Talk:Teej

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article does not "fall under" Rajasthan, it is merely celebrated in Rajasthan as well, among other places. Would be the same thing as saying Easter falls under America. Iateyourgranny (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Teejri?

I think Teejri should be merged and converted to a redirect to Teej#Sindh. Thoughts? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yea, @AleatoryPonderings:, merging is appropriate. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I'llbeyourbeach—will tag Teejri appropriately and give others a bit more time to weigh in, but this seems like it should be fairly uncontroversial. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep, and thanks for keeping an eye out, @AleatoryPonderings:. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Done; I didn't really "merge" anything from the old page since it was essentially a duplicate of the section and very poorly sourced. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection

FYI: I'm thinking about WP:RFPPing this if we keep getting unhelpful IP edits. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: please, yes, go for it —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

If it happens one more time I'll go for it; it's not so bad at the moment, but getting to be a hassle IMO. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: yea it's the frequency of them lately that has seemed a bit worrying. But on second thought, I think there's an argument for letting it be for now. Major parts of the article didn't seem to have the best copy-editing when I went through it for {{lang}} formatting, and none of us (no offence lol) have got through to it. Maybe anonymous edits can help with that bit by bit? We are undoing the unconstructive and vandal edits anyway... —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Completely agree. Hasn't been anything else since I posted, and a little IP assistance could go a long way to cleaning this thing up. (If that changes and we start getting more clear vandalism, I think we agree I should go for it.) I'll try to do a bit of cleanup myself as well. Btw I assume there's more interest in the page atm since Teej is happening now? Should presumably quiet down when the holiday ends? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: hehe, that's an excellent reasoning for the edits. I reckon it could largely be from that, and if so it should die down after September? I don't have problems with an IP block for a couple weeks. That shouldn't come in the way of anonymous IP copy-edits too much.

I'll try to finish up {{lang}} formatting soon, and tag the places that need copy-editing with it. I have a feeling that a large part of this will turn out to be shoddy or original research; does make it exciting to hunt up sources tho —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 02:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Just did it, since there was yet another unsourced edit just now. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Potentially massive cut

@I'llbeyourbeach (and anyone else watching this page): I'm seeing a ton of unreferenced, poorly sourced, and just plain confusing content in this article. I'm thinking about doing a deep dive and potentially cutting a fair bit of what's there at the moment. Don't want to do this without consensus, but think it's probably worth doing. Would welcome any thoughts. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: There are generous inline citations in the vast majority of the article—which leaves out quick and easy redactions of obvious original research. Haven't gone through much of them at this point, so I can't suggest any parts to cull right now (other than mention on the side that the one for the Konkani Tay is the only section that is completely without an inline citation).

A good way to go—at least in the initial stage—may be to tag things with inline cleanup tags. Would give a good picture on where the article stands with half the work—because we don't both/all have to go through the whole thing. It would then also make cleanup as a whole easier.

I think one of the first things that needs to happen after that—along with cutting unnecessary content—is a change to the layout and structure of the article. Because reading it rn, even assuming it is all reliably sourced, I don't think the article disambiguates between the various types of Teej enough to make me understand why it's split into subheadings like this. Shaivic worship, fasts... there seems to be quite a lot in common between the different Teej, and not much difference. Not much difference to warrant a separate subheading—repeating much of the content—that is. The subheadings for different states also seems to be an odd choice, in that it implies that the Teej tradition of one state don't happen in others. If there were commonalities in celebration across states shouldn't all that be in the same section with a line or two about the outlying differences between states. —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@I'llbeyourbeach: This makes a lot of sense to me. I think on an initial pass what I'll do is cut unreliable sources and replace the refs with {{citation needed}}. That would help us to see what claims need sourcing—or, better, what claims are worth digging up a RS to back up, and which are better off getting rid of entirely. (Would also make editing easier for us, since then we can find cites/delete unverifiable content one by one.) I agree that the geographical setup is potentially confusing/unhelpful—and I'd also note that a lot of the IP editing we were getting was focused on narrow unsourced changes to claims based on geography. So I think what I'll start doing in the next few days is going through, section by section, and evaluating individual sources, tagging as appropriate. Sound good? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It does, @AleatoryPonderings, cheers! —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Holy shit you did it, @AleatoryPonderings. I was going to do some in the next couple days... uh... swell job tho! Any ideas on where to start now? —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Haha thanks I'llbeyourbeach, it didn't take as long as I expected. I noticed two main issues when I was going through, aside from the fact that a lot of the current content is unsourced reports about legends and somewhat marginal details about the various festivals.

• First was that there are a lot of sources to Google Books that are only in snippet view, so it's difficult to verify what's actually going on in them. I tagged those with {{Additional citation needed}}.
• Second was that a bunch of the obviously reliable sources I could access didn't have page references. (Some are on JSTOR, which I have access to through a university and which, if you don't have access to, you could request through the WP Library). Those are:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

I think we can probably cut the source I tagged with {{Self-published inline}} since it's pretty clearly self-published IMO. Other than that, I guess just going through the newspaper refs to see if they actually support the claims they're making and looking for sources to verify the ones I tagged with {{Citation needed}}? Can obviously be incremental given that we have all the tags now. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Righto, @AleatoryPonderings, outright removing the self-published sources seems right. I'll see if I could do something about possibly procuring the books we can't access thru Google Books, and I'll try to access the references thru the WP Library. I can help out with verifying newspapers and published references, though even slower than before—I'm afraid skool's got me with term starting now. Can see you're still regularly working on dis so ayy excellent job! —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'llbeyourbeach, Yeah my school year just started too so I'll also definitely be working on this much less than before. But there's WP:NORUSH; we can just work on our own pace. Lately I've just been trying to verify one tagged statement at a time, which is an easy way to make some progress without taking hours and hours to do it. Hope your school year's going well so far! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Lately I've just been trying to verify one tagged statement at a time, which is an easy way to make some progress without taking hours and hours to do it."

Woah, that's actually an excellent suggestion; thenks @AleatoryPonderings! School is fine for now. And yea, WP:NORUSH —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)