasa.  In some, elaborate gesture takes the place of speech as in Kudiyata, Kathakali or Kuchipudi.  In some, written prose is spoken by characters and in some, all speech is extempore as in Yakṣagāna and Tamasa." (p. 26) 
:*From: Karanth, K. Shivarama. (1997).  Yakṣagāna (Forward by H. Y. Sharada Prasad). Abhinav Publications.  252 pages. .  "Yaksagana plays are often likened to Kathakali plays of Kerala or Kuchipudi plays of Andhra... Kathakali of Kerala has its own musical style, but it eschews the spoken word entirely.  Instead it uses a gesture language.  But Yakṣagāna employs the speech medium extensively in depicting its dramatic situations.  Here, the function of dance is not total but only partial, though all the characters who appear on stage do dance ... The essential difference between a Yakṣagāna drama and the other two systems is the role of speech.  Possibilities of using dance medium along with music for the total expression of a drama are there (in Yakṣagāna); at places it (Yakṣagāna) needs further exploitation for better articulation." (p 103).  
:*From: Karanth, K. Shivarama'. (1997).  Yakṣagāna (Forward by H. Y. Sharada Prasad). Abhinav Publications.  252 pages. .  "Yakṣagānas dance form consists mostly of the nṛtta aspects of footwork and rythmical body movements—including those of the neck, arms and palms.  It contains some fine postures, body flexions, as well as a few squatting, jumping and reeling movements.  What it lacks is a stylised gesture language employing symbolic mudrās to depict parts of speech.  The few gestures and symbols used are the ones that one normally uses in his day to day conversation.... This is not to assert that Yakṣagāna has the most perfect variety of dance.  Because of the importance given to the spoken word, certain rhythmic forms like harmony of body lines and gestures have not been studied and cultivated, and consequently the aesthetic aspects of grace and meaning suffer. (p 104)   Charms of the female personality are revealed through various movements, postures, eye, neck, shoulder, and palm movements.  But in certain postures that are considered basic to Yakṣagāna, I feel there is more ugliness than charm." (p 104).
:*The reference, Seminar on Karanth from Vihangama The Newsletter of the Indira Gandhi National Centre of Arts (IGNCA), Vol. V September - October 2002, (provided by user:Sarvagnya) itself says: "Dr. Karanth has made a singular contribution to the preservation, reformation and propagation of the great Indian theatrical art Yakshagana... In the academic session, ... Shri K. Mohan ... said the traditional Yakshagana  theatre was largely untouched by his innovations." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shivarama Karanth's Book on ''Yaksagana''

message: User Otolemur has not only added subsections to the India page, but to the United States and Pakistan pages as well.  On the US page his edits have changed the Table of Contents from this to this, and given his editing pattern on that page, he is likely to add more subsections there.  He did the same on the Pakistan page, but after being challenged there, decided to temporarily back off.  Since some of his newly created subsections on the Pakistan page were three lines long, and those on the currently locked-down India page are only a hair's breadth longer, his approach appears to be one of selecting subtopics and creating the subsections first and then filling them up with text.  I am myself of the opposite school.  I prefer to add the content first, to develop it, and only then, if the text suggests it (by its theme and length), do I create subsections.  I am not necessarily against subsections, but I prefer to create them towards the end of text development; besides, I feel that this early straight-jacketing of contents prevents exploration of themes that might otherwise arise.  
Since the India page is currently locked down–consequently, since time is of the essence–and since one of the bones of contention antecedent to the lock-down was the creation of the many subsections, I suggest that we conduct a simple straw poll rather than pursue more protracted forms of consensus building.  Please cast your vote below.  Please sign.
;1. For subsections now:
;2. Against subsections at the present stage (of text development):
#Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Straw Poll for Subsections 

message: Obviously, this doesn't need to be edited immediately, but the second paragraph has some serial comma issues.  It's important for consistency above all, here.  The text of my suggested change follows, to replace the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction.
Four major world religions---Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism---originated here, while Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism arrived in the first millennium CE and shaped the region's variegated culture.
--AaronRosenberg 22:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this topic has come up before on this page.  The serial comma is not as common in British and Indian English (used on this page) as it is in American English.  Consequently, on this page it is used only if it is needed to resolve potential ambiguity.  Since no ambiguity arises in the sentence under consideration, the serial comma is not used.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some minor cleanup 

message: I have started making use of this page. I intially only wanted to copyedit a sentence on health in the demographics section but I then realised the references citing the sentence don't exactly say what is stated in the article. GizzaDiscuss © 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added some suggestions there.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First suggestion on [[Talk:India/Text Peer Review and Sandbox]] 

message: Since the straw poll for sub-sections seems to be moving along, I thought it might be time to have a straw poll for new additions.  I have created a set of choices below which allow the voter to choose between anything from no expansion to the addition of a full section.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Straw Poll for Potential New Additions 

message: Finally, the last issue that is dogging the page–the problem of images.  Rotation of images was proposed by some people and opposed by others.  I had originally created a simple straw poll below, but since some votes were ambiguous, I have clarified the categories, so that there is no confusion.  Since a number of people have already expressed their opinions, I am adding their names (for or against).  Please correct if I have made a mistake.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am not necessarily against rotation (see my posts  F&f rotation1, F&f rotation2, F&f rotation3 going back to November 2006), however I prefer the pictures to be "Featured Pictures or near-feature quality like Sakyamuni Siddhartha Gautama."  ("Near-feature quality" means that they came awfully close to being selected in the FPC review, but weren't selected in the end.)  It is not enough to just have "high-res" images, it is the composition of the image that is equally important, and in my opinion the best expertise available for such quality image selection is at WP:FP.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best case would be having FPs from different parts of India and about differents aspects of India. If we had an excess of those I wouldn't mind rotation. Having said that, I think quality (and I mean the upmost quality) should only have preference ceteris parabus. Though I wouldn't mind non-FPs, they have to decent images, not shoddy and ugly images that dull the page. GizzaDiscuss © 05:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing I can suggest, which I think can end this debate about the use of photos in the culture section. Lets select 1 photo from each state (if available) related to the culture of the state and we can change these photos every fortnight (15 days), much importance can be given to any picture of festival which falls during the period. This was what i proposed exactly 2 months ago. See here. Amartyabag  TALK2ME 05:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to problem of maintaining balance that DaGizza mentioned above is another problem I've alluded to above. Since the average user who reads the India article for information likely reads it in one sitting (or at least doesn't keep coming back day after day), the images presented to the user will be unbalanced anyway, no matter how often the images are rotated.  What does rotational balance mean then?  A kind of statistical balance over a large number of readers? In other words, what any one reader will get by way of image content will be unbalanced, but the 180,000 yearly readers (of the India page) together will carry balanced image content in their collective unconscious?  Imagine if we rotated text in the same way: would any one be satisfied?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rotation image does not mean anything for someone who will visit India article just once.  However, there is no evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case amongst the "average reader." Another benefit of a rotation image is that it makes it less likely to have giant arguments over which image to pick when there are three or four equally good candidates :P --Blacksun 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I notice the use of phrases like "regional balance" without specifying the context - linguistic, cultural or historic regions or the traditional north-south divide or even perhaps the unofficial regions listed here. Personally I would prefer the latter as it simplifies the task of deciding how much a particular region is being represented. Green Giant 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Complicating the matter further is that there is a world of difference between images selected on WP:PINSPC (as formulated by user:Saravask in his post here) and the images being collected on Talk:India/Rotation.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are you fixated on the notion that the image "has to be" a true objective representation of "India". Nobody is contesting that. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ragib, I would like to ask you; If you dont think the rotation will give a regionally balanced view, then how would you solve the problem of showing people an image of India in a nutshell? According to you, which one image sums up Indian culture in a nutshell? Which one image shows literature, architecture, food, sports, festivals, tribes folk culture, urban culture, etc? Nikkul 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say, Ragib has a valid and a strong point - Do the pro-rotation editors think that users will come to the page again and again in each rotation cycle, so that the rotation of images will give them a regionally-balanced view? Will someone care to reply? KnowledgeHegemony 08:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These points have been touched upon and answered before.  Ultimately, readers get to read what editors write.  If they dont like what they read, the doors are open and they're free to jump in and edit (we all were readers before we became editors. Right?).  Its wikipedia, remember.  And editors follow the wiki process.. of which consensus is a major part.  And somebody's favourite pics(whoever put them there long back) squatting there for eternity is not consensus.  Give me one good reason why I shouldnt replace the Ajanta pic or the BSE pic or even the Taj, for that matter.  Just dont give me the "its a FP" crap.  If you think there's any anamoly here, you should probably put it down to wikipedia's own faults.  But then, wikipedia wouldnt exist without some of its faults. Sarvagnya 10:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "...all the talk about rotation seem to be for appeasing *editors* of the article, and NOT the *readers*...." - how did you assume that readers are pleased with the article's present state or its choice of images?  And what makes you so sure that they'll be displeased with 'rotation'?  Sarvagnya 10:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point that Ragib is making and that I have made in Why rotation doesn't make sense above, is not whether readers will be displeased with rotation, but rather that they won't know the difference between images that have been "squatting there for eternity" and those that have been squatting there since the onset of the new rotational cycle, no matter how short it might be.  As for not telling you "its a (sic) FP," need I remind you that there is no consensus as of yet for rotation without the FP-condition.  The vote stands at 10 to 8 for rotation (without the FP-condition).  If the vote of 18 to 16 for the Toda dairy images was deemed not to be a consensus, then 10 to 8 for rotation (without the FP condition) is not consensus either.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Straw Poll for Rotation of Images 

message: Just to clarify my position, I am not totally against a rotational system (this was what I wrote before There is some benefit in a "rotation" system but the biggest problem with it is that the image debate will never go away. Half of the discussions here would be forever about images. Perhaps we should try to feature pictures from regions not represented here at the moment, add those and leave it there.) but I do other some other concerns. One of the criteria in WP:WIAFA is stability. Traditionally, it has nearly always referred edit wars and drastic content changes, not image changes. However, if one sees inactive WP:STABLE, WP:FLAGGED and WP:1.0, you will notice that stable versions of articles will be of importance for Wikipedia in the future. Regardless of its quality, the India article has high priority and a particular version may be tagged as "stable" in the future. GizzaDiscuss © 22:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too am not necessarily against rotation (see my posts  F&f rotation1, F&f rotation2, F&f rotation3 going back to November 2006), however I prefer the pictures to be "Featured Pictures or near-feature quality like Sakyamuni Siddhartha Gautama."  ("Near-feature quality" means that they came awfully close to being selected in the FPC review, but weren't selected in the end.)  It is not enough to just have "high-res" images, it is the composition of the image that is equally important, and in my opinion the best expertise available for such quality image selection is at WP:FP.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best case would be having FPs from different parts of India and about differents aspects of India. If we had an excess of those I wouldn't mind rotation. Having said that, I think quality (and I mean the upmost quality) should only have preference ceteris parabus. Though I wouldn't mind non-FPs, they have to decent images, not shoddy and ugly images that dull the page. GizzaDiscuss © 05:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing I can suggest, which I think can end this debate about the use of photos in the culture section. Lets select 1 photo from each state (if available) related to the culture of the state and we can change these photos every fortnight (15 days), much importance can be given to any picture of festival which falls during the period. This was what i proposed exactly 2 months ago. See here. Amartyabag  TALK2ME 05:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to problem of maintaining balance that DaGizza mentioned above is another problem I've alluded to above. Since the average user who reads the India article for information likely reads it in one sitting (or at least doesn't keep coming back day after day), the images presented to the user will be unbalanced anyway, no matter how often the images are rotated.  What does rotational balance mean then?  A kind of statistical balance over a large number of readers? In other words, what any one reader will get by way of image content will be unbalanced, but the 180,000 yearly readers (of the India page) together will carry balanced image content in their collective unconscious?  Imagine if we rotated text in the same way: would any one be satisfied?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rotation image does not mean anything for someone who will visit India article just once.  However, there is no evidence to suggest that this is indeed the case amongst the "average reader." Another benefit of a rotation image is that it makes it less likely to have giant arguments over which image to pick when there are three or four equally good candidates :P --Blacksun 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I notice the use of phrases like "regional balance" without specifying the context - linguistic, cultural or historic regions or the traditional north-south divide or even perhaps the unofficial regions listed here. Personally I would prefer the latter as it simplifies the task of deciding how much a particular region is being represented. Green Giant 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Complicating the matter further is that there is a world of difference between images selected on WP:PINSPC (as formulated by user:Saravask in his post here) and the images being collected on Talk:India/Rotation.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why are you fixated on the notion that the image "has to be" a true objective representation of "India". Nobody is contesting that. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ragib, I would like to ask you; If you dont think the rotation will give a regionally balanced view, then how would you solve the problem of showing people an image of India in a nutshell? According to you, which one image sums up Indian culture in a nutshell? Which one image shows literature, architecture, food, sports, festivals, tribes folk culture, urban culture, etc? Nikkul 02:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say, Ragib has a valid and a strong point - Do the pro-rotation editors think that users will come to the page again and again in each rotation cycle, so that the rotation of images will give them a regionally-balanced view? Will someone care to reply? KnowledgeHegemony 08:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These points have been touched upon and answered before.  Ultimately, readers get to read what editors write.  If they dont like what they read, the doors are open and they're free to jump in and edit (we all were readers before we became editors. Right?).  Its wikipedia, remember.  And editors follow the wiki process.. of which consensus is a major part.  And somebody's favourite pics(whoever put them there long back) squatting there for eternity is not consensus.  Give me one good reason why I shouldnt replace the Ajanta pic or the BSE pic or even the Taj, for that matter.  Just dont give me the "its a FP" crap.  If you think there's any anamoly here, you should probably put it down to wikipedia's own faults.  But then, wikipedia wouldnt exist without some of its faults. Sarvagnya 10:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "...all the talk about rotation seem to be for appeasing *editors* of the article, and NOT the *readers*...." - how did you assume that readers are pleased with the article's present state or its choice of images?  And what makes you so sure that they'll be displeased with 'rotation'?  Sarvagnya 10:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point that Ragib is making and that I have made in Why rotation doesn't make sense above, is not whether readers will be displeased with rotation, but rather that they won't know the difference between images that have been "squatting there for eternity" and those that have been squatting there since the onset of the new rotational cycle, no matter how short it might be.  As for not telling you "its a (sic) FP," need I remind you that there is no consensus as of yet for rotation without the FP-condition.  The vote stands at 10 to 8 for rotation (without the FP-condition).  If the vote of 18 to 16 for the Toda dairy images was deemed not to be a consensus, then 10 to 8 for rotation (without the FP condition) is not consensus either.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This is the photoshopped image by user Nikkul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NorthBlock.jpg
This is the original image: http://flickr.com/photos/nimrodbar/31437132/
I have serious quality issues with the photoshopped image: tacky and cgi "fake" looking - like one of those concept images for a new building that is planned.  Nikkul mirrored one half of the image and pasted it on the other half to "get rid of the people" - and also did some lighting effects.  So now we have people who should not be there + the image looks fake on inspection - because well it is fake!  I discussed this with Nikkul about it but we seem to disagree on this.  I would like to know what other people think.  I find the original image just fine (with the people). --Blacksun 09:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure those two links you provided above are exactly the same picture? I understand the people may have been edited out but the cars in the parking area are different. Regarding which image is better, I think the Flickr is because it looks more natural as well as not as blurry and dull. GizzaDiscuss © 09:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikkul took the left half of the image and pasted it on the right half.  That is why you have the soldier in the front on both sides.  --Blacksun 09:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, after realising that you tend to notice how freakishly and unrealistically symmetrical Nikkul's image is. GizzaDiscuss © 10:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikkul, you should be ashamed of yourself.  After all you've been through on the India page, you go back to the goofy stuff.  Why?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's lucky that there wasn't a distintive cloud formation or something. Having said that, shrubs that do not exist magically appear in Nikkul's version. Such an image has no place at all on Wikipedia, let alone the India page. GizzaDiscuss © 10:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was my feeling to on the matter.  I have uploaded the original image over the edited one as it is used in various other articles too.  Hopefully, user Nikkul will see where we are coming from.  It is a good image he obtained from the photographer and there is no need for editing it.  --Blacksun 11:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please Nikkul, don't put that mirrored image back - or other heavily photoshopped images. The non-tweaked images are fine, and I for one appreciate the effort you put into finding good images. Just try and restrain your artistic impulses... ॐ Priyanath talk 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I just thought taking out the people would make the image look cleaner. The image hasnt been changed besides that (no clouds added or anything). And since the building is symetrical, i dont think it really matters. Seriously, I dont think people really care if there is an extra bush on one side of the Parliament building. Personally, I think the mirrored image looks very similar to the actual and is much cleaner. Still, if there is such an opposition to mirroring it, I have no problem at all leaving it the way it is now. Afterall, I am the one who uploaded it. Anyway, dont try to demean me. I have contributed a lot to wiki, much more than one realizes (see my userpage if u want proof). Nikkul 01:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I most sincerely appreciate that you've put so much effort into finding and uploading so many good images. Images are extremely important to articles, as the never-ending image disputes here prove. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't think anybody doubts your good intentions Nikkul. I just hope you realise that editing an image so much makes it look fake. Why do we have to change things when there is so much real beauty in India? GizzaDiscuss © 04:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need opinion on Nikkul's North Block image 

message: Why are we calling Yakshagana a dance form when it is a type of theater as shown by Fowler with half a dozen credible citations?  If you want to mention Yakshagana then hammer out an acceptable line for folk theater in the culture section instead of giving false information to the reader.  If you disagree with categorizing Yakshagana as folk theater instead of dance then please provide some evidence.  I might have missed the dance form sides reasoning in all the other things that came up recently.--Blacksun 11:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about something like this, which is the most accurate?
  
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Now thats what you call, accurate and appropriate detailing. Please improve Indian dances & Indian folk dances with this piece of information. KnowledgeHegemony 13:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent - can we get a comment from the people who were edit warring over Yaksagana?  --Blacksun 13:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This much for now.  gtg.  Sarvagnya 16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's have your references then.  The word for "classical folk theatre," is "traditional theatre,"  not classical dance.  Folk theatre, as you indicated earlier is not a perjorative term.  Your primary reference Shivarama Karanth, which you touted earlier, clearly not only thinks of it as folk theatre, but also doesn't think Yakshagana is as well developed a dance form (in terms of its stylized gestures) as Kathakali or Kuchipudi, as I have shown in the quotes from his book above in the subsection on his book above.  Be aware though that I have also already looked at a dozen other references on JSTOR and other academic catalogs that classify Yakshagana as very much theatre.  The main point being the presence of spoken prose lines, which Kathakali and Kuchipudi don't have and the absence of an elaborate syntax of stylized gestures, which K & K do have.  I will await your references.  And please only academic papers or scholarly books or .edu web sites.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I don't know in what sense you are using the word classical, but if you mean the age of the art form, it is no older than Jatra or Tamasa.  According to Karanth (and EB) the first known performances go back to the 15th century AD. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yakshagana Redux 

message: User:Sarvagnya made a number of edits yesterday whose edit summaries once again fail to rise to an acceptable level of clarity or accuracy.  Here are the edit summaries:
*Edit summary1: "removed condescending "regional" crap. all languages are equally national or regional. also removed peacock about most recogniseable face - "show" dont "tell") for this edit.  
**No, all languages in India are not equally regional.  As we found out in the long-drawn out dispute over the infobox languages (see my exhaustive secondary sources here, Hindi (spoken by 40% of the population) and English are lingua francas for different regions of the country in ways that the other "regional" languages are not.  For example, Kannada, in contrast, is spoken by only 4.3% of India's population.
::*oh.. you want to play the 'percentage' game?  Fine.  Lets start with "..Hindus form 80% of India's population..".. now let's get an image of a 'fine example' of "Hindu" architecture to replace the Taj (there's plenty of them and they're even on the World Heritage list, just like the taj).  And how about qualifying every non-Hindu entity with terms like "minority", "miniscule minority", "regional" etc., every step of the way. Sarvagnya 21:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fowler - I think you have your own explaining to do in justifying the continued addition of less than notable and relevant images to this article. Your circular 'logic' in explaining the addition of the Verma painting as being more notable than all the combined works and achievements of Tagore is a bit of a stretch, to put it civilly. An need I remind readers that you have systematically reverted and attacked any 'outside' editors who attempt to edit the India article, violating WP:OWN? Does anyone here wonder why a major country article has so few editors, and so few new editors? ॐ Priyanath talk 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear user:Priyanath, As I have patiently explained above once already, the painting is about The Recognition of Śakuntalā, which is not only the greatest work of Sanskrit drama, but also one of the great works of world literature.  There is nothing in Tagore that compares with Kalidasa's masterpiece.  See the references in the straw poll below.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Sarvagnya]]'s unclear and inaccurate edit summaries 

message: #Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that in the Culture section of the England article, two out of the three images are of England's greatest poet/author, Shakespeare (a painting of him, no photographs available), and a statue of a composer. Images of great artists do add to the value of an article, especially when they are as notable as a Shakespeare or Tagore. The Sakuntala painting is also an attractive addition to the article—less notable than Tagore, certainly, but a big improvement over the image that, unbelievably, held that spot for the last  year. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Priyanath, England is not a FA article and I do not agree with putting Shakespeare picture in culture section either.  Please, please, please - explain to me how does putting a mug shot of Tagore (or Shakespeare) add to the value of the article.  They are not famous for how they LOOKED but for their work.  For example, I would rather have an image of a play written by Shakespeare than his picture.  If you can explain to me this I have no problem supporting you.  --Blacksun 21:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture is there not to educate people about how Tagore looked!  It is there to pay tribute to a person who rendered yeoman service towards enriching and propagating 'Indian culture'.  For that matter, every "mugshot" that we have on wikipedia is because those people have signal contributions in their own fields to their name.  I could use your argument to get rid of each of those mugshots. Sarvagnya 22:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see - so we are supporting inclusion of image of Tagore not to educate people but to pay tribute to Tagore.  Stupid me of thinking that this was an encyclopedia.  --Blacksun 22:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if we are to assume equal cultural significance of the two images, the Sakuntala painting is more pleasing aesthetically. The Tagore image stands out, and looks odd with the rest of the page. Mug shots on the page would make it look ugly, and would take something away from the page. Would we ever consider changing the Gandhi-Nehru image to Gandhi's mugshot in the History section? --Keynes.john.maynard 11:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: For ''The Recognition of Śakuntalā'' image

message: Hi, Do we know for sure that the tiger is a Bengal tiger?  The coloring, the paw-size, and body proportion look Siberian to me, but I could be wrong.  If we don't know that it is a Bengal tiger, then it should be removed.  Thanks.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "edit protected" template to get this article out of :Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests.  Basically, since the article isn't protected now, the template doesn't belong here.  -- Arvind 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bengal or Siberian? 

message: This follows up on earlier discussions in the sections Yakshagana, Reliable Sources Not YouTube on Yakshagana, Shivarama Karanth's Book on Yakshagana, and Yakshagana Redux.   The current sentence on music and dance in the culture section, which includes Yakshagana in its list of classical dances, reads:   
The three choices for voting are:
===Choice A: Expanded version with separate paragraphs on Music, Dance, and Theatre===
This choice replaces the current paragraph above with the three short paragraphs (one each for music, dance and theatre) shown in Fowler&fowler's post (immediately following Blacksun's post) here
Votes:
# Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Straw Poll on the inclusion of [[Yakshagana]] in the list of classical dances 

message: This choice replaces the current paragraph above with the three short paragraphs (one each for music, dance and theatre) shown in Fowler&fowler's post (immediately following Blacksun's post) here
Votes:
# Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Choice A: Expanded version with separate paragraphs on Music, Dance, and Theatre

message: From what I have observed, I think rotation is great. Over the last few visits to the actual article, I saw different faces of India esp the fauna section and also the culture section that I had never known existed (like the longtail squirrel) . I know that we have some ways to go before the image files are finalized, but I think this concept is very very progressive.
I think its the only way to solve the problem of showing India in all its forms instead of limiting Indian culture to just the Taj Mahal and the Toda Hut. And being one of the first people who brought this concept to the India page, I am very happy that of its success. I am actually very impressed by how much I can learn each time I visit the culture section or the fauna section. 
To anyone who opposes the rotation, I'd like to ask them how they intend to solve the problem of showing India's cuisine, dress, dance, festivals, architecture, literature, sports, traditions, etc. etc. etc. in 2 pictures. Nikkul 07:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: eh, I know I supported rotation but I am not happy with the implementation so far.  Also, I dont know if I am happy with using a high number of images for each place holder.  In my opinion that takes away from the more relevant images as they dont get shown as often.  When I supported rotation, I had imagined a scenario where each addition to the pool would be discussed first and we would agree as a community on a small pool of images to be shown.  Lets see how it goes.  On a more technical note, I find the method of addition bit confusing - I know user Saravask explained it above but I am still confused heh.  --Blacksun 08:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its well programmed by Saravask. But the images ain't regulated. There should be a nom procedure. But its looking fine. Lets hope this works out well.KnowledgeHegemony 14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an excellent start, considering the history. People's good will has been noteworthy. Everyone here probably sees a few images they think should be removed, and I bet they are different images for each person. That must mean it's working :-). ॐ Priyanath talk 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation So Far 

message: This is an involved point, so please bear with me.  Although I had suggested rotation on this page in November 2006 (see F&f rotation1, F&f rotation2, F&f rotation3), I hadn't then thought about it with any care.  More recently I came to oppose rotation because I didn't see it solving the so-called problem of balanced image content for the average reader, who likely doesn't go to the article enough times to catch all the images.  This was the subject of my post Why rotation doesn't make sense; Ragib made the same point more eloquently in his post here.  In the end, I voted to support rotation with the FP-quality condition in the straw poll above, thinking that image quality was the biggest problem related to rotation.  However, even if all our images were Featured Pictures, there potentially is an even bigger problem looming ahead: the danger of all images becoming vanilla images, and leaving no affect or memory in the typical reader.  
This struck me only this morning, when I was looking again at some of the images in the Encarta article on India.  One of them, in particular, had struck me many months before when I first saw it.  The picture shows a music class in the Veena in progress in Chennai, with four girls, each holding their instrument, and listening to their teacher.  Under it was this caption:   One of the points that the caption makes, that "classical culture" is the province increasingly of the wealthy few, is a subtle point and bears repetition when it is made visually.  I, most certainly, had almost forgotten the image, even though it was one of my more vivid experiences from that Encarta article.  The image's many points would most certainly have been lost, had the image been replaced by another image making some other point.  Memorable images require return visits.  They require stability within the text, for them to settle in, as it were, in our consciousness.  This to me potentially is the ultimate emptiness about rotations; they could turn even well-crafted images into vanilla images.  Either the complex points like that in the Veena caption will not be made, or, when made, will not stick, because of their profusion.  
People don't have to reply to this post, since it is a conjecture; however, I would be happy if they think about this possibility as this rotation trial unfolds this week. Meanwhile, however, I am changing my vote to "against rotation." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People come here to get information now, not in the future. Most people are not like you. If someone likes an image, they will note down what it is showing. If they really like it, they will save the image to their computer. I have done that so many times when I used to be a reader on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia changes. It isnt made so that the same things stay forever. Also, given that  India has 1 billion people, each contributing his or her bit to Indian culture making it awfully hard to show all aspects of Indian culture in one or two images. The Toda image, that you support as being placed where the rotation is, for sure does not show aspects of majority Indian culture. This is an encyclopedia. Unlike what you think, Readers dont come here to carefully examine images to see the "vernacular" aspects of India (which dont represent India at all, but rather .0001 percent of it). This is an encyclopedia. People want quick and relevant information. They dont care what .001 percent of India is doing when the 99.999 percent doesnt follow that at all. I dont see how anyone can support the Toda image with a straight face. Anyway, to conclude, this is an encyclopedia. This is not an art exhibition. Wikipedia changes. That is why we have that edit this page button on the top that encarta doesnt. Dont expect images to stay forever. Nikkul 01:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The potential emptiness about rotations 

message: Could this Encyclopedia Britannica article about Bihar that states "The state is divided into seven administrative divisions and 39 districts.", along with similar ones work as citations for "In larger states, districts may be grouped together to form a division." that has been tagged with a [citation needed].--KeynesJohnMaynard 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More Links - The Bihar Govt Website shows 9 divions. The UP Govt web site under the "District and Divisional Administration" section states "Each division consists of certain districts".  Is this remove-[citation needed]-tag-worthy? Could somebody cite, please? --KeynesJohnMaynard 20:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[citation needed]" for "In larger states, districts may be grouped together to form a division." 

message: Isn't this Image of the same statue better? --Lokantha 03:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddha Image 

message: Did anyone observed that the offical map of India has a cut on its top? Samething carried out in "Free Access To All Human Knowledge” A Video Appeal From Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales " video clipping too. Has Indian govt. accepted the new map or what? The maps displayed along with the article are fine but the map displayed as offical locator on earth has a cut on the top, same also in the video clipping of wikipedia...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.243.16 (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CITATION REQUIRED - OFFICIAL MAP HAS A CUT ON TOP 

message: *user:Sarvagna's edit summary: "removed dubious "chicken" claim. what? people around the world werent eating chicken before Indiians taught them?"
*Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on Fowl (lead sentences): "Chickens are descended from the wild red jungle fowl of India and belong to the species Gallus gallus. They have been domesticated for at least 4,000 years."  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't we talking about chicken as a food product here? That apart, why did you revert all of Sarvagnya's edits which were reasonable and productive? Care to explain addition of WP:UNDUE in the article? Gnanapiti 20:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DFTT. Its obviously a pretext to continue revert-warring.Bakaman 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am talking about chicken as a food product.  They were domesticated first in South Asia.  Haven't you guys understood by now that I don't put things down unless I've checked the sources.  Amazing!  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Your source does not necessarily imply that Chicken (food) originated in India. It only says that Chickens descended from wild red jungle fowl of India. Now, obviously the first thing early humans thought of on seeing an animal was food! If your source said that Chickens were first domesticated in India, then your claim was valid. God.. its commonsense. --Lokantha 04:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: They were not even domesticated first in South Asia. This book says it is Thailand. And even this one says the same thing. And even this one. - I think I have said enough. So much for self-glorification and checking of sources, huh... -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 04:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To user:Amarrg and user:Lokantha: There are two issues involved here: (a) which is the original domesticated breed (in poultry farming terms) that produced the breeds that are eaten around the world, and (b) which is the ancestral progenitor(s) (in phylogeographic terms) in the wild of all the breeds.  They are both further treated on my subpage: User:Fowler%26fowler/Chicken.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it chicken and fowl spectacle or cock and bull spectacle? -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 16:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure, Nichalp, no problem. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of [[Chicken (food)]] 

message: Why is "Subdivisions of India" required as a separate section on the page? There is a navigation box for "States and territories of India". The map with all the states marked on it, along with the three column list of states and UTs, does not look good on the page and doesn't really inform a reader much about India, other than the first sentence, which could simply be integrated to another section. The list is really not required there, is it? Has there been a discussion on these lines before? I'll shut up if there has been one. The US page doesn't have a similar list, and countries like Australia with just a few states, or UK with its mention of its four parts can't be the reference. Then again, there could be many arguments in favor of sticking to the list that is in place, like somebody is going to point out. --KeynesJohnMaynard 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This really requires a response from someone more experienced on this page (like user:Nichalp or user:Ragib), however, I will note that some pages like FAs Peru and Germany that do have the subdivision sections, have more sophisticated navigation options there.  I made a post about it on this page here, but got no response.   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The answer lies here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdivisions of India