India Project‑class | |||||||
|
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
|
|
Can we use slokas in articles. A on going debate is at Talk:Sritattvanidhi#Why do we need the slokas???. I think this may be incorpoareted into this MOS. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So far the main development here is the incorporation of most of the content of Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Indic). I suggest that that Naming convention article should remain separate and active, and that this Manual of Style should only make reference to the it for appropriate cases. Reasons;
Imc 15:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Editors behind this proposal may wish to step in at Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Full_name (see also the immediately preceding discussions) where there is a discussion about whether to change the article name of Mahatma Gandhi. Currently it is named 'Mohandas Gandhi' while others are in favour of 'Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi', while other prefer the original 'Mahatma Gandhi'. This MOS for India-related articles has been invoked at the current discussion but, despite saying so on the MOS articlespace that 'Mahatma Gandhi' is preferred, there is doubt as to whether this should be implemented on account of this MOS being a proposed guideline. So, in any case, editors may wish to step in over there and contribute their thoughts. Thanks, Ekantik talk 19:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
A recent decision on the use of indic scripts in the leads of India-related articles was made (see main discussion here and clarification here). This decision has not been properly communicated and User:DeltaQuad and I agree that it should be placed in the Manual of Style somewhere. The most appropriate place would be in this India-related articles subpage, but it is currently inactive. Surely there are now enough India-related article to warrant the resurrection of these guidelines. What are your thoughts? Bazonka ( talk) 08:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm no expert on India topics, so I will defer to the wider community: is there anything that's currently in this MoS article that shouldn't be there or needs to change? If not, I suggest taking the inactive template off the top, and relinking it into Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional), etc. We can then start to improve it with stuff about varnas and indic scripts and so on. Bazonka ( talk) 09:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this needs to be resurrected. IMO, the following are controversial:
IMO, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) (linked in here) also needs to be discussed and made a policy, rather than proposed one. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Since no-one objected to the resurrection of this page, I have made a few amendments and reinstated it under Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional). The changes that I have made to it are:
I have not included anything about the decision mentioned above not to use Indic scripts in the leads of articles. This seems like a controversial decision requiring further discussion and consensus. The points raised above by User:Redtigerxyz also require further discussion. Bazonka ( talk) 09:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject India § Indic scripts in lead, it says that Indic script is not to be used in the lede sentence of an article:
However, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles § Preferred format for introducing the article subject, it says that Indic script is to be used in the lede and gives the example:
This is more consistent with article practice, too.
So, which is it? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 06:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
In Infoboxes for places, there are the parameters |name=
, |official_name=
, |other_name=
, |native_name=
, and |native_name_lang=
(ignoring the tranlit* params for now). The first three are specified to be in English with Latin script.
The question is what to do with the others. The fact that |native_name_lang=
exists says to me that the design is to support the predominant non-English language/non-Latin script name of the place, like:
Shahjahanpur
शाहजहाँपुर |
---|
or this, using the {{ Lang-hi}} template wrapper around the script to prepend the Hindi link:
Shahjahanpur
Hindi: शाहजहाँपुर |
---|
The notes say that if multiple names/languages are to be specified, to wrap the names in {{ Lang|xx}}, but this doesn't specify which language the names are in like {{ Lang-xx}} does. Example:
Kashmir
|
---|
What about pronunciation guides, like /koʊlˈkɑːtɑː/? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 09:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, this came up because of a string of edits by
User:101.0.38.163, adding Indic script names to |native_name=
on various articles on places without moving what alternative names were already there or changing/adding the language to native_name_lang. —[
AlanM1(
talk)]— 10:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there a convention for handling new/old city names, (Mumbai/Bombay), specifically in historical articles? Thanks for the help! Lfstevens ( talk) 04:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have just amended the wording here. - Sitush ( talk) 10:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
When a list of personal names in an India-related article is sorted alphabetically, which name order should be used for sorting? If the family name is usually placed last (western order) then a list of names should probably be sorted by the last name. I am looking at Sir Jamsetjee Jeejebhoy School of Art#Famous alumni, which is currently sorted by the full name, so that Francis Newton Souza is listed before John Fernandes. In a European or a North-American article I would change this. What should be the convention for India-related articles? Verbcatcher ( talk) 12:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This article says "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only." This is not always true. Many people use the personal name. For example, see R. K. Narayan, where he is known by his personal name (Narayanan) and not his surname (Rasipuram, actually village name). Anbumani Ramadoss is Anbumani, son of Dr. Ramadoss. Another example is V. Anand, sometimes wrongly expanded as Vishwanathan Anand. (Anand is his given name and the correct expansion is Anand Vishwanathan.) Also, "The last name or the family name is placed before the first name for Telugu people." This is also found in Kerala, as in V. S. Achuthanandan, where Velikkakathu is his surname, and Achuthanandan his given name. As far as I know, this style is restricted to South India. Jose Mathew ( talk) 11:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The rationale and consensus history (the links/diffs for which should be put into a footnote) at WP:WikiProject India#Indic scripts in lead belong in the MOS:INDIA page; they serve no purpose buried on the wikiproject page where no one will see them but active participants in the wikiproject. Without that material, the one-liner in the present guideline looks like arbitrary nonsense, and is easily dismissed as some consensus-free WP:CREEP someone added without discussion.
I did some cleanup work on the material to make it "MoS-styled" language, and actually guideline-worthy. It had a bunch of WP:OWNish wording (I don't mean that too critically, it's just a common problem in stuff written at wikiprojects), was very unclear in certain ways, and had some grammar problems).
After merging, the WP:INDICSCRIPT shortcut (and a MOS:INDICSCRIPT one) should redirect to what is presently the "Lead and infobox" section in MOS:INDIA, though this would be better named "Indic script in leads and infoboxes" since it does not cover anything else, and it doesn't stand out in the table of contents without "Indic" in it.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
This is regarding the implementation per the above discussion.
I moved the relevant material and updated the links. There is, however, the matter of the "Preferred format for introducing the article subject" section and onwards, which now makes much less sense. The example given, Sikhism, is especially bad since it it can always be argued that it's not even predominantly within the scope of WikiProject India but more in the scope of WikiProject Religion. The entire point of the section was how to use {{ Indic}} in the lead section, are we now recommending its use at all? -- Muhandes ( talk) 12:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC) I read it again and it is just too confusing to keep. I commented out the entire thing, here it is for further discussion
Extended content
|
---|
Preferred format for introducing the article subjectIdeally, when introducing an article that is covered by this guideline, IPA transcriptions (with audio files if possible) and transliterations of the Indic script should be included. The format is:
A special {{indic}} template has been made to take care of formatting issues. Use this format when you have the original script text, transliteration, IPA and audio pronunciation file.
Without audioUse this when you have the original script text, transliteration and IPA but do not have the audio pronunciation. This is likely to be the most used format.
|
Pinging User:SMcCandlish and User:Let There Be Sunshine -- Muhandes ( talk) 12:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I suggest not to mention state/UT name because when reorganization of any state will occur, each assembly constituency state will need to be changed. Sid54126 ( talk) 14:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Articles do not belong to wikiprojects. Someone added stuff about the "don't use Indic script in leads and infoboxes" somehow only applying to WikiProject India articles. I've objected to this, Corinne has as well, on another page, and it just doesn't make any sense. It's directly against WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN policy and the WP:ARBINFOBOX ruling against projects trying to assert authority over entire categories of articles. I've removed this twice and been reverted on the basis that there will allegedly be controversy if I"m not. Show us the controversy.
The wording of the contested material has now been changed to "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, Pakistan or any of India's neighbouring countries." What?! Articles about these religions are not magically disassociated from India as a topic. This result is literally not possible under policy. If Indic script is a problem for readers in articles that pertain to India, it does not magically become a non-problem when the topic is Bangladesh. Wikiprojects on Pakistan and Jainism cannot declare "their" article immune to guidelines that are based on a practical consensus that our leads and infoboxes should not have indic script in them for well-articulated reasons. That's Indic script, not Indian script. This is a site-wide MoS guideline, not a wikiproject advice page essay. If projects on Hinduism and Bangladesh really want to assert that there is no consensus to apply this rule to any article they say is within their scope, then the Indic script rule actually does not have consensus. But I don't see any evidence of that. I see one editor trying very hard to shoe-horn wikilawyering language into this guideline for no clear reason.
PS: If we need to explain that there can be exceptions, e.g. where the very topic is an Indic word like Aum, familiar even in written form around the world, then we should do so. There is no exception for "this politician is Maldivian, so we can use Indic script as much as we want to." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
all someone has to do is add another project banner to a talk page and an article instantly becomes exempt from the India project consensus– that's why that bit in the text says "predominantly India-related". – Uanfala (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning for WP:INDICSCRIPT, but the ban seems excessive. For example, gujarati film Dhh has a clear case of indic script in lead and/or infobox. There are no claims of multiple language to be added here, so why can't we refine policy to allow such cases? Coderzombie ( talk) 13:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
This guideline is unclear on whether or not to use diacritics, and in what circumstances. Devanagari or Devanāgarī? Aryabhata or Āryabhaṭa?
Should diacritics be "extended?" ( Brihadisvara, Brihadiśvara, or Brihadishvara?)
Should they be used for all terms that can be transcribed with IAST (this would be excessive, imo), or just technical Sanskrit terms/names for historical/religious topics? The latter is my preference, for words like parinirvāṇa.
Should they be used for article names? In leads? General text?
Overall diacritic usage is very inconsistent across the wiki, I hope a standard can be set. - AMorozov 〈talk〉 12:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
In section "Indic scripts in leads and infoboxes", we are admonished not to use Indic scripts in the lede section. In the very next section, "Linking to other Indian Language Wikipedias", an example lede fragment is given which violates this rule. The article it refers to, Mahatma Gandhi, does not display the same lede. Elizium23 ( talk) 11:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The decision was made because there are too many Indian languages? This makes no sense, because there are only 2 official languages in India, English and Hindi. Adding Hindi can help millions of people who only know, speak and write in Hindi to find articles on wikipedia. Not all English wikipedia articles have a hindi translation. Such a decision only prevents wikipedia's accessibility. For people, companies, and organizations that operate mostly on the state level. State languages can be included as an when deemed necessary. It seems regressive to avoid the usage of Indic scripts when for every other country, a local language translation is offered — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debitpixie ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I propose a policy of preferring the secular BCE/CE as opposed to BC/AD for Indian articles being added under the "Basic India conventions". Many articles on Indian topics seem to follow this convention already (e.g., India, Karma, Hinduism), but my proposal is to codify it as a preference. Getsnoopy ( talk) 04:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I propose preferring
ISO 15919 over
IAST for all Indic-language transliterations, and adding this to the conventions page. IAST is essentially a subset of ISO 15919, barring a couple cases where it's different, and the latter allows for all Indic languages to be unambiguously represented. Along the same lines, the recommended template for transliterations should be changed to {{transl}}
instead of {{lang}}
, as the former allow specifying the transliteration scheme used as well, which is important in many cases.
Getsnoopy (
talk) 17:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Category:Government of Bangalore should be deleted since it is named after a an entity which never existed. Usage of terms Government of Karnataka and Government of India should be entertained but there is (or was) nothing by the name Government of Bangalore. If you want to categorize agencies associated with Bangalore, then we can use Category:Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike for Pages dedicated to Agencies associated with Municipal Corporation. Similarly other Pages which are using Category:Government of Bangalore can use Category:Bangalore. Talk Page Talk. - Vijethnbharadwaj ( talk) 17:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
So if on an India-related geography article, can I put Indic script and then Latin script? It doesn't say you can't according to WP:INDICSCRIPT. For example, can I put in the "nativename" section the Hindi name for a place and then below that the Latin transliteration? 2001:8003:C829:E400:F091:1EFE:F47B:624B ( talk) 07:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Avoid the use of Indic scripts in lead sections or infoboxes.. Avoid it. -- Muhandes ( talk) 09:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
References
This policy is already implied in the current policy and followed on most articles, but my proposal is to make it explicit. If no one objects to this in about a week's time, I will be amending the text accordingly in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles § Non-English strings. Getsnoopy ( talk) 19:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I am noticing some confusion about what are the correct and uniform names for the Indian state assembly constituencies. Articles are titled using Vidhan Sabha constituency, Vidhana Sabha constituency, Assembly constituency, Legislative Assembly, State Assembly constituency and Union Territory Assembly constituency etc.
I propose to name change of the all State and Union Territory assembly constituencies, for example, from Khanapur (Vidhan Sabha constituency) to Khanapur (Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly constituency), Khanapur (Assembly constituency) to Khanapur (Telangana State Legislative Assembly constituency), Khanapur (Vidhan Sabha constituency (Karnataka)) to Khanapur (Karnataka State Legislative Assembly constituency) and Islampur (Maharashtra) (Vidhan Sabha constituency) to Islampur (Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly constituency) etc. Italawar ( talk) 14:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
My view is that we should always keep disambiguation to a minimum and unnecessarily long names are not helpful. Having a standard disambiguator, especially as long as that proposed by Italawar is unnecessary IMO. I would propose the following disambiguation hierarchy:
I don't see having slightly different titles across a range of articles as a significant issue – having unnecessarily long titles is more of an issue than a lack of uniformity IMO. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
1. Aurangabad, Maharashtra (Lok Sabha constituency) serves as a much better disambiguator than using "double brackets" Aurangabad (Maharashtra) (Lok Sabha constituency). As an alternative, you can just use the official constituency number if you don't want double disambiguation. 34-Aurangabad (Lok Sabha constituency) for Bihar and 41-Aurangabad (Lok Sabha constituency) for Maharashtra. The constituency number is the part of official name of the constituency as it can be seen in the nomination papers filed by candidates.
2. Suggesting the constituency title Alirajpur (constituency) is also incorrect as there are Legislative Council constituencies too in the some states of same name. (Not in Madhya Pradesh though but I'm using Alirajpur as a reference point here) For example: Saharanpur in U.P. has three kind of constituencies — Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council and Lok Sabha, So it's better to clarify what kind of constituency is it, Assembly or Council or Lok Sabha. Even within the Legislative Council, Saharanpur has three constituencies — Graduate's constituency, Teacher's constituency and Local Authority constituency.
3. The title Gwalior East denote a general locality or geographical area of that city. It doesn't have an article on Wikipedia as of today but in future there's a possibility that there might be an article related to this geographic area so it's better to use disambiguator instead of using just a generic title for a constituency article page.
4. It would be very inconvenient for a Wikipedia user to search for a specific constituency located in a specific state with all these non-uniform title names. For example: A person looking for Betul Assembly constituency would be expecting the same keywords for Alirajpur Assembly constituency and Gwalior East Assembly constituency to search for the articles, but all three of them having three different non-uniform titles would prove to be very inconvenient to a Wikipedia user to locate them.
— Hemant Dabral Talk 02:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- There is no need to put State/UT in the title irrespective of the fact ehther the State name is mentioned or not. The legislative body of a state is called the legislative assembly for both states and partial states (Delhi, Puducherry, J&K). Bharatiya 29 19:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose Bharatiya29 for now Italawar ( talk) 15:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keeping the name of a State/UT in titles will bring the uniformity in all of these constituency pages and at the same time it will rule out any chance of ambiguity. It'd look odd if some constituencies in a state (disambiguation pages) have the state name in titles and other constituencies don't have it. It's rather more practical to use State/UT name to achieve uniformity so we don't have to use different titles (one for disambigous pages and other for normal pages) for the various consistencies of a same State/UT. — Hemant Dabral Talk 22:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Isupport Hemant Dabral Italawar ( talk) 15:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- All LS and legislative assembly constituencies should have "(Lok Sabha constituency)" and "(Legislative Assembly constituency)" in their title. Omitting the word "legislative" will not be appropriate IMO. Bharatiya 29 17:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- I support Bharatiya29 Italawar ( talk) 15:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Number 57's ...
@ Italawar, Bharatiya29, Number 57, TryKid, Muhandes, and BrownHairedGirl: Why the Karnataka Legislative Assembly constituencies pages were moved by Vijethnbharadwaj when the discussion about the correct title format of constituencies is still ongoing? — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 07:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I have a more fundamental note / question. Since this is in English and we're trying to be clear to typical readers, we should look at the common meaning / interpretation of the word "constituency":
Keeping this in mind, IMO the above possibilities are confusing to the typical reader and/ or sometimes redundant. It appears that the "98%" meaning is not intended under any of the above. My suggestion is:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics § Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies. Venkat TL ( talk) 12:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
FYI Template:Cleanup Indic script ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 06:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Obviously I think banning all Indic scripts in the lead section of India-related articles is not a very good solution, so I came up with another: using a template like Template:Infobox Chinese to list the names of places in Indian languages. I have therefore created Template:Infobox Indian. It's currently a work-in-progress and please feel free to (and please do) help me fix it. I have used it on the page Indian Australians as an example. Thanks! Thiscouldbeauser ( talk) 07:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Where is the indonesia related articles for applying the manual of style in editing pages? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:4D2C:4F6E:D2A6:F16F ( talk) 15:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Would there be any appetite for an RfC to codify an exception to INDICSCRIPT for proper titles of published works in those languages (film, books, etc.) in articles? It seems like it should be relatively straightforward to determine/enforce. It doesn't appear to have been considered in the close for the original discussion , and I'm not aware of further revision discussions. The current implementation of INDICSCRIPT makes it very difficult to search for non-English sources. I note that FA-class Pather Panchali does include its Bengali name, although my impression is that for better or for worse, most articles about published works diligently toe the INDICSCRIPT line. signed, Rosguill talk 22:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Should we add the following exception to MOS:INDICSCRIPT (changes highlighted in bold)?
Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, articles on creative works originally produced in Indic languages. This exception does not apply to dubs or translations of original works, but does apply to works produced and released in multiple languages simultaneously (e.g.
Radhe Shyam). For works whose spoken language is ambiguous (i.e. languages in the
Hindustani continuum), defer to the spelling/language(s) provided in the earliest publication of the work itself
.
Note that the status quo text already provides for exceptions for articles on texts originally written in a particular script.
; the proposed change would expand this exception to include films, music, video games, and other creative works with specific, identifiable languages of production; text in the guideline related to written works was changed purely for copyediting purposes. signed,
Rosguill
talk 15:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
put an end to the plague of naming disputesor not? Gotitbro above implies that such disputes and enforcing the existing guideline are a constant battle, hardly something resolved by the guideline. signed, Rosguill talk 20:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
There is ultimately no consensus about which language to use...defaulting to the encouragement of IPA by the closer as an attempt to resolve the impasse. The various discussions listed in the guideline itself since then are a rather confusing list of primarily one-off challenges by an editor unsatisfied with the status quo and which led to minimal further discussion, and a much more relevant 2017 discussion to expand the lead-ban to an infobox-ban. I'm not aware of any past discussion that has really taken up the question of exceptions to the rule. signed, Rosguill talk 22:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed that most articles mentioning the Indian rupee appear to use the old Rs[.] symbol or the lakh crore system, rather than the new (as of 2010) ₹ symbol. Is there a standard around which symbol to use, and should instances of "Rs" when referring to the Indian rupee be changed to the new symbol? Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 13:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Can someone provide an update for the MOS:INDICSCRIPT? Is the guideline still applicable or are there any exceptions to the guideline, especially in Wikiproject Hinduism? I'm seeing multiple articles with notes suggesting so. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
<!--Do not remove, WP:INDICSCRIPT doesn't apply to WikiProject Hinduism-->
That's a nonsensical statement, since there is
no such thing as a wikiproject that is magically immune to guidelines and policies applying to it. This may be a mangled attempt at referring to some consensus discussion that came to a conclusion that certain Indic script renditions might be particularly relevant at certain topical articles, but we'll need to see what that discussion might be, if there has actually been one. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
India Project‑class | |||||||
|
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
|
|
Can we use slokas in articles. A on going debate is at Talk:Sritattvanidhi#Why do we need the slokas???. I think this may be incorpoareted into this MOS. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So far the main development here is the incorporation of most of the content of Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Indic). I suggest that that Naming convention article should remain separate and active, and that this Manual of Style should only make reference to the it for appropriate cases. Reasons;
Imc 15:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Editors behind this proposal may wish to step in at Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Full_name (see also the immediately preceding discussions) where there is a discussion about whether to change the article name of Mahatma Gandhi. Currently it is named 'Mohandas Gandhi' while others are in favour of 'Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi', while other prefer the original 'Mahatma Gandhi'. This MOS for India-related articles has been invoked at the current discussion but, despite saying so on the MOS articlespace that 'Mahatma Gandhi' is preferred, there is doubt as to whether this should be implemented on account of this MOS being a proposed guideline. So, in any case, editors may wish to step in over there and contribute their thoughts. Thanks, Ekantik talk 19:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
A recent decision on the use of indic scripts in the leads of India-related articles was made (see main discussion here and clarification here). This decision has not been properly communicated and User:DeltaQuad and I agree that it should be placed in the Manual of Style somewhere. The most appropriate place would be in this India-related articles subpage, but it is currently inactive. Surely there are now enough India-related article to warrant the resurrection of these guidelines. What are your thoughts? Bazonka ( talk) 08:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm no expert on India topics, so I will defer to the wider community: is there anything that's currently in this MoS article that shouldn't be there or needs to change? If not, I suggest taking the inactive template off the top, and relinking it into Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional), etc. We can then start to improve it with stuff about varnas and indic scripts and so on. Bazonka ( talk) 09:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this needs to be resurrected. IMO, the following are controversial:
IMO, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) (linked in here) also needs to be discussed and made a policy, rather than proposed one. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Since no-one objected to the resurrection of this page, I have made a few amendments and reinstated it under Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (regional). The changes that I have made to it are:
I have not included anything about the decision mentioned above not to use Indic scripts in the leads of articles. This seems like a controversial decision requiring further discussion and consensus. The points raised above by User:Redtigerxyz also require further discussion. Bazonka ( talk) 09:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:WikiProject India § Indic scripts in lead, it says that Indic script is not to be used in the lede sentence of an article:
However, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles § Preferred format for introducing the article subject, it says that Indic script is to be used in the lede and gives the example:
This is more consistent with article practice, too.
So, which is it? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 06:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
In Infoboxes for places, there are the parameters |name=
, |official_name=
, |other_name=
, |native_name=
, and |native_name_lang=
(ignoring the tranlit* params for now). The first three are specified to be in English with Latin script.
The question is what to do with the others. The fact that |native_name_lang=
exists says to me that the design is to support the predominant non-English language/non-Latin script name of the place, like:
Shahjahanpur
शाहजहाँपुर |
---|
or this, using the {{ Lang-hi}} template wrapper around the script to prepend the Hindi link:
Shahjahanpur
Hindi: शाहजहाँपुर |
---|
The notes say that if multiple names/languages are to be specified, to wrap the names in {{ Lang|xx}}, but this doesn't specify which language the names are in like {{ Lang-xx}} does. Example:
Kashmir
|
---|
What about pronunciation guides, like /koʊlˈkɑːtɑː/? —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 09:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, this came up because of a string of edits by
User:101.0.38.163, adding Indic script names to |native_name=
on various articles on places without moving what alternative names were already there or changing/adding the language to native_name_lang. —[
AlanM1(
talk)]— 10:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there a convention for handling new/old city names, (Mumbai/Bombay), specifically in historical articles? Thanks for the help! Lfstevens ( talk) 04:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I have just amended the wording here. - Sitush ( talk) 10:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
When a list of personal names in an India-related article is sorted alphabetically, which name order should be used for sorting? If the family name is usually placed last (western order) then a list of names should probably be sorted by the last name. I am looking at Sir Jamsetjee Jeejebhoy School of Art#Famous alumni, which is currently sorted by the full name, so that Francis Newton Souza is listed before John Fernandes. In a European or a North-American article I would change this. What should be the convention for India-related articles? Verbcatcher ( talk) 12:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This article says "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only." This is not always true. Many people use the personal name. For example, see R. K. Narayan, where he is known by his personal name (Narayanan) and not his surname (Rasipuram, actually village name). Anbumani Ramadoss is Anbumani, son of Dr. Ramadoss. Another example is V. Anand, sometimes wrongly expanded as Vishwanathan Anand. (Anand is his given name and the correct expansion is Anand Vishwanathan.) Also, "The last name or the family name is placed before the first name for Telugu people." This is also found in Kerala, as in V. S. Achuthanandan, where Velikkakathu is his surname, and Achuthanandan his given name. As far as I know, this style is restricted to South India. Jose Mathew ( talk) 11:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The rationale and consensus history (the links/diffs for which should be put into a footnote) at WP:WikiProject India#Indic scripts in lead belong in the MOS:INDIA page; they serve no purpose buried on the wikiproject page where no one will see them but active participants in the wikiproject. Without that material, the one-liner in the present guideline looks like arbitrary nonsense, and is easily dismissed as some consensus-free WP:CREEP someone added without discussion.
I did some cleanup work on the material to make it "MoS-styled" language, and actually guideline-worthy. It had a bunch of WP:OWNish wording (I don't mean that too critically, it's just a common problem in stuff written at wikiprojects), was very unclear in certain ways, and had some grammar problems).
After merging, the WP:INDICSCRIPT shortcut (and a MOS:INDICSCRIPT one) should redirect to what is presently the "Lead and infobox" section in MOS:INDIA, though this would be better named "Indic script in leads and infoboxes" since it does not cover anything else, and it doesn't stand out in the table of contents without "Indic" in it.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 02:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
This is regarding the implementation per the above discussion.
I moved the relevant material and updated the links. There is, however, the matter of the "Preferred format for introducing the article subject" section and onwards, which now makes much less sense. The example given, Sikhism, is especially bad since it it can always be argued that it's not even predominantly within the scope of WikiProject India but more in the scope of WikiProject Religion. The entire point of the section was how to use {{ Indic}} in the lead section, are we now recommending its use at all? -- Muhandes ( talk) 12:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC) I read it again and it is just too confusing to keep. I commented out the entire thing, here it is for further discussion
Extended content
|
---|
Preferred format for introducing the article subjectIdeally, when introducing an article that is covered by this guideline, IPA transcriptions (with audio files if possible) and transliterations of the Indic script should be included. The format is:
A special {{indic}} template has been made to take care of formatting issues. Use this format when you have the original script text, transliteration, IPA and audio pronunciation file.
Without audioUse this when you have the original script text, transliteration and IPA but do not have the audio pronunciation. This is likely to be the most used format.
|
Pinging User:SMcCandlish and User:Let There Be Sunshine -- Muhandes ( talk) 12:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I suggest not to mention state/UT name because when reorganization of any state will occur, each assembly constituency state will need to be changed. Sid54126 ( talk) 14:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Articles do not belong to wikiprojects. Someone added stuff about the "don't use Indic script in leads and infoboxes" somehow only applying to WikiProject India articles. I've objected to this, Corinne has as well, on another page, and it just doesn't make any sense. It's directly against WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN policy and the WP:ARBINFOBOX ruling against projects trying to assert authority over entire categories of articles. I've removed this twice and been reverted on the basis that there will allegedly be controversy if I"m not. Show us the controversy.
The wording of the contested material has now been changed to "This avoidance of Indic scripts only applies to articles that are predominantly India-related and is excluded from, among others, articles about Hinduism, Buddhism, Pakistan or any of India's neighbouring countries." What?! Articles about these religions are not magically disassociated from India as a topic. This result is literally not possible under policy. If Indic script is a problem for readers in articles that pertain to India, it does not magically become a non-problem when the topic is Bangladesh. Wikiprojects on Pakistan and Jainism cannot declare "their" article immune to guidelines that are based on a practical consensus that our leads and infoboxes should not have indic script in them for well-articulated reasons. That's Indic script, not Indian script. This is a site-wide MoS guideline, not a wikiproject advice page essay. If projects on Hinduism and Bangladesh really want to assert that there is no consensus to apply this rule to any article they say is within their scope, then the Indic script rule actually does not have consensus. But I don't see any evidence of that. I see one editor trying very hard to shoe-horn wikilawyering language into this guideline for no clear reason.
PS: If we need to explain that there can be exceptions, e.g. where the very topic is an Indic word like Aum, familiar even in written form around the world, then we should do so. There is no exception for "this politician is Maldivian, so we can use Indic script as much as we want to." — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
all someone has to do is add another project banner to a talk page and an article instantly becomes exempt from the India project consensus– that's why that bit in the text says "predominantly India-related". – Uanfala (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I understand the reasoning for WP:INDICSCRIPT, but the ban seems excessive. For example, gujarati film Dhh has a clear case of indic script in lead and/or infobox. There are no claims of multiple language to be added here, so why can't we refine policy to allow such cases? Coderzombie ( talk) 13:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
This guideline is unclear on whether or not to use diacritics, and in what circumstances. Devanagari or Devanāgarī? Aryabhata or Āryabhaṭa?
Should diacritics be "extended?" ( Brihadisvara, Brihadiśvara, or Brihadishvara?)
Should they be used for all terms that can be transcribed with IAST (this would be excessive, imo), or just technical Sanskrit terms/names for historical/religious topics? The latter is my preference, for words like parinirvāṇa.
Should they be used for article names? In leads? General text?
Overall diacritic usage is very inconsistent across the wiki, I hope a standard can be set. - AMorozov 〈talk〉 12:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
In section "Indic scripts in leads and infoboxes", we are admonished not to use Indic scripts in the lede section. In the very next section, "Linking to other Indian Language Wikipedias", an example lede fragment is given which violates this rule. The article it refers to, Mahatma Gandhi, does not display the same lede. Elizium23 ( talk) 11:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The decision was made because there are too many Indian languages? This makes no sense, because there are only 2 official languages in India, English and Hindi. Adding Hindi can help millions of people who only know, speak and write in Hindi to find articles on wikipedia. Not all English wikipedia articles have a hindi translation. Such a decision only prevents wikipedia's accessibility. For people, companies, and organizations that operate mostly on the state level. State languages can be included as an when deemed necessary. It seems regressive to avoid the usage of Indic scripts when for every other country, a local language translation is offered — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debitpixie ( talk • contribs) 11:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I propose a policy of preferring the secular BCE/CE as opposed to BC/AD for Indian articles being added under the "Basic India conventions". Many articles on Indian topics seem to follow this convention already (e.g., India, Karma, Hinduism), but my proposal is to codify it as a preference. Getsnoopy ( talk) 04:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I propose preferring
ISO 15919 over
IAST for all Indic-language transliterations, and adding this to the conventions page. IAST is essentially a subset of ISO 15919, barring a couple cases where it's different, and the latter allows for all Indic languages to be unambiguously represented. Along the same lines, the recommended template for transliterations should be changed to {{transl}}
instead of {{lang}}
, as the former allow specifying the transliteration scheme used as well, which is important in many cases.
Getsnoopy (
talk) 17:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Category:Government of Bangalore should be deleted since it is named after a an entity which never existed. Usage of terms Government of Karnataka and Government of India should be entertained but there is (or was) nothing by the name Government of Bangalore. If you want to categorize agencies associated with Bangalore, then we can use Category:Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike for Pages dedicated to Agencies associated with Municipal Corporation. Similarly other Pages which are using Category:Government of Bangalore can use Category:Bangalore. Talk Page Talk. - Vijethnbharadwaj ( talk) 17:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
So if on an India-related geography article, can I put Indic script and then Latin script? It doesn't say you can't according to WP:INDICSCRIPT. For example, can I put in the "nativename" section the Hindi name for a place and then below that the Latin transliteration? 2001:8003:C829:E400:F091:1EFE:F47B:624B ( talk) 07:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Avoid the use of Indic scripts in lead sections or infoboxes.. Avoid it. -- Muhandes ( talk) 09:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
References
This policy is already implied in the current policy and followed on most articles, but my proposal is to make it explicit. If no one objects to this in about a week's time, I will be amending the text accordingly in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles § Non-English strings. Getsnoopy ( talk) 19:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I am noticing some confusion about what are the correct and uniform names for the Indian state assembly constituencies. Articles are titled using Vidhan Sabha constituency, Vidhana Sabha constituency, Assembly constituency, Legislative Assembly, State Assembly constituency and Union Territory Assembly constituency etc.
I propose to name change of the all State and Union Territory assembly constituencies, for example, from Khanapur (Vidhan Sabha constituency) to Khanapur (Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly constituency), Khanapur (Assembly constituency) to Khanapur (Telangana State Legislative Assembly constituency), Khanapur (Vidhan Sabha constituency (Karnataka)) to Khanapur (Karnataka State Legislative Assembly constituency) and Islampur (Maharashtra) (Vidhan Sabha constituency) to Islampur (Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly constituency) etc. Italawar ( talk) 14:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
My view is that we should always keep disambiguation to a minimum and unnecessarily long names are not helpful. Having a standard disambiguator, especially as long as that proposed by Italawar is unnecessary IMO. I would propose the following disambiguation hierarchy:
I don't see having slightly different titles across a range of articles as a significant issue – having unnecessarily long titles is more of an issue than a lack of uniformity IMO. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
1. Aurangabad, Maharashtra (Lok Sabha constituency) serves as a much better disambiguator than using "double brackets" Aurangabad (Maharashtra) (Lok Sabha constituency). As an alternative, you can just use the official constituency number if you don't want double disambiguation. 34-Aurangabad (Lok Sabha constituency) for Bihar and 41-Aurangabad (Lok Sabha constituency) for Maharashtra. The constituency number is the part of official name of the constituency as it can be seen in the nomination papers filed by candidates.
2. Suggesting the constituency title Alirajpur (constituency) is also incorrect as there are Legislative Council constituencies too in the some states of same name. (Not in Madhya Pradesh though but I'm using Alirajpur as a reference point here) For example: Saharanpur in U.P. has three kind of constituencies — Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council and Lok Sabha, So it's better to clarify what kind of constituency is it, Assembly or Council or Lok Sabha. Even within the Legislative Council, Saharanpur has three constituencies — Graduate's constituency, Teacher's constituency and Local Authority constituency.
3. The title Gwalior East denote a general locality or geographical area of that city. It doesn't have an article on Wikipedia as of today but in future there's a possibility that there might be an article related to this geographic area so it's better to use disambiguator instead of using just a generic title for a constituency article page.
4. It would be very inconvenient for a Wikipedia user to search for a specific constituency located in a specific state with all these non-uniform title names. For example: A person looking for Betul Assembly constituency would be expecting the same keywords for Alirajpur Assembly constituency and Gwalior East Assembly constituency to search for the articles, but all three of them having three different non-uniform titles would prove to be very inconvenient to a Wikipedia user to locate them.
— Hemant Dabral Talk 02:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- There is no need to put State/UT in the title irrespective of the fact ehther the State name is mentioned or not. The legislative body of a state is called the legislative assembly for both states and partial states (Delhi, Puducherry, J&K). Bharatiya 29 19:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I oppose Bharatiya29 for now Italawar ( talk) 15:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keeping the name of a State/UT in titles will bring the uniformity in all of these constituency pages and at the same time it will rule out any chance of ambiguity. It'd look odd if some constituencies in a state (disambiguation pages) have the state name in titles and other constituencies don't have it. It's rather more practical to use State/UT name to achieve uniformity so we don't have to use different titles (one for disambigous pages and other for normal pages) for the various consistencies of a same State/UT. — Hemant Dabral Talk 22:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Isupport Hemant Dabral Italawar ( talk) 15:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- All LS and legislative assembly constituencies should have "(Lok Sabha constituency)" and "(Legislative Assembly constituency)" in their title. Omitting the word "legislative" will not be appropriate IMO. Bharatiya 29 17:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- I support Bharatiya29 Italawar ( talk) 15:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Number 57's ...
@ Italawar, Bharatiya29, Number 57, TryKid, Muhandes, and BrownHairedGirl: Why the Karnataka Legislative Assembly constituencies pages were moved by Vijethnbharadwaj when the discussion about the correct title format of constituencies is still ongoing? — Hemant Dabral ( 📞 • ✒) 07:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I have a more fundamental note / question. Since this is in English and we're trying to be clear to typical readers, we should look at the common meaning / interpretation of the word "constituency":
Keeping this in mind, IMO the above possibilities are confusing to the typical reader and/ or sometimes redundant. It appears that the "98%" meaning is not intended under any of the above. My suggestion is:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics § Proposal : Wikipedia:Naming conventions Indian constituencies. Venkat TL ( talk) 12:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
FYI Template:Cleanup Indic script ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 06:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Obviously I think banning all Indic scripts in the lead section of India-related articles is not a very good solution, so I came up with another: using a template like Template:Infobox Chinese to list the names of places in Indian languages. I have therefore created Template:Infobox Indian. It's currently a work-in-progress and please feel free to (and please do) help me fix it. I have used it on the page Indian Australians as an example. Thanks! Thiscouldbeauser ( talk) 07:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Where is the indonesia related articles for applying the manual of style in editing pages? 2404:8000:1027:85F6:4D2C:4F6E:D2A6:F16F ( talk) 15:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Would there be any appetite for an RfC to codify an exception to INDICSCRIPT for proper titles of published works in those languages (film, books, etc.) in articles? It seems like it should be relatively straightforward to determine/enforce. It doesn't appear to have been considered in the close for the original discussion , and I'm not aware of further revision discussions. The current implementation of INDICSCRIPT makes it very difficult to search for non-English sources. I note that FA-class Pather Panchali does include its Bengali name, although my impression is that for better or for worse, most articles about published works diligently toe the INDICSCRIPT line. signed, Rosguill talk 22:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Should we add the following exception to MOS:INDICSCRIPT (changes highlighted in bold)?
Exceptions are articles on the script itself, articles on a language that uses the script, articles on creative works originally produced in Indic languages. This exception does not apply to dubs or translations of original works, but does apply to works produced and released in multiple languages simultaneously (e.g.
Radhe Shyam). For works whose spoken language is ambiguous (i.e. languages in the
Hindustani continuum), defer to the spelling/language(s) provided in the earliest publication of the work itself
.
Note that the status quo text already provides for exceptions for articles on texts originally written in a particular script.
; the proposed change would expand this exception to include films, music, video games, and other creative works with specific, identifiable languages of production; text in the guideline related to written works was changed purely for copyediting purposes. signed,
Rosguill
talk 15:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
put an end to the plague of naming disputesor not? Gotitbro above implies that such disputes and enforcing the existing guideline are a constant battle, hardly something resolved by the guideline. signed, Rosguill talk 20:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
There is ultimately no consensus about which language to use...defaulting to the encouragement of IPA by the closer as an attempt to resolve the impasse. The various discussions listed in the guideline itself since then are a rather confusing list of primarily one-off challenges by an editor unsatisfied with the status quo and which led to minimal further discussion, and a much more relevant 2017 discussion to expand the lead-ban to an infobox-ban. I'm not aware of any past discussion that has really taken up the question of exceptions to the rule. signed, Rosguill talk 22:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed that most articles mentioning the Indian rupee appear to use the old Rs[.] symbol or the lakh crore system, rather than the new (as of 2010) ₹ symbol. Is there a standard around which symbol to use, and should instances of "Rs" when referring to the Indian rupee be changed to the new symbol? Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 13:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Can someone provide an update for the MOS:INDICSCRIPT? Is the guideline still applicable or are there any exceptions to the guideline, especially in Wikiproject Hinduism? I'm seeing multiple articles with notes suggesting so. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 16:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
<!--Do not remove, WP:INDICSCRIPT doesn't apply to WikiProject Hinduism-->
That's a nonsensical statement, since there is
no such thing as a wikiproject that is magically immune to guidelines and policies applying to it. This may be a mangled attempt at referring to some consensus discussion that came to a conclusion that certain Indic script renditions might be particularly relevant at certain topical articles, but we'll need to see what that discussion might be, if there has actually been one. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 19:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)