Talk:Jasraj

message: I cleaned up a recent change that introduced many peacock terms, such as "renowned and revered", "famous across India", and many many more. The new version has a more encyclopedic language. Using the unofficial title "Pandit" and the suffix "-ji" (which most English-language readers don't understand) throughout the article is not advisable, as a Wikipedia article is not meant to be promotional. The praising style not only undermines the neutral point of view the article should have, it also inflated the word count. However, as an encyclopedia we strive for a proper summary style. Hekerui (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Dear Editors! There has been a discussion on India Portal related to mentioning of caste of subjects. The point is that mentioning caste of people, who have nothing to do with their caste, is found to be unnecessary by few editors. Hence the caste of the subject person needs to be deleted from the biography. I am not deleting the caste as of now but am only posting this here so that the regular editors of this article are well aware of it beforehand and no edit-wars take place. For details of discussion held on the portal please refer Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Mentioning_caste_of_Individuals. Your views if any are welcome there or even here.  And.... as the reasons of exclusion of caste pointed out were "irrelavant to notability of subject person", "privacy of the subject person", "inclusion of caste is like branding individuals", etc. other information included in the article which also fall under these cases will also be removed after discussions. Examples of it included religion, non-notable spouse's and children's and parents' information, previous occupation, lived in places, non-notability related educational qualification, etc.  Your views on this are also welcome here or at the India portal. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not here, please. There is a community discussion taking place at WT:INB and I would advise people to read the entire discussion before forming an opinion because the above summary is incorrect. Nothing more need be said here. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentioning Caste

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jasraj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6U68ulwpb?url=http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/LST-PDAWD-2013.pdf to http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/LST-PDAWD-2013.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You are not the major contributor in this article. Have you seeked advice/permission of major contributors before nominating this article for GA? If not, please do that or revert you nomination. Major content contributors are: . §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:GANI says "nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." I believe I am a significant contributor, with 32 edits to the article. The instructions don't say I should be the major contributor or that I need to seek permission to nominate it - any editor may nominate. However, now that we are all here:  do you have any comments regarding this nomination? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your 32 edits were mostly of fighting vandals or minor copyedits. Content wise your edits aren't in considerable amount. If you still want the GA review to happen, its going to be a hell lot of comments in the review; especially with unsourced sections and one-liner lead. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your critique of the MOS:LEADLENGTH. That can easily be fixed. Regarding WP:V which parts of the article do you believe need additional verification? I believe it meets the GA criteria in this regard but I welcome your viewpoint. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: I propose that the title of the page is changed from "Jasraj" to "Pandit Jasraj" because quoting from Wikipedia policy on honirifics - "There are some exceptions: Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa." 
I think "pandit" comes under that category. 
Also, the change I am asking for is in keeping with the traditions of the Indian Classical Music. It is insulting to call him "Jasraj". 
Swapnil (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my comments on my talk page, the feelings of fans are irrelevant to policy. The name "Jasraj" has 1.9 million results on google, 22,000 on google news. Pandit Jasraj has 15,000 on google news and 681k on google for all. His name is Jasraj, Pandit is a title/honorific and not even most well known. In fact it passed as a DYK and GA status under the title Jasraj, which is how it should remain. Praxidicae (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request 

message: I saw you've removed some red links from the article. Per WP:REDDEAL, red links should be left in place unless it is implausible that there will ever be an article about that subject. Is that really the case for Pandit Motiram, Pandit Pratap Narayan, Jaywant Singh Waghela and Madhura Shantaram? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links