Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Draft Guidelines for Lists of companies by country - Feedback Requested

Within WikiProject Companies I am trying to establish guidelines for all Lists of companies by country, the implementation of which would hopefully ensure a minimum quality standard and level of consistency across all of these related but currently disparate articles. The ultimate goal is the improvement of these articles to Featured List status. As a WikiProject that currently has one of these lists within your scope, I would really appreciate your feedback! You can find the draft guidelines here. Thanks for your help as we look to build consensus and improve Wikipedia! - Richc80 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot Assisted Assessment

Currently the backlog of WP:INDIA Unassessed articles is huge. Manual assessment of over 9000 articles is really impossible. I have an idea to lessen the blacklog of the unaccessed articles for the project. I did it for Wikiproject Christianity (Similar automated attempts were done in different Projects like WikiProject Africa) .The standards for assessment scale for most projects is the same. Hence if there is an already assessment done , we could just reuse the information . My suggestion is

1) If "|class=" tag is empty, replace it with the highest quality assesment from the other project banners on the same talk page. 2) If there are No other wikiproject banners / any assessment already, we should use the general wiki guideline of no of characters for Stub/Start classes and then add the appropriate class tag for quality

Thoughts ?? -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

At this stage, I'm against this proposal. There is a manual assessment drive that will address some of this problem of unassessed articles, but it won't be in effect until June - stay tuned. If it is still a significant problem after that phase is over, we'll reconsider it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, What about atleast Option1 ? It will still ease us before the manual assessment drive.. This is just a suggestion. I am till undergoing my manual efforts of assessment-- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Option 1 is ok...but it does involve relying on the assessment of another project - some are very poorly assessed, particularly in those projects that are dysfunctional. The drive is also to ensure a reasonable standard is begin followed and enforced across the board. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I, being a non-technical man, usually do not well understand the automatic bot processes. However, if a bot saves human resource (tagging 9000 article takes a lot of resource that could be used in mainspace, although tagging is very important for orchestrating the project), my opinion is, let's go for the bot. The bot may ncorrectly assess some articles (assessment usually needs human judgement), but most of the time it will do so correctly. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I had done this before for WP:X using User:BetacommandBot. BCB is no longer operational, there can still be done by many other bots by placing a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests . I will place a request if we reach an agreement here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 06:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

BCBot is back operational. Anyways I am requesting more comments here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 06:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Option 1 will really help. Option 2 can do stubs alone and add auto=yes to the banner. These can be later revisited and assessed. We had done previously done this with the help of User:Kingbotk plugin. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Re option 1: I'm not sure I understand. Would this mean that if I created a stub article with a project banner that included an FA class article, the stub would get rated FA? --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 13:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I should say the probablity of this is veyr less.I think automated bots remove wrongly tagged non-FA tagged articles periodically too. Still , If there is a wrong assessment , someone may always request a reassessment of the article in future.If you r still skeptic , once done , we can check the log for the newly FA rated articles and fix any such issues -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good to me. Out of curiosity, is there a some systemic advantage in tagging articles (as opposed to leaving them untagged)? --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 16:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging attracts editors to improving the article to next class until FA. Without tagging, there is no way to know the status of an article (Flagged revisions may help out with this once implemented). Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What I meant (and should have said) was is there any advantage in bot tagging articles (assuming that that will result in many mistagged articles)? Still, thinking about it further, since articles continue to evolve/change there are probably plenty of mistagged articles out there simply because the tags have not been updated, so this is probably a non-issue.--Regents Park (Feed my swans) 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Point#1 is good suggestion. For Point#2 I think bot is best to judge the article for stub class only and nothing more. If the number of characters (including whitespaces) is less than 1500 then it is stub. For all other assessments human eyeballs needed. --gppande «talk» 07:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If we have an agreement here, Can I raise a Bot request ??

1) If "|class=" tag is empty, replace it with the highest quality assessment from the other project banners on the same talk page. 2) If there are No other wikiproject banners / any assessment already, If number of characters (including whitespaces) is less than 1500 , add "class=Stub" 3) Add "auto=yes" to all the bot assisted articles as above.

-- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of looking at number of characters to determine whether it is a stub, change it look for a stub template usually in the pattern, -stub}} (or based on the list of stub templates at WikiProject India/Stub templates) and only set auto=yes for these articles (not for option 1). If stub template is not found, go with the 1500 characters. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for option 1 only. There is no urgency for the other options, particularly when plans have been made ahead of the proposal. However, upon the drive running its course by sometime in July, I will support Ganeshk's suggestion - where stub class would be automatically selected where no other class or banner exists. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all small articles are categorized as stub. Stub category is usually added "manually" by patrolling people. See Wikipedia:Stub. So if the bot looks at the categories for adding the stub information it's input will be limited to only those article which have been categorized manually. And thus bot's purpose & effectiveness in reducing the backlog would be defeated. Did you know section which features newly created articles says article should be having 1500 chars(including whitespaces) which makes them long enough. See WP:DYK. IMO, counting the characters is the best automated way to judge an article as stub. --gppande «talk» 13:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we couldnot reach an agreement on opt2, I am making a BOTrequest for Option1 only now -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#WP:INDIA_Bot_Assisted_Assessment -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A person is working on our request. Earlier I used betacommandbot , but is non-operational now. let us wait for the results -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot0612 (talk · contribs) seems to have started doing some assessments today. Not sure whether it is for WP India only or general. GDibyendu (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction. Its for WP India only. GDibyendu (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You can see the LOGS here . The current unaccessed backlog for WP India is 9388 articles.Once complete , I will initiate a manual run of WP1.0 Bot. Let us see how successful this action was -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done : The work is completed. The backlog is down from 9388 to 7644 . Around 1744 articles were auto tagged (Recent assessment logs) -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 02:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome - thank you for your efforts. I left a note for Ganesh showing the page of the drive - once the lists are sorted out, and the assessment scheme used is more finalized (I will do that), then we'll be ready to go. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work there! But, it surprised me (just as it did for User:GDibyendu) because I was noticing User:Bot0612 doing the auto-assessment of several Indian articles from my watchlist. For instance, see this and this. Surprisingly the WP1.0 bot never appeared in my watchlist for its good work. I wonder why? :) Btw, which of these two bots deserves appreciation? :) Mspraveen (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Its User:Bot0612 for me too - see history for Talk:Nagpur Police, Talk:Butibori. So 18.5% of all India articles assessed in blink of an eye. Three cheers for Tinucherian for coming up with such a bright idea and getting it executed! --gppande «talk» 07:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely good job! I am curious about two things. Why didn't the bot try those 7644 articles? Is it because they were not in targeted category or some other reason? Another thing is that it evaluated some pages as B class, even though no other evaluation was there. Example: Urdu alphabet. So, more than stub, start, it can evaluate B-class also. WP1.0Bot probably just collects information on recent assessment. GDibyendu (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This auto assessment was done only to the talk pages where there is already an assessment by any other wikiproject. So if there is a FA, GA,B ..Stub rating already on the talk page of the article, it identifies the highest assessment class and adds to the WP India banner. The rest of 7644 articles didnt possibly have pre-assessment by another wikiproject. And for many of these other articles, it added an empty '|class=' , if not already present(like this).
And for the article Urdu alphabet , there was a B rating on the page by Wikiproject Pakistan , (See this) , but the Pakistan banner wrongly displays as Start class :) . -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging town and village categories

Right now we have Category:Cities and towns in Krishna district and Category:Villages in Krishna district. User:Blofeld of SPECTRE is proposing we merge these categories into Category:Cities, towns and villages in Krishna district similar to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Barisal District. Please comment. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I would propose that categories like this are fully set up all across India for consistency.

If we are planning to have a potential 638,000 articles on Indian settlements on wikipedia we need to seriously plan out the best infrastructure possible. Personally I think cities, towns and villages -basically all settlements within a given district of India should be housed conveniently in one category. This makes it as comprehensive as possible as is also in coordination with many other countries on wikipedia. It also avoids any confusion over whether a village is a town, or a town a city and given that most settlements in iNdia are villages would make sense. A perfect example would be Ghantasala (town) which is currently catwgorized under "Villages in Krishna district. If we merged them it would be more comprehensive. For the main cities and towns I would suggest a parent category just by state of India. Under each state of India there would be district categories such as these to put the settlements in and if the bot is allowed to develop the missing ones these district categories would become full themselves. So basically each district of each state of India has a category which will house all of the settlements within them ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So for entire India - you are proposing - 1 main category category:India, which will have 35 sub-categories and 604 sub-sub categories? As per List of districts of India? What will happen to existing ones? --gppande «talk» 14:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is proposing exactly what you mentioned. If this goes through, the existing categories will be emptied and deleted. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A correction to the main category, it will be Category:Cities, towns and villages in India by state under Category:Cities, towns and villages in India instead of Category:Cities and towns in India by state under Category:Cities and towns in India. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussing this earlier with another editor, 604 new categories would seem highly excessive. However if we have a bot approved to add all 600,000 odd settlements, there would be 1100 articles in each category on average and in some even as much as 3000 in states like West Bengal which shows clearly that by no means would this be over categroization. I think it would be necessary precedent for covering indian settlements on here and having a strong and consistent structure for the entirety of India. Note that this has already been done with major countries like Indonesia, Brazil and Peru but with India it would probably be on a much larger scale. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, articles which are already under "category: cities and towns in X district", cannot they remain so? I mean, "category: cities and towns in X district" will remain as a subcat of "category: cities, towns, and villages in X district". Th enew village articles that will be created by the new bot will be under "category: cities, towns, and villages in X district", whereas the town/city articles will be under "category: cities and towns in X district" (which will be a subcat of "category: cities, towns, and villages in X district")

I am saying this, because once the thousands of new locality articles are created, it will be extremely tough to navigate a category that will have like 3000 articles. Most of Indian towns and cities already have articles, and if the existing category of "category: cities and towns in X district" is retained, at least the towns will be easy to navigate from category (X district may have 100-200 towns, not a problem to navigate). But, once village articles are created, it will be nearly impossible to navigate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal does not change the status-quo. The towns will remain in Category:Cities and towns in India. Since it will be a child cat, the towns cannot be part of the parent cat, Category:Cities, towns and villages in India. We will end up having district cats that will have two child cats, one for the towns and cities, and another for villages. Is that what you are proposing? Please clarify.

If it is impossible to navigate, we should find ways to further sub-divide the district cats, for example, tehsils, regions etc. Your thoughts?

Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... yes, two childcats of districts, one for cities & towns, and one for villages. Yes, town articles cannot be a part of "Category:Cities, towns and villages in X district". But town articles will be categorised under "Category:Cities and towns in X district", which will be a subcat under "Category:Cities, towns and villages in X district". The reason is, a single cat encompassing cities, towns and villages would be huge categories (containing thousands of articles).--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If the categories become huge, can we not sub-divide the district cats at sub-district level? Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, going below district level won't be good. There are some variations below district level. For example, the district is usually divided into sub-divisions, but in certain states, propably tehsil is the next entity in the hierarchy. More importantly, some districts have both sub-divisions and tehsils. Please see Dholpur district of Rajasthan, as an example. Also, district level is probably a compromise between the article-accommodation under each category, and easy recognition (I mean first stumbling upon "category:villages in X sub-division", which is a subcat of "villages in Y district", which is a subcat of "villages in Z state"... seems too tiresome). --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Some villages in Rajasthan have same name in the same district, but under different sub-districts. Villages of Rajasthan starting with A shows some such villages. So, it seems sub-district information will be helpful to uniquely identifying such villages. In that case, Categories can also be divided into sub-districts under Category for districts. Just IMHO. GDibyendu (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging villages with towns/cities and using sub-district child categories is a good idea. I'm often puzzled by why people cat some places as "villages" while less populous things get cat'd as "towns". It may get tiresome, but at least it's more methodical and clear-cut than subjective "town"/"village" calls by different contributors. Saravask (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh -FA Review

Harbhajan Singh has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Arman ^(Talk) 10:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bengali language FAR

Bengali language has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Status: Assessment Department

Hello. This is to update on the status of the assessment department. Till date, all assessment requests have been considered and accordingly articles have been assessed based on their quality, importance scale and standards.

In 2008, 24 articles, which have been requested for assessment, have been assessed with/without comments. All assessed articles have been added to the archive.

No outstanding assessment requests stand as of today. For any new assessment requests or queries, please feel free to contact me.

On behalf of the WP:India Assessment Team
Mspraveen (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed-Class_Kerala_articles and Category:Unassessed Kerala articles

I used AWB +Kingbotk/Plugin to add our project banner + kerala=yes in Category:Kerala geography stubs.They got populated on Category:Unassessed-Class_Kerala_articles and not in Category:Unassessed Kerala articles, and hence dont appear on the stats page in WP:KERALA page as unassessed articles..

Kerala articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA			1				1
FL				4			4
GA	4	2	2	10			18
B	9	36	32	34		16	127
C	13	64	138	276		137	628
Start	13	155	584	2,326		502	3,580
Stub	1	59	393	5,391	1	682	6,527
List	2	24	47	165		66	304
Category				5	1,035		1,040
Disambig					27		27
File					12		12
Project					2		2
Redirect	3	12	42	457	125		639
Template					161		161
NA			1	4	3		8
Other					8	12	20
Assessed	45	352	1,240	8,672	1,374	1,415	13,098
Total	45	352	1,240	8,672	1,374	1,415	13,098
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 59,991			Ω = 5.51

Anythoughts ? -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 06:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Category:Unassessed-Class Kerala articles was not listed at Category:Kerala articles by quality. That probably prevented them from appearing on the template. I've corrected it now. Should appear normally from next update onwards.--thunderboltz^(TALK) 09:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've run the bot and updated the list now. I'm putting the other category for deletion.--thunderboltz^(TALK) 09:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks thunderboltz ( Deepu :) ) -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Which one are you putting for deletion:- Category:Unassessed-Class_Kerala_articles or Category:Unassessed Kerala articles ? Are there such problems for other workgroups/main prjt categories also ?

I've put Category:Unassessed Kerala articles for deletion. I think this problem was limited to the Kerala Wikiproject. Others don't seem to have this problem.--thunderboltz^(TALK) 11:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu

Can clean this article up? I had a glimpse at it and saw ridiculous claims such as the Tamil languages existing in written form for at least 5000 years which were referenced in the proper format (ie. using <ref> tags). Thanks to whoever fixes the article. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 15:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Census tables.

I had recently added the census tables to Mumbai and Delhi pages in demographics section. Both the addition were immediately removed by User:Nikkul (from Mumbai's page without prior discussion). Since this issue involves discussion on 2 pages I think it is better to have centralized discussion on this page instead of following separate discussion on 2 talk pages.

Arguments presented by User:Nikkul in Talk:Delhi. For Mumbai read this Talk:Mumbai.

Nikkul's points Delhi Population Year Pop. ±% 1901 405,819 —     1911 413,851 +2.0% 1921 488,452 +18.0% 1931 636,246 +30.3% 1941 917,939 +44.3% 1951 1,744,072 +90.0% 1961 2,658,612 +52.4% 1971 4,065,698 +52.9% 1981 6,220,406 +53.0% 1991 9,420,644 +51.4% 2001 13,782,976 +46.3% source: delhiplanning.nic.in † Huge population rise in 1951 due to large scale migration after Partition of India in 1947. User:Gppande has added this table. I don't think it's suited for the Delhi page because: ALL Featured Indian city articles do not have this table and have not had this table when they became featured This table would work better on the Mumbai statistics page The average reader doesnt really care about how many people lived in the city 20 years ago and 30 years ago The demographics section is supposed to reflect the current demographics including religion, ethnicity, etc. This table contains very auxiliary information. It not important It's very big and bulky and is really not that informative

Gppande's points Mumbai Population Year Pop. ±% 1971 5,970,575 —     1981 8,243,405 +38.1% 1991 9,925,891 +20.4% 2001 11,914,398 +20.0% Source : www.mmrdamumbai.org Data is based on Government of India Census. The reason these articles did not have the table earlier because this information is too hard to find. You would always get the latest census data from Census website. So even small villages will have 2001 census data on their pages. But it is very hard to find what was the population from past census. All such information needs to be either purchased from Govt websites or you need to do a hard google search. Moreover, other featured articles across the world have such information where ever it is available Youngstown, Ohio, Belgrade, new york, Boston, Massachusetts. Even Indian FA's like Ladakh had it when it got FA status. For Gangtok when it was in FAR I added it to Demogrpahic section and none raised any question. I believe more and more Indian cities should follow this WP style. Just check this hundreds of US cities/state/counties follow the template for their articles. Shouldn't Indian articles also do so? Surely, it can be there too on statistics page. Average reader would usually need such information. After all, +ve or -ve deviation in population is a key indicator of city's profile. Like for Delhi, isn't the chart speaking of how significant is 1951 census? I would be soon adding similar chart for Nagpur and you would be surprised to know population growth rate of Nagpur has been dropping since last 2 decades due to migration to west Maharashtra. Are these not significant fact or very hard to understand for an average reader(both Indian and non-Indians)? Chart shows values and deviation for such significant events and after those events. So both values and deviations are important and are present in the chart. Not sure why "current demographics" is only acceptable as per Nikkul. No where it is written so. I believe Demographics section should give FULL information not just current. This information is important(not auxillary) from encyclopedic point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This information tells cities growth from past to present(for years it is available). Currently the article lacks such information completely. I understand that not too much numeric information should be added to main article. But if climate section can have chart so could demographics. 1 chart is not tons of statistical data to be moved to new page. Information is displayed in well organized manner. It is properly aligned in form of template. It is not at all bulky. Most importantly, it is significant information and is based from authentic source - census of india- as approved by Wikiproject India.

Need inputs from all members on this matter. --gppande «talk» 09:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I support gppande, his reasons and claims seems to be valid. Wikipedia is a dynamic encyclopedia, whch anyone can edit so this table can be added to all other Indian cities and states aswell. We need to add or can add historical demographics figures to show the change in population over the years. A table can say what a thousand words paragraph can't, so adding the table is a good idea. But before adding something significant to a FA, a general announcement on the talk page is a courtsey. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Using collapsable tables as per AreJay is indeed a good idea. Along with photos this table can be inserted very easily within the same paragraph. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support addition of the census data. This data gives a comprehensive idea about the city's growth through several decades. In its concise form, it deserves to be part of the demographics section. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, deserves mention of such significant data. My two cents, Mspraveen (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Well, I am in two minds here. The addition of such a table should be judged individually for each article. This table should be incorporated in a separate article on the demographics of a city (such as Demographics of Darjeeling). But, it may not be necessary for the city article. Definitely it is not a must for city articles. Some city articles have large demographics section, where such a table may be befitting. However, for a short demographics section, continuous historical data of population is not needed (neither in table form, nor in text). Some notable shifts occurred at some point of time in the history of the city (such as sudden burst of population of Delhi following independence) can be mentioned in text in demographics (or history) section.

Since addition of this table is not a must, we should consider other aspects while adding the table. For example, for FAs, it's important to see that the table does not protrude into the next section. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support addition of tables with census data. They add values to the Demographics sections. Surely it's an improvement. GDibyendu (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I think that the information is useful and pertinent in the two examples presented. It is impossible to understand the nature of large Indian cities without a sense for the population growth and the tables illustrate that well (though a graph would be even better). This information has encyclopedic value. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 19:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support The tables are a lot more informative than the garish pictures Nikkul (talk · contribs) has obsessively plastered on both Delhi and Mumbai pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

PS To GPPande: Once you have obtained consensus here for the demographic tables, please work on getting rid of some of the visual obscenities that currently grace the two city pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I think the inclusion of historical data puts the growth of the city's population in perspective. Most of the objections seem to be arguable, since they are based on someone's point-of-view, rather than being contrary to standard operating procedures supported by Wikipedia guidelines. We don't need someone trying to interpret for us what the "average reader" does or doesn't care about, unless the opposing editor can quantify, with empirical data, the likes and dislikes of readers on Wikipedia. I do think though that Collapsible tables might be better suited to present this kind of data (this would also probably address objection #6). Thanks AreJay (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support This ultimately comes down to whether the census tables are beneficial or a hindrance to the articles. I believe it is the former as others have summed up why better than I ever could. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 00:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. As per User:AreJay I have included the collapsible option in Template:IndiaCensusPop. Now both the tables(on this talkpage) have a show/hide button on them. I would add these tables to Mumbai and Delhi pages on Monday if no more concerns are raised. --gppande «talk» 15:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No unaccessed articles under Protected areas of India

Protected areas of India articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FL	1						1
GA	3	2	5				10
B	5	15	7			1	28
C	6	25	26	6		2	65
Start	7	78	157	72		7	321
Stub	1	14	95	84		8	202
List	4	3	5	5			17
Category					151		151
Disambig					1		1
File					5		5
Project					2		2
Redirect	2	2	16	8	9		37
Template					8		8
NA					2		2
Assessed	29	139	311	175	178	18	850
Total	29	139	311	175	178	18	850
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 3,181			Ω = 5.08

There is no column about the unaccessed articles under the Protected areas of India Wikiproject. Kindly add the category to the template. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It was the same problem Tinu reported above with WP:KERALA. I've corrected it now.--thunderboltz^(TALK) 16:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and correction. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Villages

An update. The bot that will create missing places around the world is currently in discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot creating up to two million new articles. India, Russia and China were put on hold due to their large scope. I was thinking we should go ahead with creating the village articles based on the Census link using User:Ganeshbot. User:Sumibot had created some of the tehsils in AP. But, it has not been run for the rest of country.

This time around I feel it will be efficient to involve human editors before the process is run, for disambiguating as well as suggesting the text of the articles. Each state will have different links/sources, so I have started collecting sources at User:Ganeshbot/Villages. Please add any sources that you know to pull data from.

I had create a AWB plugin that allows for creating articles based on CSV files. Column headers and article text is configurable. Once create a proper CSV file and article text, the same data can be used by other language Wikipedias to create article using with AWB/CSV plugin. Previously Ganeshbot code had to be modified by each language wiki, this will avoid that.

Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sundar, I may need your Perl script to suggest disambiguations or related articles. Please comment. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

list of Indian Prime Ministers

I came across this article on Prime Minister of India. There is absolutely no material in it. Hope someone takes up the task to fill it up with content. Tarun2k (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: On going through the history of the article found that it had been vandalized. Now that I have reverted the vandalism, think it is pretty fine. Yet a number of improvements can be made. Tarun2k (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Bots for "untagged" articles

There is a lot of India-related articles that have not yet been tagged with WP India, let alone assessed for their quality. Often, their discussion page is empty, with no banners. Is it possible to build some bot that will automatically check if an India-related article has the WP India banner in their talk page, and, accordingly, tag it (at the very least, tag it, if not assess)? India-related articles can be identified by their categories. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

what are the categories you are looking for ? This task is easier by placing a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a good idea - another member of from the assessment dept. was also finding this problem. Those pages need to be tagged, with a bot preferrably. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The categories covered would be Category:India and its multiple sub, sub-sub (... and so on) categories. It's a quite uphill task.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. SatyrTN does this but he is on holidays. What you do is that you go to WP:AWB get it to generate all the subcats of India. Print it out. Remove false positives and repeated occurrences, and then put it in a list. Like User:Blnguyen/VN and then ask SatyrBot to tag it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This can be done using User:Kingbotk/Plugin. It has a built-in India project support, this allows for tagging articles with respective taskforces at the same time. When running the bot against stub categories, the auto=yes parameter can be applied. The India project support may be missing some newer taskforces, will need to request User:Kingboyk for those to be added in. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, bots are a good idea to have especially when tagging a huge chunk of articles are present. Since being a part of the assessment team, I realized a few months ago, for instance, that there were far too articles from the Telugu cinema that have not been tagged as a part of WP:India. What I have ventured to do is to do these manually. However, I have the following question: Each wikiproject has its own template arguments such as needs-infobox/needs-synopsis. How would the bot be able to handle and recognize the articles that need these arguments? Throwing light on this will be appreciated. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The plugin helps out with adding the banner to talk pages. You can request these project-specific additional arguments be added to the plugin. You can also use User:ClockworkSoul/Igor for assessments. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess we should do this before we start the assessment drive ... Can somebody take this up ?? -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 01:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have AWB Access now... I guess I will work on this.... -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 02:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will make a manual assisted bot using AWB and plugin , and ask for BOT approval. This is to add our banner to articles without it in the Category:India and its sub-categories -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 04:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made the BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/TinucherianBot -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The BOT is approved now -TinucherianBot ..Thanks to Ganesh for the immense help . Let me know of the categories of your interest ( including workgroup tags) here or on my talk page -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You can see the BOT Tagging progess here -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This bot is going strong. However, it does not automatically assess for WP:INDIA if any other project's assessment exists already. So, once it is run once over all the India Categories, we may need help of Bot0612 again. Now, #Unassessed India article is 10000+. GDibyendu (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. You are right.Once we are done with this , we can take the help of Bot0612 again. But by the time all the categories are done by end of this week , the good ( or bad ?? ) news is that we should be having atleast 15,000 Unassessed articles :) -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bot is stopped for now due to the below issue . -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bot is restarted with more careful selection of categories now. Moreover it is receiving Tagging requests for the workgroups as well. It has already done for WP:WINDPA and WP:KERALA .
I am collecting categories from workgroups with their approvals for BOT run like

• Cats for WikiProject Tamil Nadu
• Cats for WikiProject Karnataka

-- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)