Talk:Marathwada

Untitled

The article says Aurangazeb appointed Asaf Jhah as the Nizam-ul-Mulk of the Deccan in 1713, but Aurangazeb died in 1707.

---

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.240.152.4 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Images to add Please help translation of desription.

1. 

   अजिंठातल्या लेण्यांमधले एक चित्र

2. File:Santeknath.jpg

Recent revert

Someone has just reverted me. With one or two exceptions, where they have added sources that were not previously present, it is plain weird. Please justify that revert, preferably one section at a time. Please note WP:V, note that we do not overload articles with photos (we are not a tourist website, for example), and we do not use legal documents found on the indiakanoon website (see WP:PRIMARY). I'm getting really, really fed up of pov-pushing, clueless Indian contributors these last few weeks, so please excuse any terseness. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush:, your this comment itself is full of vandalism, how you can say "clueless Indian contributors"? And how you came to conclusion that i'm Indian? anyway, Population reference has been given and marathwada is not political or administrative entity so separate population section will not be available on government websites, so its addition of population of 8 districts. And its limited gallery, this is surely not tourist page but these pics are related to history, culture and important places of Marathwada. And please be polite, no one owns the article. --Human3015 11:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you were Indian. I said that I'm fed up of having to deal with such people generally at the moment. If population is not available then we cannot say it. If you are confident that (a) you've got the districts that constitute Marathwada correct and (b) you have the population of those districts correct then I suppose we could let WP:SYNTH pass, although I am loathe to because Marathwada quite obviously is an administrative entity: how else does the Development Board do its stuff?

As for this, well, apart from the fact that you are edit warring and showing massive signs of ownership (very common on Maharashtra- and Gujarat-based articles, for some reason), Wikipedia is not a reliable source and even if it was, the information is highly selective. Why not say it is, for example, 1/20th the size of China? It is rubbish stuff, like saying how many football pitches would fit into Wales as opposed to how many would fit into Belgium.

I couldn't care less what the subject of the images may be. If you want to pare the gallery down to 4 or 5 then fine but it is absolutely ridiculous, especially since we don't really have much in the history section etc. Please consider creating a Marathwada category at Commons and then using {{Commonscat}} in the article.

The Indian Kanoon thing has to go. It is a primary source. Please prove to me that those bits of the constitution have not changed since 1949. Also, the original research based on analysis of the development board's report has to go. We are not allowed to interpret or to comment. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush:, kindly read Demographics of Texas, Demographics of California etc, they have compared their population with other nations, i can show you 100 pages where they compared population of subnational entity with other nations. So does I'm comparing population of Marathwada with other comparable nations. Thank you. I will answer other questions too, wait. --Human3015 12:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush:, i'm giving reference of government website about Marathwada statutory Board and its saying it was created by presidential order, its not only reference of india kanoon but also board's official website, read it. It is not amended thats why its still exists on boards website and board itself exists. If you think that its been amended then kindly provide clear evidence. Don't delete it without evidence. --Human3015 12:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, cite the board, not a primary source. And I don't care what other articles may do - most of our articles are crap anyway. Yours is a variant of "other stuff exists". It isn't justification for anything in particular. Would you jump in a fire if I told you that my neighbour did so earlier today? - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush:, Dear board's website is government website, its not my personal website. Anyway, if you think that im making synthesis of population then i will make chart of populations of 8 districts as it is written in source. Is it ok for you? do i have your permission to make chart of population of 8 districts? --Human3015 12:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to keep pinging me. I am watching this page.

A chart is not the answer to anything, just more potential synthesis. I never said anything about any website being your own. It is acceptable to do basic math(s) but to do so you need first to be absolutely sure that the constituent parts are valid. So, does the board's responsibility extend precisely to the areas whose statistics you are adding up? If Marathwada is not in fact an administrative entity, how are we determining what it is, ie: where is our definition of what we're supposed to be covering in this article?

This is getting to be hard work because you are ignoring various things. I'm walking away for a bit but it is not over - gives you time to think properly (eg: you seem to have misunderstood about Indian Kanoon vs the board's website as a source) and me time to cool off. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush:, as you said you are going off so pinging you again, Thanks for your cooperation, please try to not make changes without discussing on talk, specially don't delete well sourced material. I have not written any "false" info. Kindly ping me if you have to say something. Bye . take care. --Human3015 12:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

@Sitush:, Thank you, I have read Wikipedia:Overcategorization and no where mentioned that having 3 categories is "overcategorization". Marathwada is one of 3 main geographic parts of Maharashtra(others being Vidarbha and Rest of Maharshtra) if it can't be part of Category:Maharashtra then what that category will include? And Marathwada is region of India. If you see BBC tv's climate report on India, they will specially mention regions like Marathwada and Vidarbha to describe climate of that area. Marathwada has area and population comparable to Sri Lanka and Netherlands, having just 3 categories is "less categorization" of this article. Kindly describe how having "3" categories is Overcatogorization? It don't has 7-8 or 10-12 categories like many other article have. --Human3015 talk • 03:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Other regions of Maharashtra like Vidarbha and Konkan have 5-6 categories including category "regions of India". --Human3015 talk • 03:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If other articles have got it wrong, as I am sure many have, then that is a problem for those articles. It doesn't mean that you do the same wrong thing here. Categories are mostly hierarchical, so Category:Marathwada is already in Category:Regions of Maharashtra, which in turn is already in Category:Regions of India by state, which in turn is in Category:Regions of India - there is thus no need to include Category:Regions of India etc here. It is also a subcategory of Category:Geography of Maharashtra, which is in turn in Category:Maharashtra, so there is no reason to include Category:Maharashtra here. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Since this article is the "main article" for Category:Marathwada, it would make better sense to categorise it as Category:Regions of Maharashtra. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: We should always use the most specific categories under which the article falls. The more general categories should be used only if there is a specific reason to do so. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It might indeed make more sense but it would duplicate and begs the question of why we have Category:Marathwada. This is another example of why categorisation is screwed: the logic never seems to work right through. I suppose you will now cite the non-diffusing thing, which practically no-one other than the category nerds understands. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you won't cite non-diffusing here because it does indeed diffuse, and rightly so. I'm getting myself confused now! - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

People have indeed used it as a non-diffusing category through their intuition, even though it isn't marked as such. So, no harm done.

The defining characteristic principle implies that we should categorise it under Category:Regions of Maharashtra. I would also be ok to add Category:Marathwada even though it isn't strictly necessary because it allows people to find out what other Marathwada-related articles are there. This kind of redundancy is there pretty much throughout Wikipedia. So, it is not worth fighting it. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm up for fighting it ;) Having being made redundant several times, I should have sympathy but I don't much! - Sitush (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marathwada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150329051457/http://www.aurangabadmahapalika.org/singleIndex.jsp?orgid=95 to http://www.aurangabadmahapalika.org/singleIndex.jsp?orgid=95

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marathwada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612010847/http://www.undp.org.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129&Itemid=217 to http://www.undp.org.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129&Itemid=217

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 1508850407cover.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)