Talk:Neelum River

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Neelum River. 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/20100831125641/http://www.kewa.org/project.html to http://www.kewa.org/project.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220165637/http://www.growfish.com.au/content.asp?ContentId=7373 to http://www.growfish.com.au/content.asp?ContentId=7373
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001160220/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Kishen-Ganga-project-to-begin-soon/423054/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Kishen-Ganga-project-to-begin-soon/423054/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101102125720/http://www.neelumvalley1.zoomshare.com/0.html to http://www.neelumvalley1.zoomshare.com/0.html

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) 21:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

wikilink to PAK

Hi @Uanfala: while I have agreed to some of your reverts of the link, I do not agree with this [1] revert. I understand the AK is linked before but why revert the Pakistan administered Kashmir link that is in the article body. FYI Pakistan-administered Kashmir is no longer a redirect but an article now. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The river flows through the part of Pakistan administered Kashmir that is Azad Kashmir. This was already linked at the start of the paragraph. Suddnely changing gear in the next sentence and linking to wider regions isn't helpful: PAK is relevant only to the extent that AK is relevant in this context: a link to the PAK article would have been appropriate if there were discussion of the policital/international context or if it were needed to distinguish between the two regions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

ok, I get your point. I believe since the article text specifically calls out PAK, the geo article associated with that text should have been linked. we will agree to diagree on this wiki link. I will note my disagreement here and will not pursue this disagreement further. thanks for the reply, regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Devnagari

Uanfala, I am not sure why the Devnagari script has been included for the names in this article. Other than WP:IS, Urdu is the official languages on both the sides of Kashmir as far as I know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see a particular need for the Devanagari. Urdu, with added transliteration (if not for anything other than to make up for the phonetic ambiguity of the script), should be sufficient. – Uanfala (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

RegardingPakistan link

Muzaffarabad is an integral part of India. Plz change that, otherwise this will not be good. Change it immediately Nkvishnoi2912 (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you looked at the map, buddy? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

@Uanfala:I understand that you have reverted my edit removing the non-latin script from the article’s infobox per WP:NOINDIC because you believe the article is “mostly related to Pakistan.” But of the 250 kilometres long course of the transboundary river, almost a third fourth is within Indian territory or along the line of control—the de facto India-Pakistan border in Kashmir (about a fifth in only Indian territory). About a third of the river’s basin is located inside India. Comparable with Ravi and Jhelum. Wouldn’t this mean that the river is significantly within the scope of Wikiproject India, even if not mostly or entirely? The article itself doesn’t seem to be written in a way that would make it seem like it is mostly related to Pakistan. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding that I often remove Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, Kashmiri etc text from the leads and infoboxes of the Punjab rivers’ articles, one of which the Kishanganga is a tributary of. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd imagine the case to be settled given that over half of the river is outside India? I'm not claiming that Wikiproject India is not relevant here (of course it is), the point is that this article is primarily under the scope of another wikiproject, and the internal India rules don't apply here. Also, the original motivation for WP:NOINDIC is to prevent the sort of disputes over scripts (which ones and in what order) that were a painfully common occurrence on some Indian articles. These things are very rare on Pakistani articles, and I'm a bit saddened to see a rule meant to prevent controversies being exported to a topic area where it starts to create controversies that didn't exist before.

Also, and I don't think this is particularly relevant here, but the article Ravi River has had the native names in its lede for almost all of its history until, until they were boldly removed in 2020. – Uanfala (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to do that. We can ISO Romanisation though. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Uanfala: I do think it is very relevant here, since much like the Kishanganga, over half of the Ravi River also falls outside India. If the Ravi article can be subject to the WP:NOINDIC rule, I believe this article can be, too. I’m guessing the removal of native names by Kautilya3 was prompted by the addition of Punjabi name in Shahmukhi script by an IP user. Shahmukhi Punjabi is not an official language anywhere where the Ravi flows, but is sometimes added to articles related to Pakistani Punjab (such as Lahore) by Pakistani users.

Now if this article is to be exempted from WP:NOINDIC, that means that all officals languages may be used in the infobox. Besides Urdu, there are three more official languages on the Indian side. We will need to add those for neutrality, though I don’t want to add the Devanagari script for Hindi/Dogri, and the Perso-Arabic for Kashmiri, alongside the existing Urdu. It would be better to not include any non-latin scripts in the infobox. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You mean you want wreck the scripts on this page, like the IP did on Ravi River? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: No, because unlike Shahmukhi Punjabi which is not an official language in any territory where the Ravi flows, those languages are actually official languages on the Indian side. In its current form the infobox is not neutral. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not one that has ever understood the need for foreign scripts in an English Wikipedia. But one script that is widely undersood within the region of a locale would be acceptable. For an international river, two scripts or more may be necessary. Being an "official language" is not a requirement, except for the fact that it may be widely understood in the region. When you start talking about three official languages, I shut down and think "no, that is not the way".

In this paricular case, Urdu is widely understood on both the sides of the border. So Urdu alone is sufficient. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If being an official language is not the requirement, then the usage of Urdu under “native name” makes no sense at all. The native languages of the region are Shina, Kashmiri, and Pahari, not Urdu. They’re also likely more widely understood in the region, given the remote location and abysmal literacy rates (since non-native languages are learned mostly through formal education or interaction with outsiders), especially on the Pakistan side. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Another issue we have is, which of the names would be native? The original one, still in use in India, or the new one in use in Pakistan? UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't use the word "native". Urdu is widely read and understood on both the sides of the border, yes or no? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The infobox entry says “native name”, not “name in a widely read and understood language”. The only reason Urdu is there instead of a native language is because it is the official language in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No, "native" definitely does not mean "official", whatever that might mean. It means the language the local people use, for writing in particular. When there are many languages in use, you would still find a dominant language, in which people study in schools, read newspapers and announcements etc. This is not rocket science. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The Devanagari script should not be used as it's a non-native script in Pakistan and WP:PAK only uses native scripts across it's articles. As far as India is concerned, WP:NOINDIC prevents it's usage on India-related articles. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

No, you are making flawed arguments. Either the article belongs to WikiProject India, in which case all scripts should be removed, or it belongs to WikiProject Pakistan, in which case there are no rules about scripts. You are making up your own rules and claiming non-existent "consensus". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I have engaged in this topic area quite a bit, and can safely say that where script clutter arises removing them all is the best option and what is/should be generally followed. That was the intention of INDICSCRIPTS and its spirit extends beyond the India Project area.

As to the above comments when are where INDICSCRIPTS can be used: where the topic is not wholly/mostly India specific they can be including where other scripts are being so used (e. g. geo articles covering multiple countries such as here); but from what I have seen the best case usage (preventing script clutter) is to not use non-English scripts at all. Gotitbro (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)