This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hello Urshyam. I saw your picture of Rahul Dravid, but I've listed it for deletion because of copyright problems. Please don't upload images from commercial websites, unless you know that they are out of copyright, or that we have permission to use them for some reason. Otherwise they will just be deleted after some bureaucracy. Thanks, Stephen Turner ( Talk) 18:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. If you want to change the infobox on Indian cricket team, you need to change only the syntax on the page. You are editing the template, and thus breaking many other pages that use the template. Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, your edit to Sachin Tendulkar changed his ODI overs from 1100+ to 7295. Please do not make such changes which would be considered vandalism. You would be blocked from editing if you keep making such changes. -- Gurubrahma 17:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam, I saw Stephen Turner's message above and I think it pretty much sums up the issues. However, you may want to read WP:IUP which is written in much simpler English than the actual GFDL license pages you were refering to. Also, it is much better to use, imo, magazine covers for fair use. I am not an expert on messages here, but you may want to check the images on Sania Mirza, both of them covers from magazines. Click on them and see the fair use rationale that I provided. hope that helps in some way, -- Gurubrahma 13:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam... concerning [
[1]] I had added source info to the image, I just didn't take off the tag as I assumed I shouldn't be the one to take it off and that it required verification. If it is NOK, then delete it, if the source I added (see discussion to the image as well) is OK, then please if you could revert the change to the page and remove the source issue, I would appreciate it. --
Dwxyzq 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have just selected an article from Requested Articles and started working on them. I didn't visit those articles before. But I am trying to put the datas of matches datewise. Should it be merged?
Hello Urshyam,
I saw you've started adding Infobox Modern Cricketer to some players. Can I suggest you don't do that until we've talked about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket? I can see strong arguments on both sides, and a change which is not clear-cut and which is going to affect so many cricketers really needs discussion and consensus first.
Thanks,
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice work on the updates, I've ran out of steam a bit recently -- Paul 18:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Urshyam. What's going on with the U-19 cricket team articles? Are you going to expand them, at least a little? Because right now they are too small to be even stubs, and I'm afraid someone is going to delete them all if they are left as is. Herostratus 07:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Urshyam Can you check the template code added to the Taj Mahal article? Might be my browser, but it looks kind of fishy...the word 'noinclude', bad link to Indian featured list. Also the "See Also" added duplicates the See Also above.
Very exciting to have this article noted as feature quality! -- Nemonoman 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam. I think that some sort of broken template was being used at the time I sent that last message. When I saw the bottom of the Taj article at the time of message, there were the following elements
All that is currently NOT being shown on the page, so I guess somebody has changed the template.-- Nemonoman 15:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam: Article History always shows CURRENT version of templates being referenced. I have no particular thought about India Portal Featured articles, except to note that at the present time, the India Portal does not contain any reference link to its featured articles. Also that the IP FA category Art, architecture, and archaeology has no similar reference point on the India Portal page -- Nemonoman 16:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam,
I like the idea of inserting a WP:FA-like star on articles featured on the Indian portal, however it appears that the Indian-FA star image tends to get superimposed on the Wikipedia-FA star image, in the event that the article is both an India Portal-FA and a Wikipedia-FA (See the Mumbai page, for example). I'm using a 1024x768 machine with Internet Explorer 6. Maybe we should come up with two different templates - one for exclusively India-portal FAs and one for articles that are Wikipedia-FAs as well as India Portal-FAs. That way we can manage the formatting a little better. Also, the India Portal-FA star image is a little confusing, since it is the same as the Wikipedia FAC image - perhaps use this one: FA-star-India.png instead?
Thanks, AreJay 03:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled across the featured content fork pages you made tonight. This is totally unacceptable. It's basically an end-run around the established system of peer review at wp:fac, and basically amounts to an attempt to balkanize the FAC process. I've mass nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Portal_India_featured-content_fork Raul654 09:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm a graduate student of Computer Science and Engineering at IIT-B. I'm a malayali hailing from Kochi. Adnat 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Mtech sem2, i hope that sums it up. Adnat 16:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You have made a lot of changes to the cricket series infobox templates. All the related articles are messed up now. You had added [[ ]] to all fields. The same could easily be achieved by entering those in the article instead. You should check "What links here" before making the changes to any templates. Please fix the infobox templates so that article infoboxes are back to normal. Here is an example. - Ganeshk ( talk) 08:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam,
Read your message...might I suggest that we stick with our current format of featuring a Selected Article of the Week? The rationale behind this is simple. We do not have enough articles that can even be classified as A-class articles, per Notice board for India-related topics/Version 1.0 assesment, let alone featured articles, per the Wikipedia FAC process. We currently only have 28 featured articles.
Now, in the case of some of our Selected Articles, such as the South India article, I can tell you as a person that was actively contributing on that article that the article has more regional jingoism than encyclopedic content. It is a very unstable article, given to fighting among editors wanting to showcase their respective state than produce a good article. I stopped editing that article because I grew frustrated at having to separate fact from fiction and jingoism from NPOV. It would fail the FAC process in a heartbeat, were it to go for a vote. Let us retain the the Selected Article of the Week format, we will have atleast 28 weeks worth of material for that already, and many more as we continue to upgrade articles to B-grade and A-grade status. What is your opinion? AreJay 02:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hello Urshyam. I saw your picture of Rahul Dravid, but I've listed it for deletion because of copyright problems. Please don't upload images from commercial websites, unless you know that they are out of copyright, or that we have permission to use them for some reason. Otherwise they will just be deleted after some bureaucracy. Thanks, Stephen Turner ( Talk) 18:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi. If you want to change the infobox on Indian cricket team, you need to change only the syntax on the page. You are editing the template, and thus breaking many other pages that use the template. Cheers, Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, your edit to Sachin Tendulkar changed his ODI overs from 1100+ to 7295. Please do not make such changes which would be considered vandalism. You would be blocked from editing if you keep making such changes. -- Gurubrahma 17:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam, I saw Stephen Turner's message above and I think it pretty much sums up the issues. However, you may want to read WP:IUP which is written in much simpler English than the actual GFDL license pages you were refering to. Also, it is much better to use, imo, magazine covers for fair use. I am not an expert on messages here, but you may want to check the images on Sania Mirza, both of them covers from magazines. Click on them and see the fair use rationale that I provided. hope that helps in some way, -- Gurubrahma 13:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam... concerning [
[1]] I had added source info to the image, I just didn't take off the tag as I assumed I shouldn't be the one to take it off and that it required verification. If it is NOK, then delete it, if the source I added (see discussion to the image as well) is OK, then please if you could revert the change to the page and remove the source issue, I would appreciate it. --
Dwxyzq 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I have just selected an article from Requested Articles and started working on them. I didn't visit those articles before. But I am trying to put the datas of matches datewise. Should it be merged?
Hello Urshyam,
I saw you've started adding Infobox Modern Cricketer to some players. Can I suggest you don't do that until we've talked about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket? I can see strong arguments on both sides, and a change which is not clear-cut and which is going to affect so many cricketers really needs discussion and consensus first.
Thanks,
Stephen Turner ( Talk) 20:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Nice work on the updates, I've ran out of steam a bit recently -- Paul 18:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Urshyam. What's going on with the U-19 cricket team articles? Are you going to expand them, at least a little? Because right now they are too small to be even stubs, and I'm afraid someone is going to delete them all if they are left as is. Herostratus 07:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Urshyam Can you check the template code added to the Taj Mahal article? Might be my browser, but it looks kind of fishy...the word 'noinclude', bad link to Indian featured list. Also the "See Also" added duplicates the See Also above.
Very exciting to have this article noted as feature quality! -- Nemonoman 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam. I think that some sort of broken template was being used at the time I sent that last message. When I saw the bottom of the Taj article at the time of message, there were the following elements
All that is currently NOT being shown on the page, so I guess somebody has changed the template.-- Nemonoman 15:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam: Article History always shows CURRENT version of templates being referenced. I have no particular thought about India Portal Featured articles, except to note that at the present time, the India Portal does not contain any reference link to its featured articles. Also that the IP FA category Art, architecture, and archaeology has no similar reference point on the India Portal page -- Nemonoman 16:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam,
I like the idea of inserting a WP:FA-like star on articles featured on the Indian portal, however it appears that the Indian-FA star image tends to get superimposed on the Wikipedia-FA star image, in the event that the article is both an India Portal-FA and a Wikipedia-FA (See the Mumbai page, for example). I'm using a 1024x768 machine with Internet Explorer 6. Maybe we should come up with two different templates - one for exclusively India-portal FAs and one for articles that are Wikipedia-FAs as well as India Portal-FAs. That way we can manage the formatting a little better. Also, the India Portal-FA star image is a little confusing, since it is the same as the Wikipedia FAC image - perhaps use this one: FA-star-India.png instead?
Thanks, AreJay 03:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled across the featured content fork pages you made tonight. This is totally unacceptable. It's basically an end-run around the established system of peer review at wp:fac, and basically amounts to an attempt to balkanize the FAC process. I've mass nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#Portal_India_featured-content_fork Raul654 09:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm a graduate student of Computer Science and Engineering at IIT-B. I'm a malayali hailing from Kochi. Adnat 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Mtech sem2, i hope that sums it up. Adnat 16:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You have made a lot of changes to the cricket series infobox templates. All the related articles are messed up now. You had added [[ ]] to all fields. The same could easily be achieved by entering those in the article instead. You should check "What links here" before making the changes to any templates. Please fix the infobox templates so that article infoboxes are back to normal. Here is an example. - Ganeshk ( talk) 08:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shyam,
Read your message...might I suggest that we stick with our current format of featuring a Selected Article of the Week? The rationale behind this is simple. We do not have enough articles that can even be classified as A-class articles, per Notice board for India-related topics/Version 1.0 assesment, let alone featured articles, per the Wikipedia FAC process. We currently only have 28 featured articles.
Now, in the case of some of our Selected Articles, such as the South India article, I can tell you as a person that was actively contributing on that article that the article has more regional jingoism than encyclopedic content. It is a very unstable article, given to fighting among editors wanting to showcase their respective state than produce a good article. I stopped editing that article because I grew frustrated at having to separate fact from fiction and jingoism from NPOV. It would fail the FAC process in a heartbeat, were it to go for a vote. Let us retain the the Selected Article of the Week format, we will have atleast 28 weeks worth of material for that already, and many more as we continue to upgrade articles to B-grade and A-grade status. What is your opinion? AreJay 02:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)