Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Do you need the Indic name(s) of something or somebody? Post a request for it.
Click here to add a new section

C class articles

Why is the project not using the C class rating? By skipping this rating, articles will wind up being correctly classed as 'C' by other projects that have an interest while this project would be rating them as start. That is confusing. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the time has come for us to upgrade. Given that B class articles are now more refined that what was originally planned, I say we vouch for the C class and the following additions to the assessment:

1. C class
2. B class-1, B class-2 up to B class-5
3. add the "needs-coordinates" to the WP India template for entities that need a geo coordinate.

Under normal conditions, A class should only be rated if the article has undergone a formal peer review. The only difference between an A class articles and FA should be that A class articles need 1a polishing. The requirement that A-class articles undergo PR could be waived for experienced FA writers, and for articles on FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make changes to {{WP India}}, you may want to convert the the editorial projects templates. This eliminates most maintenance for the project template. {{WP Australia}} is an example of what you can do using the standard components. You wind up with a less complex template. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Aussie project is good. I think we should tweak the IN project to pick up some of the finer points from there. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This review was meant to be opened later this year so that we could adopt something in the new year, but there's no harm doing the review now for changes for the new year. For the record, I don't favour using an obscure C-class. WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Films, are amongst several successful and big WikiProjects who declined to use C-class, and there's no confusion when they do that - I personally favour using their approach, of keeping our grades as they are, and enforcing them more strictly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much about the confusion, rather the disparity step between a start class article and a B class. For example, a four paragraph article can be rated as a start class, but a ten paragraph article poorly written, without citations cannot be termed as start, neither rated as a B. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Strict enforcement takes care of cases like that. A stub article can be of any length. I don't think that example would fall under C-class even if we did adopt the grade. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean "start class" instead of "stub article"? =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant stub class assuming that the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, per our quality scale. If it had a majority of the content needed (despite several concerns), it could be B, but if it's lacking key ideas, then it could fall under start. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Stub templates are only added to articles that have a few lines of content. We do not add the template for an article of a size of four paragraphs as a stub. For example, Agra has too much content to be labelled as a start class, but classifying it as a B class when references are unavailable, and the focus is on tourism is questionable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, not necessarily, but quite possibly - whether it's according to our quality scale or that followed by the editorial team, stub classes can be of any length. But yes, normally they are short as the quality scale acknowledges. It really does depend on the article in question. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question may be, where do you want the confusion that can result? Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies uses C class so any companies that are part of your project will have the disconnect for company articles. So is it a question of choosing which other projects to follow? Another point to consider, is it a matter of time before most projects decide to use C class? If that is likely then the decision may be more of when to change rather then do we change. The sooner a change like this is completed, the fewer articles needing review to reclassify. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the sooner the better if there is a change. However, I don't see those projects adopting it any time in the future - they'd explicitly rejected it upon the editorial team accepting it, due to preference on the system without C-class. Articles that fall under C-class in other projects will generally be either start class or B class, but should show up as unassessed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on having the C-class rating? Further debate solicited. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to start using C-class. This is because, on many topics it is difficult to provide substantially detailed coverage (as expected in B-class), but it is very much possible to make the article useful for normal readers (better than start-class). These intermediate ratings can also encourage participating editors. And I guess it is not possible to make an FA article on every topic. --GDibyendu (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there consensus on using C class? 2 support, 1 for a deferred review. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My vote is to oppose for 2008-2009. Certainly will review this on a yearly basis given the substantial division among big projects, and indeed, each user's views. Most likely to look into this again before the next tag and assess (no earlier than in 8 months). However, I don't think there's a consensus at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Altough initially I opposed the idea of a 'redundant' class C during the discussion at WP1.0 forum , I dont see a reason why we should shy away from using it now as other projects have accepted it. Otherswise we may lose possibly C class + Top/High importance articles from our project while selecting the DVD version. In this case we should make our B class criteria more stricter and those which are Not Start but not yet B class articles will fall in C criteria , right? -- Tinu Cherian - 14:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we generally don't lose C-class articles. The main thing that determines if an article is ready for inclusion in the DVD version is importance - unless there are sufficient reservations by the editorial team, it's included, even if it's less-than-ideal. Articles that fall short of inclusion by a couple of hundred points (particularly on quality) in Bot selection are generally looked at and manually included in the selection by the editorial team. This is checked amongst all big WikiProjects that opted out of C-class. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ncm, You mention that the C class articles are to be reviewed by year-end. Who will be reviewing them, and is there a likelihood of it being rescinded? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow what you're asking. My reply to you was speaking of WikiProject India (assessment dept.), while my reply to Tinu was speaking of the editorial team. Does that clarify? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Earlier you mentioned: My vote is to oppose for 2008-2009. Certainly will review this on a yearly basis given the substantial division... 2008 ends in about 60 days. Do you have anything in mind that might change your opinion within the next 60 days? To elucidate, is there a WP 1.0 review on the effectiveness of the C-class implementation, or is a major project planning to release its findings by then? Else I'm puzzled why you are asking for an abeyance. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, when I said (WP India assessment dept.) would review it on a yearly basis, I did mean in about 12 months - though technically, it'd be about 8 months if it's just before the next tag and assess. No, I'm not aware of a major project solely dedicated to looking at C-class alone. But yes, the editorial team is always reviewing its assessment structures as an ongoing task. Currently, there are other important tasks which are a priority, but a couple of us will be making a move to conduct a survey when time permits. Hope that answers your question. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Err, what do you mean by "the next tag and assess" and how is it significant? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's significant because that's when users (outside of the assessment dept.) actually take the time to assess india articles, and usually, the number which they assess is quite large. In a lot of cases, that number can be larger than than the total number they'd assess for a year, if there was no 'tag and assess' being run. That's why we ran it this year (it was announced on this noticeboard); that's why it'll be run again next year, and that's why it's important to have appropriate grades to use particularly prior to that event. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel we should go ahead with the C-Class. It will help us grade our articles better. We do not have to wait for the next tag and assess. Assessment is an ongoing process, tag-and-assess helps with filling the gaps. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Section break A

<reindent> These are my reasons why we need to have a C-class:

1. As illustrated above, Agra falls into a grey category. Too much content for a start, too unreferenced and badly written for a B-class. There are several articles such as these that languish in this grey-zone.
2. I do not agree with the argument that a stub article can be of any length. WP:STUB has clear guidelines on what a stub should look like.
3. Drawing parallels with "WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Films, are amongst several successful and big WikiProjects who declined to use C-class" and Wikipedia India is a classic case of a logical falacy known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Correlation does not imply causation), simply put, just because another project has for the moment rejected it, does not make it non-kosher. Let me illustrate with further examples:
   1. The scope of WikiProject India is vast. The folks at Featured articles categorise a featured articles into about 30 categories. WikiProject India is vast enough to contribute an article into each of these 30 odd categories. Given the scoping of these projects, the scope of MILHIST, FILMS is limited to not more than five categories each. For example, in WP:FILMS, the bulk of the content are films and biographies. Therefore the graduation from stub to B class is not so pronounced. Our project is much more diverse.
   2. We need to take in the considerations and requirements of WP:INDIA, whether C class is suited for usage. If no reports or findings are made by any active large wikiproject to debunk the effectiveness of a C-class grade, I do not see why any parallels should be drawn to MILHIST not using them.
4. "Redundant" was a word used above. Initially, yes C-class could be called redundant. But with the gradual tightening of the quality of A and B-grade articles, a vacuum is created that can be filled by C-class. To resolve redundancy, we can easily define clear guidelines to separate a start from C class articles. B-class is already defined under 5 parameters. I've already provided an example of a potential C-class article.
5. As Ganesh put it, assessment should not be hyphenated with a tag-and-assess drive. Tagging is an an ongoing effort and should not be held ransom to time.
6. Assessment can be done by anyone on wikipedia who has sufficient editing experience, and topical knowledge. Except for FAs, and self-review of GAs, restricting assessment to just people who sign up on an assessment page is counterproductive to the goals of wikipedia – that is open editing and not just coteries. I have not signed up for any assessment page, but that does not prevent me from assessing for projects on MILHIST, SHIPS, SERBIA, SCHOOLS etc.

To conclude, I strongly believe we must assess the requirements of a C-class article for the needs of WP India, rather than digressing from the topic by making irrelevant conclusions without the availability of factual data. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am bit confused with your first response.

1. What do you mean by "B class-1, B class-2 up to B class-5"? What's does 1, 2 ... 5 denote?
2. Will this exercise mean some B-class articles will be demoted to C-Class? Will B-Class articles need a mandatory review going forward as required by GA class articles currently? That would be too tough to follow.
3. How will adoption of C-Class help India related articles to get selected for DVD version of Wikipedia?

I am not sure of the rules that are going to change after adoption of C-class. If someone could shortly explain this I think we can have inputs from more folks weather we should go for this change or not. --GPPande talk! 18:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1. For B class, and article must conform to the following criteria:
   1. B-1: Referencing and citation
   2. B-2: Coverage and accuracy:
   3. B-3: Structure
   4. B-4: Grammar
   5. B-5: Supporting materials

   See Talk:Mahim Fort for the MILHIST assessment. Only if all conform, does the B-class get awarded.

2. Yes, some articles might get demoted, others might get promoted from start.
3. I did not understand you with respect to DVD version and C class. Nominations are first gathered by importance, then class. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Tinu said above Otherswise we may lose possibly C class + Top/High importance articles from our project while selecting the DVD version. I did not understand how is C-class related to the DVD version. Does this mean that an article with Top/High importance but of C-class does not qualify for DVD version? --GPPande talk! 18:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about the nitty-gritties. We would have to clarify this on WP:1.0. Remember this would also apply to stub class article of top importance too. Many start class articles of high importance such as Kohima and Imphal would not make the cut if the condition is true. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

GPPande, it's a bit more complicated than that I'm afraid. Importance is assessed according to the grade we give, as well as a few other factors including how much the article has been viewed. These factors are all put together to form an importance score - this is then added to the quality score (which is based on the quality grade we give - like B-class for example). If the combination of both of these scores are over a certain threshold, it's included in the release version (DVD). If it isn't, then it won't be included. The editorial team also do a set of manual assessments for nominated articles, and of course, some of us go through to find other articles that narrowly missed out but should've been included. Even stubs and start class articles are included where they are deemed important enough for release. Hope that helps, and you can ping me if you'd like more details. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Coming to second part of my question#2, if we adopt C-class grade, then for an article to qualify as B-class do need to do a formal review from a non-participating member just like currently GA status require? For Talk:Mahim Fort I did not see any review done by any member - except criteria met for the 5 conditions listed under MILHIST. What criteria should be used to differentiate articles as is being currently done for GA, A-class and FA. If ad-hoc I feel so review is being used, then article may switch back and forth between B and C class based on individual views without any changes to the real article. Also, it's an added bureaucratic procedure which I think will yield little. Instead should we not continue to enforce existing guidelines more strictly first? Should Agra be demoted to start class by removing non-sense text without any source? I am not seeing much of a use here for C-class. Am I missing some important point here? Nichalp said we can easily define clear guidelines to separate a start from C class articles. B-class is already defined under 5 parameters. Should we discuss the difference in criteria for start, C and B class articles first and then decide if really these differences are worthy enough. If we see striking differences (as we can see between a B-class and GA and FA currently) then we can adopt the proposal. --GPPande talk! 19:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades may help answer some preliminary queries
2. No, anyone can assess for grades up to B. I've proposed a modification to A in my first post in this thread that mentions experienced FA writers can self-assess articles on FAC as A-grade without a requiring a Peer Review.
3. Assessment is subjective, after all, humans do this. That's why I always try and prod people to get their articles up to featured quality.
4. B-class has mostly objective criteria. The debatable clause is comprehensiveness. There was a huge debate on FAC last month on short articles vs availability of references to support expansion. If you really are game to trawl through the archive mess, see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive32.
5. Indian Army is an article I would downgrade to C. It has too much useful content for it to be labelled as a start. But to satisfy B-class, it needs references, a proper history section with a flow, and reduction of list material to prose.
6. Yes, we need to discuss the criteria for all except GA and FA. That's why I posted :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Err, 'illustrated above'? Agra does not fall into a "grey area" - under our current assessment scheme, unless it does not satisfy the distinct criteria that it has "a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article" (in which case it would be a start-class), it'd clearly fall under B-class. I say there is no ambiguity in considering B-class because the criteria allows for "some gaps or missing elements or references", or if it "needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR)." Even if it's assessed as B (as it is now), I would still tag the article concurrently for lacking sources, for example. This acknowledges the nature of flaws in that article. The more formalized (& wider community) process called GAN is the proper place to ensure that references, NPOV/OR, etc. are fixed properly. (We can make B-class criteria stricter if the gap between B and GA is too big - but C-class is pointless.)
• Stub articles can be of any length, they've been graded as such and they will continue to be if they match the criteria. Guidelines vary in how they've been enforced as norms can override them. AGF is enforced reasonably strictly; stub guidelines are not, nor have they ever been constituted in the quality scale of either this project, or the editorial team's criteria.
• Merely quoting project diversity as a reason for inclusion lacks relevance. The arguments for or against C-class are in no way less applicable to those other projects merely because they focus on a narrower set of topics, or because they qualify under less categories at FAC. Eg; a film article may lack references, it appears to contain original research and seems to be a promotion of the movie. That doesn't mean using C-class is going to make that outcome any different. Those projects have been successful in producing quality output, over and over. It's an incredibly narrow minded view to suggest that assessment/tagging is being held ransom to time, by either those projects or myself, in purporting the same view. They/myself are directly against C-class for good reason: our current system is more effective without (a) additional complications, (b) more unnecessary time spent in early stages of assessment as opposed to content building/improving, and of course, (c) more red-tape. These are just a few reasons.
• I don't think the assessment department of any project (including this one) has suggested that assessment is limited to any set of members. If we were limiting which editors assessed in WP India, tag-and-assess would not have existed as all other editors would be dismissed as unfit. In other words, that view has never been held by any of us, whether it was Tinucherian, Ganeshk (previously), Mspraveen, pruthvi, myself or any of the other newer members. However, when a large number of articles are going to be assessed in a relatively short span of time compared to usually, that's when there is a heightened level of importance on what grades are being used and how they are applied. That's when I expect more editors to comment also.
• To conclude, I strongly believe C-class should not be blindly implemented as suggested - instead, we should see how other projects have improved (or not) from its implementation, and decide from there. So far, I've seen more time taken up by the introduction of the new grade which could've been better spent in content building/improving, and the overall effect being not-so positive. As I've noted at the time of C-class being implemented by the editorial team, it's more worthwhile to have stricter standards for B-class and start-class - changing B-class criteria to a 5-tier test should be enough. 'Introducing C-class now is a waste of valuable time' sums up my view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are my ratings:

Grade	Details	Example
FA	All our articles should be FA class eventually	India
A	Criteria: Has undergone a formal peer review, and comments have been addressed. A-grade articles can also be self-assessed by experienced FA writers (>4 FAs) for articles currently on FAC. Ideally, the article should progress from a GA. Usually, the only thing separating a A-class from FA is the quality of prose. A class articles also have suitable media (such as charts, photographs, and maps) that help in the understanding of the subject.	Vithoba
GA	Meets all B class criteria. Reviewed independently by GA assessors.	Fundamental Rights in India
B	Meets the six basic criteria for encyclopaedicness. Contentious claims in the article are referenced, has no grammatical issues, has a definite flow, and touches on all topics expected for a reader to gain an understanding of the subject. In addition, it touches on all sections recommended by a task force such as Indian cities. All infoboxes and tables are present.	History of Mumbai
C	The article is not comprehensive, suffers from poor prose, but has the relevant information to gain an overview of the subject. The article needs a general clean-up, and needs sources to progress to B-class. A rewrite is necessary to focus on encyclopedicity.	Indian Army, Agra, Nagaland
Start	In proportion to the availability of sources and scoping, a start class article may vary in length. A start class article might for example only talk about the history and geography of a place. The article may need infoboxes, templates, tables and pictures.	Gateway of India
Stub	Basic information on the topic. See WP:STUB	various

1. Ncmvocalist, I dispute your comments on what a stub is: Quoting from WP:STUB: A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. Sizeable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they lack wikification or copy editing. To support your claim please provide examples of sizeable articles (I'm especially looking forward to one over 10k prose (ext tables, categories, and list content)). I would cite the DYK requirement of 1.5 kb of encyclopedic prose as a rough guideline to what separates a stub from a start class.
2. AGF and STUB? What's the connection?
3. I'm still not convinced with your reasons for the non inclusion of C-class. I feel it's purely personal considerations without the support of factual data or current opinion from research in other projects. In this regards I have contacted successful Wikiprojects such as AUSTRALIA, HURRICANE, (2 successful large projects that produce FAs), COMPANIES (quoted above), and also FILMS and MILHIST to present opposing arguments. In addition, I have contacted WP:1.0 for their opinion. I also note that you have responded to some of them.
4. From the table above, I have outlined how we can use the C-class criteria. If there is a gap, and we can prove that C-class articles fill that gap, then redundancy is resolved. I have tried to address it by citing model Start, C, and B-class articles.
5. As names of members on the assessment team are being dragged needlessly here, I have personally contacted all the users who have signed up as assessment volunteers, and have not contributed their opinion yet. I'd prefer if we would have their unbiased opinion.
6. I have a correction to make: B-class has 6 parameters, not 5.
7. You mention fears such as (a) additional complications, (b) more unnecessary time spent in early stages of assessment as opposed to content building/improving, and of course, (c) more red-tape. Please justify using examples.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I'll be off shortly so I'll have to address most of this next time I'm online. Just to clarify a few points though; the common element between stub and agf is that they're a guideline. Neither the editorial team or this project's assessment dept. cites WP:STUB in their criteria for stub-class in their respective quality scales, as I've repeatedly noted. So my point is that one of the guidelines is enforced as such, the other is not. I doubt we have a 10K article that is stub - that'd be blasting it out of proportions. I note that the name of the team members was dragged in to respond to your apparent concern that some users are being segregated in who assesses articles and who doesn't; I'm confident that they're aware that any user may assess an article, but if you'd like personal clarification from each of them, then it was a good idea for you to ask them to come here and clarify that for you. I'll be asking a couple of others to weigh in at this discussion at some point also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    Sure, I'll look forward to your response. Not in a particular hurry, as I also expect input from those we contacted.

    Yes, the common element between a stub and AGF is a guideline, but so is the Manual of Style which is enforced. Debating on the niceties of guidelines vs policies is getting off-topic, so I suggest we drop mention of it. We both understand the criteria.

    You mentioned that "a stub can be of any length". I disputed that initially, but you kept mentioning that repeatedly without clarifying the issue or citing examples to justify your viewpoint. That's why I cited a 10kb example so that you can refine your statement.

    My statement on those on assessment team was not meant to disparage them. If it was construed that way, I apologize to those members. My statement rather, was in response to your statements: Most likely to look into this again before the next tag and assess (no earlier than in 8 months). However, I don't think there's a consensus at this time. where you spoke on behalf of the assessors to determine a lack of consensus. To avoid an ugly turn of events, I decided to contact them for their opinion on this discussion so that the issue is amicably resolved.

    Sure, feel free to ask independent and neutral observers to pitch in. I've contacted all stakeholders so far (assessment talk page, assessment page, and Vegaswikian), and wikiprojects that were cited as role models for either case. I trust that you will contact similar stake-holders. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    • As a note, I've demoted Vithobha back to GA status - if reliability of sources is enough of an issue on its own, then I'm sorry, but it would neither pass our A-class status quality scale, and would almost definitely not pass at editorial team level. Had it been a matter of a bit more copyediting (or style issues) or a bit of expert knowledge, then it'd qualify. Reliably sourced content is a must once it has passed GA status - if there's enough of a doubt for it not to pass FA, then there's a problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

      • I've asked SandyGeorgia for inputs on the nomination failure. Since this is not central to the discussion we can open a new thread to discuss A grade criteria. PS Reliability of sources depends on the context. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

        • Agree with your P.S.
        • Yes, like AGF, MoS is another example of a guideline that is regularly enforced; most vigorously at FAC. I don't think this is a matter of semantics; I think it's a matter of general experience - it's no secret that some guidelines are enforced more stringently than others (including those which are hardly referred to). We don't refer or link to them in the quality scale in the same way we do for WP:RS, WP:NPOV etc.
        • Perhaps my clarification was not so good after all, so I'm partially to blame for the miscommunication and certainly to blame for my convoluted sentencing which caused you to misconstrue my comments and take them out of context. The sentence beginning "My vote...." was my personal input on this discussion here, and the 'don't think that there is a consensus at this time' was based on the discussion that occurred here and here alone. The sentences in between these 2 (which was what you were focussing on in your reply/question) were what I was referring to as concerning the assessment dept. - evidently, I can see how saying something like "my reply concerns the assessment team" can be construed as all 4-5 sentences being on their behalf, so apologies if it was interpreted as such. Does that clear that up?
        • Isn't your proposed B criteria identical to GA?
        • I did wish to be present for the discussions that took place over these issues (my availability will be limited until sometime in early Dec). That said, I don't think this is something that can be resolved overnight so this discussion needs to run, even during my periods of absence, and it would also give us (and others) plenty of time to consider and respond accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

<reindent>

1. Thanks for the clarification. Things now clear.
2. B is self-assessed and more of a checklist. From personal experience, and general consensus, due to the familiarity with editing an article, a person might overlook prose issues, may think that the topic is comprehensive, or may overlook the reliability of a source. By going in for a GA, a neutral person might be able to point out these flaws. IMO GA should be the minimum quality standards we must strive for. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just to acknowledge I've read this and am thinking.... Will respond at some point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favour of having additional category C-class for quality of article. I think "Start-Class" category is sufficient or appropriate to cover range what other editors want to call it "C-class". One concern raised not having C-class article is disparity when two articles rated as Start class, they might be having substantial difference in quality. I agree this is true but I do not see this as a problem as long as B-class ranking can be awarded objectively. When I see an article which is not B-class it immediately tells me that article lacks citation or reliable source. Another concern raised not having "C-class" category has to do with technical issue like mismatch between other wikiprojects and how articles are selected for DVD version. Here also I do not see it is problem as long as we are not alone for not opting the "C-class" category for assessment. Main purpose of assessment is to encourage content generation by highlight the issues which on correcting will significantly improve the quality of articles. pruthvi (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:G.A.S to Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#C-class articles

1. If the implementation of C-class has been effective in general?
   • The implementation of C-class has been well received and is very effective at WP:ANIME.
2. Does C-class articles involve more red tape?
   • (Only for B-class) It involves a bit more admin, as a B-class checklist (see {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} and {{WikiProject Anime and manga/B list}}) has to be completed, but editors are welcome to rate articles themselves. I do monitor the assessment log, and confirm B-class assessments, though.
3. Are the lines of distinction between Start and C, and Start and B classes blurred?
   • I would say that our implementation of a B-class checklist has eased any such distinctions: We added a B-class checklist to our project banner at the same time that we adopted C-class, and it automatically assesses B and C class based on the six B class criteria. If all parameters are "No", the article is rated as start class, if 1 to 5 of the parameters are "Yes", C-class, and if all parameters are "Yes", B-class.
   • If the criteria has not been completed in full, the article will be rated as C class. This caused all of our B-class articles to be rated as C class, but having completed the 2008 assessment drive about 60%, this seemed to be the correct choice, as most of those articles are in fact, C-class.
   • In short: If an article is clearly incomplete or has multiple major omissions, it is start class, C class otherwise, and only B class if the checklist has been completed. I do monitor the assessment log for all B-class upgrades, as editors have in the past (and still) rate articles as B-class when they do not meet all of the criteria.
4. Does C-class complicate the assessment process?
   • As the B-class checklist has to be completed, it is somewhat more complicated, but it takes only a few seconds to fill in the checklist. I should say that I find this much easier though than deciding whether an article is B or start class, as the checklist provides very good guidance in this regard.

Regards
G.A.S^talk 04:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Your replies in point#3 above indicate more than 50% B-class articles will be demoted to C-class. I feel this is scary. What kind of constructive responses you received from editors when an article was demoted to C-class? Was there any immediate significant improvement in those demoted articles in terms of text, sources, style or images? How many articles were again upgraded to B-class? If there were hardly any improvements seen then I think the process of implementing C-class should be on hold. If there was any positive impact we can go for it. All I am looking for here is the advantage of using this new class. --GPPande talk! 10:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Before the adoption of C-class, these type of articles were regularly demoted to start class.

All of the B-class articles were intentionally demoted to C-class by adding the checklist. We are currently still working through the backlog of the incomplete checklists. The checklist currently reads "This article has not yet been reviewed for compliance with the WikiProject's B-Class criteria" for those articles. For the most part, it seems that editors have not paid attention to the (automatic) demotion, though some have completed the checklist for their articles.

Our decision was to limit the assessment to C-class in the absence of the checklist, and I would reckon this to be correct in ~90% of cases, as the project had no assessment department prior to the introduction of C-class, and all assessments were by fans of the specific series (See ARCAM Private Army for a typical "B-class" example). In some cases (quite a few of) these articles have been manually demoted to start class since. If this is not the case at WP:INDIA, I would reckon that it may be better to leave the assessment at B class in the absence of the checklist; demoting only where a specific item is failed.

Unfortunately, most of the articles which were demoted to C-class do not have active editors at the moment. There have been improvements where the articles have active editors.

The more direct effect was that B-class have become a target for editors, especially on the way to GA class. If there is a specific issue stopping articles from becoming B-class, this is also usually addressed by editors, e.g. if a single image was needed. I usually leave comment why an article fails specific criteria. Editors usually attempt to fix these issues (example). Some of those B-class articles are currently awaiting copyedit or peer review, or are FL/FL candidates, GA/GA candidates now. At least 6 C-class lists have been upgraded to FL class since, as have 3 articles been upgraded to GA class. Another 18 have been upgraded to B-class since. (Some of those have been start/stub class before) At least 29 articles were upgraded to C-class shortly after the adoption of C class.

The major stumbling block I envisage, is that all articles will not be correctly assessed all at once. It takes time. I would reckon that a more important choice is whether or not to adopt a checklist, such as the one used by WP:ANIME and WP:MILHIST.

Regards, G.A.S^talk 11:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that I am mostly (95%) involved with article assessment at WP:ANIME at the moment, not with the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

You said At least 6 C-class lists have been upgraded to FL class since, as have 3 articles been upgraded to GA class. Another 18 have been upgraded to B-class since. (Some of those have been start/stub class before) At least 29 articles were upgraded to C-class shortly after the adoption of C class. Those are significant improvements in my opinion for the project of size WP:ANIME. The total C-class article counts for WP:ANIME is around 700+ and B-class article count for WP:IN is 900+. I think if India project adopts similar strategy then -

1. First need to downgrade all 900+ B-class articles to C-class. I think Tinu's child can help here.
2. Then manually each of these 900+ would have to be manually assessed for start, C and B-class.

I think this would be like a mid-year drive - but on a smaller scale. --GPPande talk! 11:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Do have a look at {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} and {{WikiProject Anime and manga/B list}}, as the code for these templates are quite advanced (The banner automatically assesses project pages, templates, infoboxes, images, categories appropriately, and the checklist's code have been refined a lot since we adopted it). I reckon ~900 articles could be assessed in a few days (18 man hours). Regards, G.A.S^talk 12:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, now I realize that India Project may also have to take a look at 6600+ start class article to check how many of them fit into C-class. So, 6600+980=7580+ articles to review manually. That's a mammoth task. --GPPande talk! 18:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There are task forces to do this such as WP:MUM, WP:INCITIES etc. Also see WP:DEADLINE. I'm also exploring the use of a script/bot to make tagging easier. With the use of a bot I can estimate a tagging of 4000 articles per user per week on a conservative average. By sharing the load things can be done sooner. Besides, the longer we delay implementation, the more rework there would be at a later stage should we choose to implement later. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

See User:Kingbotk/Plugin, which is a plug-in for WP:AWB. This may or may not be useful for this purpose. I prefer to use WP:AWB with a manually set search and replace string for Tag and Assess purposes (Almost all of our articles had no importance rating when the Tag & Assess started), and a second screen for viewing and pre-loading articles in parallel. G.A.S^talk 06:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another section break

Section break inserted bu User:G.A.S to facilitate easier editing]] Well the fact that WP:AUS has 110 FAs and 176 GAs doesn't necessarily mean that it is because of any particular administrative structure in place, eg a C-class assessment. If India wins this week, that doesn't mean that that Cricket Australia should engage in the type of hte politics that the BCCI does. Anyway, if this reasoning is going to be used, then don't use C-class because the rate of growth in FA-Class Australia articles has slowed up since C-class was introduced. I think the real reason that the FA production slowed down is because 4-5 authors have been responsible for about 60% of the FAs this year and they have all slowed down on writing recently, for differing reasons. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 06:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that C class does not have a particular impact on the rate at which FA's are created. On the other side, at WP:ANIME, some editors take stubs and really horrible start class articles, and clean them up to C-class, and move on to the next article, or fix them up to B class. Due to the lack of copy-editors, it is not possible to upgrade those articles to GA class quickly, hence the article staying at (a proper) B class. I have also made a suggestion at WT:ANIME/CLEANUP to have our cleanup listing only display articles of C class or higher, to help prioritise cleanup; so this may also be considered here. G.A.S^talk 07:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A class

Why not start a seperate A-class review department for such articles which are midway between GA and FA. Like the PR department, Assesement department etc...I had also given an article (Mangalore) for A-class status before which was a GA and a failed FAC. But the procedure and the reasons for not promoting it to A-status was not very much appreciated by me. The next time I gave it for FAC, it got promoted to FA with almost no changes at all. But it was not promoted to A-class. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 13:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• The reason is simply because of the large backlog and the lack of input - the peer review dept. is an example of a dept. that is narrowly alive. By leaving it up to the assessment dept. to determine, all members would review by passing from one reviewer to another until/unless there's enough of an objection. IIRC, both myself and another team member objected based on on more than one objection over criteria at FAC, and I left you a note on your talk page accordingly (also encouraging you to take it to FAC again). If it was a mere matter of style issues or expert knowledge being needed, it would've received A-class, as would Vithobha - we're strictly following basic editorial team standards to that extent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • While I accept that INDIA PR is dead, but I don't think A-class dept. will ever be dead. The reason for its death is we have a global PR. Most prefer giving their articles there. I found the best way to get a review. Suppose you and me nominate our respective articles for PR; I inform you that I am ready to review your article provided you review my article. This is the best way; A give and Take relationship. It has worked for me manytimes. Although I wouldn't like to dig in the past,;; why to bother; since it is featured; but however I strongly disagree with your comments. If you check the revision of the article when I gave it for an A-class review and the revision when it attained FA status; you'll observe all the references were the same. If reliable issues were present, Ealdgyth would have yelled at the article during the second FAC; he had previously made my life miserable in the first FAC. A dedicated A-class dept. will help us. We can't forget WIKIPROJECT INDIA has 58 GA's. Many of them may be near FA-status. An A-class rating will act as a catalyst Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 14:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your concerns about Mangalore article; however, IIRC, Sandy gave you a rationale on why it was closed as unsuccessful, and that was still a concern - generally, the assessment dept. places more faith in that wider-community (FAC) assessment on sourcing than its internal ones. I considered opting for abolishing A-class altogether simply because I don't think this is the most ideal way of assessing articles at this level - A-class review is always ideal, and there seemed little point in keeping the grade for a handful of articles. However, I think at least it'll be beneficial where the only issue is like those I noted - and it should (as you say) act as a catalyst to move for FA.
    • I'm aware that even the other bigger projects are having periods where no where near enough reviewers are weighing in during A-class review for their respective projects - one of our own assessment team members encountered that issue for an article he nominated at another project. In that sense, I'd be opposed if we don't have enough support to maintain it here.
    • If we have the support to maintain it though, I'd certainly support and be ready to open it up. Can we find enough other users from our project (or even other projects) who are ready to keep it active when we have nominations? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

PS Ealdgyth is a she. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not a fan of GA and A. I prefer to push my articles from stub to FA-class directly, and I've done some within a week. 4 days from stub to A-grade, 1 week to FA. I would suggest that inexperienced writers work up the levels. Self assess for B-grade criteria, then nominate for GA, get a good review and pass GA. After that, submit it for a WP:PR, post a message on relevant wikiprojects for review (and contact experienced contributors), take care of those issues in PR, and then request a reassessment for A grade. With that done, push for FAC. But I must remark, from all these gradation systems, it makes a push for FA process a little bureaucratic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we have A-class reviews here itself. This talk page is very active. Well, Nichalp, there are many articles which have to go through all this. Not all. For example, topics such as Roman Catholic Church, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism have to follow all the steps, or it is impossible to get the gold star. Some topics can directly attain FA-status from Stub even without undergoing a PR. It depends on article to article. Just have a glance at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church. It was not listed as a GA 3 times and is a failed FAC 4 times. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 18:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer we's not use this for A class. Getting an FA class is much better. Yes I agree that each article should be debated as per its merits. Having a strict policy for nominating an FA is m:instruction creep. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Nichalp; that's also what we've been trying to encourage editors to do - take it up to FA rather than worry about A-class. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break B

• Support. Also support a seperate rating for articles between B and GA. (B+) Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 09:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Where to come in? I have been arguing the toss over this at mil hist, as a visitor. To try to sum up what I think are their views, they are mostly concerned with articles they consider of high quality, and potential candidates for same. As I have seen it argued, they are not concerned that the current system means most articles end up as 'stub' or 'start', with a lot of quite usefull and informative articles ending as 'start'. My own view is that this does not help visitors to wiki, or even us. Wiki needs a good grading system for the benefit of readers: it is no good having any system which lumps most of the articles in the same category.

Mil hist, and others of like mind, have made matters worse by continuously pushing up required standards for a grade. They currently insist upon more severe criteria than the assessment team. I think this is daft. Firstly, the assessment team created standards for their own purposes in sorting articles. Having said what they wanted, they asked others to help. Deciding to use a different standard then theirs is just unhelpfull complication. Secondly, the reason for introducing a C grade seems to have a lot to do with this 'grade inflation', because more and more articles are being pushed out of B downwards. So, to satisfy those who want a stricter B, someone introduced C. But now having created the problem, some are opposing the proposed solution. The system currently is top-heavy with high grades. In a system Fa A GA B Start Stub, you might expect stub was the bottom 20%, start the next 20%, and so forth. A quick look at your statistics says you have stub 75%, start 24%, B 2% , top four grades 0.4% combined (approximately, yes I know it doesn't add up). This also says that you should be looking to find C class articles amongst ths 'start' block, not by demoting any currently in 'B'. A better solution would very probably be a radical downwards re-definition of the criteria for the top five grades. Your own statistics show that even B, the lowest current grade with any meaningfull differentiation, is very hard to reach. Wholesale change may not be practicable, but for the present a C grade is a helpfull addition. Riddle me this: If the top five grades are only 2.5% of wiki, how does this help a reader know if what he is reading is a good article? 97.5% of articles are being listed as bad. (And I know perfectly well some of those are pretty good. For example, mil hist is littered with good articles which have been failed for lack of references) At present, the greatest number of articles usefull to readers are in the 'start' or even 'stub' section. Does that seem sensible? Sandpiper (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether to adopt C class was discussed, at length, by the members of the military history project. The consensus view was that there were few, if any, benefits from adding another level of assessment and that the stub-start-B-A-FA scale was working well. The resources required to re-assess start class articles as C class were felt to be significant, and this would have detracted from work on articles for no benefit. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: adoption of C-class in WP Aus My view is that using C class has been an underwhelming yawn. At first I opposed the idea on it just complicating things for no good reason and I still feel this is true. At the same time I am slowly rating some articles with C class, especially when they don't have appropriate citations from reliable sources.

Using C class doesn't provide any quick fixes so it is difficult to discern any real benefits. At first there was a lot of confusion about criteria. There is still of lot of inconsistency between types and many articles rated start are probably C class. However other editors who do more assessing or work on specific sub projects that I am not familiar with, may find may find good reasons and have other opinions contrary to mine. So in summary, adopting C class might have some benefits and probably some confusion. You might want to look at WP:VG/A, who also adopted C class. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC) Reproduced from my talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Copied from WP AUS =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC) <begincopy>

Just a personal observation, but from my own rating point of view it filled a gap that was sorely noticed and meant we didn't have to artificially stretch our "B"s and "Start"s any more into contortions. I personally see a "C" as "definitely not extensive enough for B but definitely more than a Start" and use few other formal criteria. Others will undoubtedly hold different opinions. Orderinchaos 09:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I see it as a waste of time/resources either its in a position to be made into a GA(hence B) or just its starting out missing basic structure, citations, infoboxes etc. I just dont see a benefit or encouragement to get an article from start to C or C to B its just reflection of the state of the article. What I do see is cynical process to give people more reason to run meaningless bots. Gnangarra 12:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

</endcopy>

One perspective from the 1.0 team

I held off jumping into this discussion, as I'm deep in work on the Version 0.7 release. So, please forgive me, I've only glanced over the above comments, but I wanted to give you something of the "big picture" impression from the 1.0 team perspective. Prior to the vote, I did not have strong opinions one way or the other - I could see the value of C-Class, but I also wondered if the change was worth the trouble. I'm now in favour of C-Class.

• Overall, I think the introduction of C-Class has been successful. We didn't get any serious complaints during the transition that weren't fixable (typically technical problems like errors in template code). No one has indicated that they are going back to the old system or that they are unhappy with C-Class.
• A handful of projects - most notably some major projects India, Milhist, Chemicals and (if I recall) Films (or was it Novels?) did not adopt C-Class, but almost every other project did adopt it (there are 1300 projects/task forces in total). As Sandpiper points out, that does create problems for us, because we have perhaps 5% of Start tags using a different system than the other 95% (that's no more than a guess). That also means that the SelectionBot is giving a lower score to a C-Class India article (which is tagged as Start) than to a C-Class Australia article (which is tagged as C) - meaning that we may end up missing some decent (but not quite B) India-related articles for the offline releases. (Other groups such as One Laptop Per Child and SOS Children also use our SelectionBot data, too.) Fortunately, "Bs that should be Cs" are not often a problem in these projects, because typically these "opting-out" projects were already using strict criteria for B-Class.
• In one sense the change helped things to re-align. Sandpiper is right to point out that what was a typical B two years ago would probably fail today; at the same time, there has been a general improvement in overall quality since then. Adding this extra class allowed us to tighten up on criteria for B, and bring Milhist (and others) into alignment with the majority of projects. So although we now have a new Start/C discrepancy with a few projects, we got rid of the B/MilhistB discrepancy.
• A major argument (reiterated above) against C-Class is "It's too much work to re-assess all of our Bs and Starts." But what I have seen in reviewing articles for Version 0.7 is that many assessments are getting out of date anyway! that are So, I would say, PROJECTS SHOULD BE CONTINUALLY REASSESSING ANYWAY in order to keep information up to date, particularly with High or Top importance articles. The assessment date is listed in the main "by quality" lists from the bot, and indeed the list can even be ordered by date.
• In putting together the 0.7 collection, most articles that are "on the border" for the selection fall into the Start-C-B quality range. So if we want to be able to know that we should pick article A and not article B based on quality, we often need the finer level of assessment in order to judge things correctly.

Overall, my own prediction is that within a few years all projects will be using C-Class anyway. I may be wrong, but I think having a uniform system benefits everyone. And as the number of offline releases begins to take off - I expect us to be producing dozens of different releases by 2011 - I think projects will want to make sure they reap the full benefit of that. Walkerma (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm following up on a request of a user for the opinion of MilHist people to comment on this debate. The issue that others have brought up concerning the use of C-Class stems from the wide range of articles that the project encompasses. Many articles have a gap in the eyes of some people. Others view this gap as an area for improvement to an article. The use of the C-Class has also been viewed as another thing to muddle up the project as evidenced in the debate. There is an small majority against the use of it, as evidenced by the debate that lasted a matter of months. In the end, it seems that the C-Class proposal could eventually pass as more people are realizing that there are many benefits to having it. Personally, I'm all for the use of the class, as I was one who helped to start the most recent debate. Good luck in the debate and I will happily answer any questions that anyone might have. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Novels has C-class, so it was Films. Just to make sure everyone knows... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

People might want to look at the recent MILHIST discussions on the subject here : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#C-class question (no doubt it will be auto-archived at some point, but discussion is still active for now) Also it might be useful to remind people of WP:CREEP. Personally I'm not wild about the idea of C class - but since it is now widespread, it makes sense to be consistent and use it. But I would urge people to try and use the standard WP:ASSESS#Grades definitions and not come up with Project-specific ones that just discourage non-Project members from helping out with assessments, and may contribute to class inflation such as MILHIST's invention of a B-class checklist that in some respects is almost more demanding than "normal" GA class. I'd also encourage people to bear in mind the GA definition as "approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia". There seems to have been some inflation of the demands on a GA of late in that respect, but it's worth repeating that if you were to (illegally) copy and paste the equivalent Encyclopaedia Britannica article, that text would exceed the requirements of GA (if referenced etc). Some people have got it into their heads that such text wouldn't even meet B class. Once you've gota really good idea of what GA looks like for a particular article, then you can imagine what B-class, C-class etc will be like. It doesn't help that the standard example for B class is such a massive topic as Jammu and Kashmir - it might be helpful to give several examples of different classes of articles, a B class version of Doda will obviously be much shorter than the article covering all of Jammu and Kashmir, whilst a B-class version of Basmati will look different again. 82.3.246.14 (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Inflation as in making the bar higher, or inflation as in upgrading the status of rubbish articles? YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 00:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• One perspective from the editorial team was that some 1300 odd taskforces and WikiProjects adopted C-class - that may be true, but we have no accurate count of the large number of those which are (or have been) relatively inactive/dysfunctional compared to projects like Milhist, among others.
• There was also the perspective that articles should constantly be reassessed anyway - true, however, what should happen as opposed to what can or will happen are not always the same. The resources required to re-assess is significant. Our normal assessment procedures can detract from work on articles as it is, and without reassessing, we have nearly 7700 articles that are manually unassessed to begin with. Would introducing new grades and processes that are perhaps more complicated than what we have already going to improve that problem much?
• My view is that GA should be a minimum standard; we shouldn't have to spend any more time than is absolutely necessary in categorizing articles that fall short of that standard. Less instruction creep and simpler processes are needed for this area, so that only a minimum amount of time is spent here - more time needs to be spent on building/improving article-content, and finding ways to help editors work in an atmosphere without constant or major problems. In my view, introducing this new grade and changing the already existing one does not satisfy that objective, either in the short term, or in the long term. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Apologies for the delay in replying, but my experience in WP:WPTC is that the introduction of a rubric forced us to demote 180 articles to C-Class status. Of those, a significant portion did not make it back to B's, but rather, were copyedited slightly and now are GA-Class articles. In fact, I'd attribute a large fraction of the amount of GA nominees to articles that were reviewed and given some TLC to get past B and into Good Article territory. So in that perspective, C-Class has been a success. It also introduced more stringent requirements for B-Class, so we know that all the articles that are rated B's now are graded against a contemporary rubric, instead of being possibly graded two years ago, were standards were relatively lax. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Decision

We'll we've got inputs from proponents of the C-class and against the usage of C-class. In addition, we have got inputs from WP:1.0. No further significant inputs have been added for a while, so I think we need to make a decision while the issue is still ongoing. Please indicate your choice based on your understanding of the comments above.

1. Support C-class =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 06:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Support.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Support.--GPPande talk! 07:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Gizza^{Discuss ©} 09:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Ganeshk (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose pruthvi (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 12:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
11. Support C class for consistency of standards with other projects.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: Seems majority support C class addition for WP:IND project. Can somebody tell how to close this poll and take this forward to implement in WP:IND? --GPPande talk! 09:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There are 4 opposes. It's not right to implement. Majority may support C class addition but there are 4 opposes. Consensus has not been established. I a sure this is not a poll. Thanks, Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 12:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We had a long debate and the opinions were open to all for a long time? Should I ask someone outside this project (Taxman (talk · contribs · rights · renames)) to close this? =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so; this is something that should be sorted out internally through project members, and we have the external input that was needed. Instead, if we want to move forward, we should find a common ground that a strong consensus can support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I only suggested Taxman as he is a 'crat and has contributed several articles to WP:IN, without actually signing up to WP:IN. It's clear that every contributor to the project is aware of the move to C-class, and those who participated in the poll has read the debate and then lent their views to the subject. We need someone to read through the debate and interpret the results accurately paying attention to the comments made by the members. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that, given you used crat as opposed to userlinks. But I'm afraid 'crats get no extra authority to judge what this is: a content dispute. We've got external input to try to resolve this and now what is lacking is the strong consensus to support the proposed change. We've come to the point where we need alternative proposals that we can have a strong consensus for, and that inevitably means we need to come to a compromise. I find it to be the best way forward for this project, and in line with the consensus process. The only issue left (therefore) is identifying that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Taxman has experience in determining consensus, I nominated him. I did not choose him just because he is a crat. We need someone neutral to decide on the outcome if there is sufficient cause to move to the C-class. You could nominate someone else that would be mutually agreeable to everyone else. Else it will be deadlocked. I don't understand what you mean by "strong" consensus. The strength of the arguments needs to be weighed in rather than a poll which is helpful in determining where each person's views lies. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; this discussion began with just myself and pruthvi finding cause NOT to introduce C-class of editorial team, and has since grown to include two other users as it is. I've listened to a number of concerns via email too.

This is much more dynamic than an RFA for example whereby you either become admin, or you don't (as there is no such thing as compromise by way of letting someone be a partial admin who gets partial tools). I consider we're still in consensus-building stage in this case: I doubt any of us are completely closed to any idea - we have our respective arguments for supporting or rejecting the current C-class proposal and that's naturally our first choice. Now, we're disputing whether there is a strong consensus (or a consensus at all for that matter), and I favour the approach of considering alternative proposals where there's less cause for such a dispute. I'm hoping my proposal below (that attempts to better accomodate arguments on both sides of the divide) can help us reach a compromise to eliminate these disputes, and result in greater consent and willingness by our project as a whole. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Err, why were concerns kept off wiki? Secondly, what do you mean by "consensus"? Consensus cannot be fixed by voting or numbers, you know that. There are people on the assessment team who have been inactive, had they perhaps expressed support, the ratio of supports could have been higher. Wouldn't you agree? Let's end the debate, as it's not germane anymore and explore the suggestion below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I presume they will participate on-wiki upon their return. Secondly, had they perhaps expressed oppose, the ratio of oppose could have been higher. It's futile to talk about this sort of hypothetical - considering the suggestion below would be more worthwhile, I agree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Clearly, we're not in a position of strong consensus to support the original proposal. So it's time to consider alternative proposals so that we have a strong consensus for something.

One of the concerns is that an undue amount of time will be spent on assessment through C-class, while one of the other concerns was that a lack of C-class is not in line with other projects. We should consider a broader measure then.

Rather than use the editorial team's vague criteria for C-class, let's try a different approach. Currently our start article criteria is as follows. The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including the following: multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic, a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic, multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article, a particularly useful picture or graphic (optional).

Implementing a C-class that uses the following criteria would be useful: The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should be free from major grammatical errors, and have a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. It should also contain supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams, and a section dedicated to providing references to sources of information used.

Our B-class could stay similar to what it is currently without requiring a full checklist: Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. Satisfies all C-class criteria, but also has a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. At minimum, it should also have some references to reliable sources. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR).

GA criteria would then add four extra criteria in addition to coverage: namely, MOS compliance, in-line citations, references to all sources, and NPOV. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, although I disagree with some aspects of the first line of this section. :) I will think over it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Decision 2

I've opened this section early; if there's no further comments in the above section, I think we're ready to get the ball rolling on the alternate proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine. This is what I had in mind for the C class criteria originally. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Pics needed for poli sci articles

i just created Indo-Palestinian relations and Indo-Irish relations but I have no pic in ths regard. First of all it would be great to create a map. But then some sort of relation with the countries would be great. maybe eamon de valera or yasser arafat in india. Lihaas (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously going to difficult unless the government decides to relicence photographs under a copyleft licence. Or, we can wait for 60 years! :( An alternate could be the clicking of an embassy photograph, but that might be risky from the security point of view. For maps: Download Inkscape, and use Image:BlankMap-World6.svg to fill in the colours of the respective countries. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Aren't state photographs by definition in the public domain? And Thanks.

Just saw the file for that is 30Mb? It would take an eternity on this computer to download it. I was wondering, if you (or somebody else) has it, can you make a quick colouring of India and Palestine, and India and Ireland? Any colour code between orange/green would do, we can then alter it on the page. Lihaas (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No photos of any government (union/state/local) in India are in public domain. Are you saying that this image Image:BlankMap-World6.svg is 30 MB? It's 1.6 on the listed page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lihaas, I can help here. Let me know if the maps are still needed or you are working on the same. I would need 1 day to make both. --GPPande talk! 07:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

hope all Mumbai Wikipedians are safe

Nobody messes with my city.

I hope all our brethren in Mumbai are safe. Shiva (Visnu) 23:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Together we stand on this crisis .... praying for the souls of my departed brethens ! Jai Hind ! -- Tinu Cherian - 07:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope this menace ends soon... RIP to the dead, prayers for the injured and those trapped, and appeals to those with power to stop sleeping (and upgrading their wardrobes). Sniperz11_@^CS 08:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope all Wikipedians in South Bombay are safe. I am safe since I stay in North Bombay. Terrible attacks. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 09:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My prayers for our brave policemen and Army personnel and their families. Shiva (Visnu) 18:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Panaganti Ramarayaningar

Hi friends, I need the Telugu transliteration of Panaganti Ramarayaningaru in the article Raja of Panagal. Could anyone help???-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 02:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done User:WikiRaja has provided the transliteration and I've added it to the article-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiMeet with Jimbo

Jimmy Wales and two other wikimedia foundation members will be in Thiruvananthapuram in connection with the 2nd International conference on Freedom in Computing, Development and Culture being held there. Re-Posting the invitation that was made in the mailing list by User:Jyothis:

All,

We would like to let you all know that Jimmy wales and two other wikimedia foundation members will be in Thiruvananthapuram this December as a part of fsfs conference. The fsfs and space-kerala organizers has provided an opportunity for malayalam wikipedians to participate, conduct a session/panel discussion and meet Jimmy soon after. We would like to welcome if anyone is interested in joining. We may even plan an indian wiki meet there, if there is enough participation from other wikipedias.

Thanks,
Jyothis.

--thunderboltz^(TALK) 18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

:( I have just returned from Thiruvananthapuram this week end and wont be able to go again soon.. I really wanted to meet him ... -- Tinu Cherian - 12:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

need help on Sunil R Nair

I suspect that Sunil R Nair is an article on a non-notable personality - also, all its major contributors are a new user and an IP; couldn't see substantial Google hits for the notability either. Could someone please investigate this and PROD or SPEEDY or AFD this? Have been away for too long from WP :( and hence do not know the current guidelines for investigating deletion. --Gurubrahma (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I DON'T think it is a notable person. Sunil R Nair ( some CEO of unknown Nautanki.tv) and Nautanki being the only edits of the article creator Killikampetti (talk · contribs) . Google hits takes me only to self created community website profiles only. Better to AFD, though. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Marathi language help

I started the article Gangadhar Appa Burande. There are two Marathi articles online, which I think have some useful material for the wikiarticle, but I can't read them, http://www.esakal.com/esakal/10012008/TajyabatmyaMaharashtraMumbaiPuneNationalInternationalAurangabad3B748B8FCF.htm?article and http://maharashtratimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3548246.cms . Any help would be appreciated, for example was October 1, 2008 the date of death? --Soman (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to help here. What exactly you need to check on these articles? --GPPande talk! 10:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I translated the articles - See Talk:Gangadhar Appa Burande --GPPande talk! 10:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Indian Wikipedians by no of edits

This is a list of Wikipedians from India or of Indian orgin, ordered by total number of edits in English language Wikipedia. Source: WP:EDITS as of November 20, 2008.

Wiki Rank	User	Edits	Admin
5	Bhadani (talk · contribs)	183513	admin
189	Utcursch (talk · contribs)	49396	admin
233	Nishkid64 (talk · contribs)	45491	admin, CU
330	Soman (talk · contribs)	38343
383	Siva1979 (talk · contribs)	35488
665	Nichalp (talk · contribs)	27438	b'cat
672	Dineshkannambadi (talk · contribs)	27218
713	Shshshsh (talk · contribs)	26308
723	SkyWalker (talk · contribs)	26137
831	Shyam (talk · contribs)	24077	admin
931	Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs)	22597
1016	Shyamal (talk · contribs)	21472
1095	Ganeshk (talk · contribs)	20488	admin
1144	Tinucherian (talk · contribs)	20109
1164	Bakasuprman (talk · contribs)	19826
1197	Ekabhishek (talk · contribs)	19525
1214	Shyamsunder (talk · contribs)	19277
1252	Soumyasch (talk · contribs)	18999
1302	Dangerous-Boy (talk · contribs)	18517
1386	P.K.Niyogi (talk · contribs)	17661
1502	Hemanshu (talk · contribs)	16849	admin
1525	Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs)	16638
1607	Buddhipriya (talk · contribs)	16055
1670	DaGizza (talk · contribs)	15585	admin
2000	Ravichandar84 (talk · contribs)	13483
2032	Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs)	13296	admin
2047	Deeptrivia (talk · contribs)	13233
2114	Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs)	12955
2125	Vjdchauhan (talk · contribs)	12887
2148	Thunderboltz (talk · contribs)	12795	admin
2182	Tintin1107 (talk · contribs)	12607
2310	Arjun01 (talk · contribs)	12039	admin
2335	Srikeit (talk · contribs)	11976	admin
2357	Samir (talk · contribs)	11861	admin
2417	Wiki Raja (talk · contribs)	11588
2425	Gurubrahma (talk · contribs)	11570	admin
2459	GDibyendu (talk · contribs)	11467
2642	Haphar (talk · contribs)	10819
2653	Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs)	10774
2663	Vishnava (talk · contribs)	10740
2903	Lostintherush (talk · contribs)	9989	admin
2915	Aksi great (talk · contribs)	9964	admin
2977	Ambuj.Saxena (talk · contribs)	9765
3165	Hornplease (talk · contribs)	9257
3214	Mspraveen (talk · contribs)	9079
3247	Sarvagnya (talk · contribs)	8975
3530	Rueben lys (talk · contribs)	8329
3556	KNM (talk · contribs)	8262
3615	Shreshth91 (talk · contribs)	8110
3680	Sundar (talk · contribs)	7962	admin
3865	Kensplanet (talk · contribs)	7623

This is just for statistical purposes. -- Tinu Cherian - 09:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Some Non-Indians interested in India related content, also featured in WP:EDITS. We thank you for your kind efforts.

Wiki Rank	User	Edits	Admin
4	Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs)	198144
126	YellowMonkey (talk · contribs)	58953	admin, CU
1238	Saravask (talk · contribs)	19087	admin
1249	Taprobanus (talk · contribs)	19011
3414	Relata refero (talk · contribs)	8586

Section Break

Good job! The number of admins are greater than I had initially thought. --GPPande talk! 10:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. There could be more. I read here that there were some 15 odd Indian admins in 2007. I had to hunt all our WT:INB archive pages and Category:Indian Wikipedians to find who were very active initially also and to check them with WP:EDITS page. Please add if you know / find more people. Looks like some people are not active now a days -- Tinu Cherian - 11:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. Ramasarrow, Shreshth91 lost their adminship. KRS gave up her admin post in 2004, Chancemill, Pamri and Samir are other Indian admins. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Intriguing list! Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the last I checked, I had sysop rights too. :-) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

:P yes Sundar, I knew it but somehow missed it . Dont block me for this mistake :) -- Tinu Cherian - 13:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I won't. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Are Soman and Fowler&fowler Indian or of Indian origin?

I always thought 'Indian' was a state of mind! --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this. Sure, you can put me back in.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway! --Bhadani (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There are few others (including Soman and Fowler perhaps) that are not of Indian origin. So it is best to say this is a list of editors that are interested in and contribute regularly to Indian topics and articles on Wikipedia. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If possible, more valuable information can be added like the number of FA's and GA's that each editors has written/significantly contributed to. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 22:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is also admin Arvindn (talk · contribs) who has been around for six years. Ragib is also a valuable contributor. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No harm intended but Rajib is from Bangladesh right? Ofcourse , He is very good contributor -- Tinu Cherian - 06:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he contributes a lot of India-related content, so therefore listed his name as an honorary member. PS There is also Riana (talk · contribs). =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Added a few Non-Indians interested in India related content, also featured in WP:EDITS. Feel free to add those you know -- Tinu Cherian - 13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good job! :-) By the way, User:Taprobanus has been contributing a great deal to articles on India and Sri Lanka and had listed himself in Wikipedia:INTN#Participants. I presume that he is not listed here because he has neither listed himself as an Indian Wikipedian nor added WP:IN userbox and hence is not present in Category:Indian Wikipedians.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 04:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering how I was not in Category:Indian Wikipedians list. It seems that {{User IND Citiz}} did not have a link to Category:Indian Wikipedians as proclaimed by the cat page. Added one. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Even {{User india}} was missing. Added link. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Saravask (talk · contribs), another admin. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Amateur radio in India on main page today.

Big thumbs up for Nichalp (talk · contribs) to get this to FA status. This seems to be the shortest FA nomination to pass successfully. :-) --GPPande talk! 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also one of the fastest to be written from zero to FAC (5 days) :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

List of states and union territories of India by population is on FLC.

List of states and union territories of India by population is nominated at Featured list candidate. You may leave your comments here --GPPande talk! 14:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedians in Bangalore/Chennai

Cary Bass with Wikimedia Foundation had posted the following message to the Wikimediaindia-l list:

Hello everyone,

Sue Gardner is going to be in India next week for several things, Bangalore and Chennai, and would like to get in touch with some local Wikimedians in and near those areas for meeting and meetup. We are especially interested in those who are interested in the chapter but anyone with any involvement is welcome.

If you would respond to me off list ( Special:Emailuser/Cary_Bass ) I would be most grateful, whether yourself or other Wikimedians you may know.

Yours very truly

Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator Wikimedia Foundation

Posting here for wider audience. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Any idea when he is in Bangalore? -- Tinu Cherian - 13:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a she (User:Sue Gardner) =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

( Sue Gardner) -- Tinu Cherian - 09:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I, too, am interested in knowing when she would be in Chennai. Any idea of the exact schedule? -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 04:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Those interested are advised to e-mail Cary Bass to know the event schedule. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Academy @ Chennai.

Wikipedia Academy @ Chennai went well, thanks to the efforts of Kiruba Shankar, the organiser and our dear Bhadani. You can read more here. ExpressBuzz, a New Indian Express publication had a nice write up about the Wikipedia Academy. -- Tinu Cherian - 13:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That is great. I wonder who this Kiruba Shankar is? Docku: What up? 04:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore FAR

I have nominated Kingdom of Mysore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture of the Raja of Panagal

I need a picture of the Raja of Panagal for incorporation in the Raja of Panagal article. I have searched all over the net and was not able to find a single one. If at all someone here has a picture in his/her personal collection, we humbly request you to contribute to the project. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 15:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Scan a picture in book published before 1948. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But you see, I don't have any book with his picture. That's why I am asking here-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 03:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Usually people belonging to the pre independence era have few images available online, that's why I thought of the book option. You can perhaps ask User:Dore chakravarthy if he has any from his personal collection. An alternative suggestion would be if someone click a statue of him somewhere. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I asked him. And I hope it is of use. Well, while Mr. Doreswamy has previously contributed photos of the Quit India movement, etc. in which he has participated, the individual whose photo I need passed away in 1928. If we are to look for contemporaries, then we could only consider people who are over 100 which is practically ruled out. Let me see. I expect to get some leads for some quarter anyhow. And by the way, thanks for providing the link :-) It was great to learn about. I guess he is the oldest Indian Wikipedian. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 14:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

GoI released Images - Copyright status

Hi... having seen the number of images being uploaded (and removed) with the logic being Public Domain due to the RTI act, could someone provide any info about the copyright status of information, images and videos released by Governmental agencies. Do they become free/PD use under RTI or any other act, or do they still have a copyright?

I have also mailed ppl in the National Information Commission (a lot of people!!) about this issue, with no reply yet.

Anyone with info, plz help. If you do know anyone in the NIC/CIC, that would also help I guess... I think it will definitely help in improving the India related image base (especially for the Military related domain where I edit, where most images are govt releases).

Thanks Sniperz11_@^CS 05:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

1. No, as per the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 all government works are copyrighted, and therefore not in public domain.
2. However, I note that the terms and conditions of the works of the Government of Maharashtra are almost similar to the Creative Commons v3.0, licence, and raised the issue the other day here: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Government of Maharashtra. I have mailed the concerned representatives of the Maharashtra government, but...............we all know how babus respond (if ever) to email.
3. What is in Public domain, ie not copyrighted, would be:

52.-(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:-
(q) the reproduction or publication of-

(i) any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette except an Act of a Legislature;

(ii) any Act of a Legislature subject to the condition that such Act is reproduced or published together with any commentary thereon or any other original matter;

(iii) the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the Government;

(iv) any judgment or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the court, the tribunal or other judicial authority, as the case may be;

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ISRO images - freely licensed?

I just saw this noticeboard and the above section GoI released Images - Copyright status after I emailed the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) requesting a free license for their images.

I also have seen images uploaded (for example: Image:MIPimage.jpg) with the claim that the Indian Right to Information Act places such images in the Public Domain. Since I found that highly dubious I tagged the image and removed the dubious license, but I see another editor reasserts the license and repeats the claim, without source. Could the experts here clarify this for the benefit of articles wishing to use Indian space images? I am not an expert at making requests, so if anyone would care to take over from where I started, the text of the email I sent is here:

User:84user/Sandbox#Request to ISRO for free image license

In the meantime I have retagged that image and removed the PD license and placed a note there to see this noticeboard section. 84user (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

RTI != PD. Government works are copyrighted with very few exceptions (mentioned above). Pure "information" can never be copyrighted (for example, the names of all the builders in a given area). Images cannot be posted under RTI as they are not "information", they are artistic works. However, government works seemed to be released under a licence quite similar to cc-by-sa-3.0, but there are no persons from the government to confirm this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast reply. I did just send a FYI to the ISRO webmaster in case there is a CC-BY-type license available. Maybe wikipedia might consider treating these images as effectively CC-BY-SA even without official confirmation? I was about to suggest this on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, but I see you already asked something similar so I will wait. Meanwhile I suggest using Fair use rationales and I have been adding empty {{Template:Non-free use rationale}} to several images, but (a) I am not keen on fair use as it discourages attempts to get a proper free license and (b) I am too lazy to fill them in. 84user (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No for legal reasons, we have to consider explicit permission, not implicit. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarian labeling in India

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask. For those of you who have recently lived in India, which labeling is in use in India for vegetarian and non-vegetarian products?

,

The only major difference is the color of the non-vegetarian label. I want to make sure the brown version (as described by Indian legislation) is correct before I replace the red version with it on other language Wikipedias. Thanks for any help! -kotra (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, this is the right place to ask. The correct colour is the latter one, the brown colouring. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

But the border is too thick, and the labels are not present with any text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I just checked a wrapper on biscuit and the label had the text of "vegetarian" mentioned below it. --GPPande talk! 16:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's consistent then. I checked a packet of oil, and there was no text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked some products these are my observations:

• The border is too thick for both. (please correct)
• The brown one is the current one.
• "Vegetarian" or "non-vegetarian" was not written under majority of products. (remove the words)

The details of products

• Bru coffee sachets: pkd 09-08, nothing written below the green mark - veg
• Kitchens of India: Mutton Biryani pkd 09-08, nothing written below the brown mark - non- veg
• Kitchens of India: Pongal pkd 10-08, nothing written below the green mark - veg
• Maggi instant noodles: pkd 09-08, nothing written below the green mark - veg
• Haldiram's instant Bhel. pkd 11-08, "100% Veg." below the green mark - veg
• Amul icecream: 11-08. "100% Veg." below the green mark - veg
• Venky's chicken kheema: 11-08, nothing written below the brown mark - non- veg

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

File:India veg label.jpg Here's a photograph of Kellog's veg label. It says 100% veg — Lost^(talk) 05:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I'll make the border thinner and remove the words "vegetarian" and "non-vegetarian". I didn't think they were part of the actual label, I had them there for easy recognition. But I had been thinking of removing them anyway since this image is used in other language wikipedias, and English isn't appropriate there unless it's part of the label (which it isn't). -kotra (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also remove the white background. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a white background (the interior of the box is supposed to be white, and everything outside of the boxes is already a transparent background, at least that's how it looks for me), but I've fixed the border and removed the "Vegetarian" and "Non-Vegetarian" text (refresh and it should look different above). Thanks again for your help! -kotra (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the changes: 1. Further reduced the thickness of the border, and removed the white fill of the square. Also added the {{PD-shape}} tag to the page. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I was actually copying the label in Lostintherush's photo: I think the border is closer to the thickness I used, and the white fill appears to be an actual part of the label. Are you sure the border is supposed to be that thin and the white fill should be absent, and if so, why? -kotra (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

<reindent> Hmmn, I went on a research spree:

Food items for vegetarian products

Brand	Food item	Square fill colour	Background colour	Border thickness
Nuterela	Soya granules	White	Red	Thin
Gowardhan	Dahi (curd)	White	Yellow	Mid
Kissan	Jam	White	Red	Thick
PRO	mustard oil	White	Red	Thin
Boost	Powder	White	Red	Thin
Fun Foods	Mayonnaise	Transparent	Pale yellow	Thick
Dabur	Honey	Transparent	Pale yellow	Thick
Milkmaid	condensed milk	White	Light blue	Thin
Good day	Biscuits	White	Gold	Mid
Marie	Biscuits	Transparent	Silver	Thin
Colgate	Toothpaste	White	Red	Thick
Mangal	Tandoori chicken masala	Transparent	Pale yellow	Mid
Leonardo	Olive oil	Transparent	Pale yellow	Thin
Aarey	Milk	Transparent	NA (polythene)	Thin
Amul	Cheese	White	Various	Thin
Suyoja	Mushrooms	Transparent	Transparent	Thick

From the above sample set, it looks like the thickness and fill are inconsistent. (This is WP:OR)

1. Thin borders marginally outweigh the thick borders.
2. White fills outweigh a transparent background. Looking closely at why this is the case, I notice that all products with red backgrounds have a white fill. This is also applicable to pastel shades such as blue and yellow. I would assume the reason to be:
   1. Green contrasts better on white than red
   2. Printing costs are reduced by not adding white when illustrations are simple

Does this help somewhat? =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

History of Pulicat

History of Pulicat is up for a DYK nom. Can somebody (if free) copyedit this article and correct overlinking and format references? I am tired doing so today, will continue tomorrow, till then can somebody else do it and help me out in doing so. ThaNKS. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dāyabhāga, Vijñāneśvara & Mitākṣarā

Hello. I just merged the page histories of these wikiarticles to fix some cut-&-paste pagemoves. Can someone check if the accent marks and spellings are appropriate, please? If not, please move them to give them the right names. I don't know the language, so I can't really do anything there. Please help. Many thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The diacritics are unnecessary. Some editors try and play up IAST when it is not needed for a general encyclopedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nichalp. Where should I move them to?

• Dāyabhāga -> Dayabhaga ‎?
• Vijñāneśvara -> Vijnanesvara ‎or Vijnaneswara ‎or Vijnaneshwara ‎or...?
• Mitākṣarā -> Mitaksara or Mitacsara or Mitakshara or Mitacshara or...?

I realise that the diacritics are not necessary but I don't know how the correct names should be spelt. --PFHLai (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Kalimpong FAR

I have nominated Kalimpong for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Trivia added to single use templates

Recently I came across new templates being added to Lok Sabha election results templates, which are primarily trivia content. They are not actually templates. They are used in 1 page, in most cases, or maximum 2 articles (other than the bots that discover them for various projects, red links, etc.). Primarily they are used in the general article on Lok Sabha 2004 elections, or the article for each constituency. Many of them have been tagged with Wikiproject India too (automatically, I guess). I felt that they were not appropriate and the content should be placed directly in the articles (if content itself is appropriate in the first place).

Category:LS2004 templates contains about 123 such templates for the 123 constituencies with results of 2004 elections. Templates that begin with 'LS' shows approx 145 templates that are in LSyyyy-cccccccc format (year and constituency). By the way, for the years earlier to 2004, there is 1 template for city of Jaipur, for each election from 1952 (other than odd one for 2 or 3 more constituencies overall).

Examples: Recently created Template:LS2004-Vellore is used in Indian general elections, 2004-Tamilnadu only, other than a single sandbox. Not all templates, though, are recently created. Template:LS2004-Ajmer is used in two pages Indian general elections, 2004-Rajasthan and Ajmer (Lok Sabha constituency), other than the bot searches and archives and was created in 2006 (along with tens of others). Probably it is these templates that have inspired the recent additions by another editor. I left comments on some of the recently created templates in the talk page, and also in talk page of the editor, but there is no response. The editor seems to continue addition and correction of trivia within the templates.

1. These are not templates and hence are candidates for delete.
2. These seem to have too granular statistics which may need to be formatted better within the article itself (see Point 4 within WP:INDISCRIMINATE).
3. Finally, possibly this granularity is not appropriate in Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia is not the storage for such information, in my opinion.

If there is disagreement on final point above, then the information in the templates need to be moved to appropriate pages. If there is agreement on nature of content, then the templates can be deleted and the parent articles can hold the significant results only (these trivia can be dropped altogether).

I would like to hear comments regarding this before I take it to Templates for Deletion. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I had seen these templates as I updated all those pages recently to add navboxes. My suggestion is to move template content into constituency page before the templates are deleted. I did one movement. --GDibyendu (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

They need to be merged. It's pretty useless otherwise. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you GDibyendu and Nichalp. Here is an update on some actions I have taken.

1. Substituted the templates in the state level articles, like Indian general elections, 2004-Tamilnadu. In this case, the data was transcluded into this 1 article only. Hence templates can be deleted.
2. In other cases they were used in 2 pages. The state level pages and the individual constituency page. I initially thought I will substitute in both (did the state pages and 2 or 3 constituency pages). Later, I figured there could be sub-page so that this same data can be transcluded in two pages.
3. Then thought of different idea - to create pages like Anantnag (Lok Sabha constituency)/2004-election and transclude this into Anantnag (Lok Sabha constituency). State level pages can now use the first subpage for transclusion by {{:Anantnag (Lok Sabha constituency)/2004-election}} code. Did this for about 3 or 4 pages.

Plans

1. Try to complete for rest of templates.
2. Notify the majority contributors, pointing them to this discussion, so that new templates are not created.
3. Nominate all LSyyyy templates for delete.
4. Nominate all template categories for delete after they have been emptied.

VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Gorkhapedia a reliable source?

Kalimpong is on FAR for lack of reliable sources. While doing google search I landed on Gorkhapedia. The website seems to be very neatly maintained but as like Wikipedia – is free to edit for anyone. The Kalimpong page contains loads of encyclopedic information which can act as source for article on WP. These type of information are usually present on travel websites considered not reliable on WP for FA class article. Just wanted to check if Gorkhapedia can be considered a reliable source? --GPPande talk! 10:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think not. (Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source either.) However, one could use Gorkhapedia for adding non-controversial information to the article (material that does not need to be cited) that may be missing or for finding sources for other material. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 15:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)