Talk:List of Monuments of National Importance in Madhya Pradesh
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India/Wiki Loves Monuments/Madhya Pradesh)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Effeietsanders in topic References (Copy from User talk:Banej)
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I added the official ASI recognized monuments to the two lists as linked from the page. I tried to merge the monuments that were manually added to the page with these lists, but was unable to match the following data with these lists. If they match, please merge. If they are not on the list, they should not be manually added, but they are simply not ASI-recognized.
- | description = Taj-ul-Masajid | location = Bhopal | address = | district = Bhopal | lat = 23.263032 | lon = 77.39291 | image = Taj-ul-Masjid, Bhopal, India.jpg
- | description = Moti Masjid | location = Bhopal | address = | district = Bhopal | lat = 23.255561 | lon = 77.399443
- | description = Jahangir Mahal | location = Orchha | address = | district = Tikamgarh | lat = 25.350469 | lon = 78.643994 | image = Jahangir Mahal, Orchha, Madhya Pradesh, India.jpg
- | description = Chatarbhuj Temple | location = Orchha | address = | district = Tikamgarh | lat = 25.349339 | lon = 78.640716 | image = Chaturbhuj Temple, Orchha.jpg
- | description = Old Chhatris near Betwa River | location = Orchha | address = | district = Tikamgarh
- | description = Raja Mahal | location = Orchha | address = | district = Tikamgarh | lat = 25.350745 | lon = 78.64401 | image = Raja Mahal, Orchha.jpg
- | description = Ram Raja Temple | location = Orchha | address = | district = Tikamgarh | lat = 25.350125 | lon = 78.639933 | image = Ram Raja Temple.jpg
Thanks for the help! effeietsanders 20:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Tikamgarh would go to the East. The split is my own and not anything special. I referred this map and took three districts - Gwalior, Bhopal and Betul to form a rough East-West divide. Prad2609 (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- The division was very helpful, thanks for that! The monuments mentioned above, I couldn't find in either though, that was a bit of a problem for me :) I didn't mean I couldn't find the district, but they don't seem to appear on the ASI lists at all. I did copy all ASI monuments into either West or East, so if you can find any of the monuments above in any of those two lists, please merge the information. Thanks, effeietsanders 16:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
References (Copy from User talk:Banej)
editHi Banej,
You indicated on List of Monuments of National Importance in Madhya Pradesh that in your opinion, there are references missing. Could you indicate what kind of reference you're missing? Because to be honest, at this point I have a hard time thinking of anything. effeietsanders 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, I'm referring to additional references beside that of Archaeological Survey of India. Beside, the reference should be pointed at http://asi.nic.in/asi_monu_alphalist_mp.asp instead of the main site. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 16:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, References such as what? The ASI is the /original/ publisher of this information. All other publications will be derivatives from this original. Please check the article Monument of National Importance. For which exact url was being used, I guess that wasn't the reason for your template - but it was partially a convenience thing (I had to create about 50 of these pages manually) and partially to ensure that if for whatever reason the ASI changes its website structure, it is still likely to be found. Also, it is only one extra click, and it provides a better insight in the total view of how the monuments work at the ASI level. So my confusion stands, and I hope you can elaborate on what kind of reference you're looking for. What kind of reference would add more reliability to this list than already given by the ASI-link? effeietsanders 16:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The reason I tagged more references is because Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. More info is under WP:PRIMARY ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 16:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, The problem here is a matter of definition. A 'Monument of National Importance' is defined by law (see article). The authority to publish lists of monuments that fit this description is also defined by law (see article) and that is the ASI. This is not primary research, one could even consider the published list of the ASI to be a secondary source (their researchers probably did research on the buildings involved, reported back and based on that research decisions were made, wheels put in motion and the list was finally published). The reports of the researchers would probably be the primary sources. So I might be boring you, apologies for that, but can you give a clear indication what sources should be added in this specific case? I know the general theory. It is truely an open question and if I get an answer that is acceptable and realistic to me, I'm happy to see if I can find those, and add them. effeietsanders 17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, you've just answered your own question. You can quote the findings from the researchers (usually it should be compiled under some publications, journals, etc) and that should justify the notability of the article. I have also added a reference for you. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 17:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- So now you're suggesting to quote the actual (non-public) primary sources? Although they exist, that doesn't mean you can access them... I'm not sure why you're referring to UNESCO Monuments here though. Monument of National Importance is one term. It is a specific type of monuments so you wish. UNESCO Monuments (or whatever their official name is) is another subset of monuments. By including this sentence on UNESCO Monuments, the reader might get the impression that the ASI and UNESCO are competing/disagreeing on what is a monument and what isn't. However, they are just working on two totally different sets of definitions. One set (UNESCO) is based on United Nations/UNESCO charters and regulations, the other (ASI) is based on Indian federal law. effeietsanders 18:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am just providing some suggestions on the source of references. If you feel what I've edited is incorrect, you are free to revert the changes and justify the reasons. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 18:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- So now you're suggesting to quote the actual (non-public) primary sources? Although they exist, that doesn't mean you can access them... I'm not sure why you're referring to UNESCO Monuments here though. Monument of National Importance is one term. It is a specific type of monuments so you wish. UNESCO Monuments (or whatever their official name is) is another subset of monuments. By including this sentence on UNESCO Monuments, the reader might get the impression that the ASI and UNESCO are competing/disagreeing on what is a monument and what isn't. However, they are just working on two totally different sets of definitions. One set (UNESCO) is based on United Nations/UNESCO charters and regulations, the other (ASI) is based on Indian federal law. effeietsanders 18:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, you've just answered your own question. You can quote the findings from the researchers (usually it should be compiled under some publications, journals, etc) and that should justify the notability of the article. I have also added a reference for you. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 17:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, The problem here is a matter of definition. A 'Monument of National Importance' is defined by law (see article). The authority to publish lists of monuments that fit this description is also defined by law (see article) and that is the ASI. This is not primary research, one could even consider the published list of the ASI to be a secondary source (their researchers probably did research on the buildings involved, reported back and based on that research decisions were made, wheels put in motion and the list was finally published). The reports of the researchers would probably be the primary sources. So I might be boring you, apologies for that, but can you give a clear indication what sources should be added in this specific case? I know the general theory. It is truely an open question and if I get an answer that is acceptable and realistic to me, I'm happy to see if I can find those, and add them. effeietsanders 17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The reason I tagged more references is because Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. More info is under WP:PRIMARY ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 16:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Banej, of course I didn't doubt your good intentions - I am sorry if that came across otherwise. But yeah, I do feel that the current combination of information is somewhat misleading. Also, I unfortunately haven't been persuaded by your arguments that further references are needed in this particular case. At least, not references that are available. Of course I would also love to see the original documentation provided by the researchers, but that doesn't seem to be available at this point in time (in the Netherlands a full description by the original researchers is often available, but also published by the same institution). Hence, I will revert your edit mostly. The information might be useful though on a more general article talking about cultural heritage in Madhya Pradesh in general - then you could very well compare the different listings of UNESCO, ASI and possibly NGO's and state-level institutions or even districts/cities. effeietsanders 20:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, References such as what? The ASI is the /original/ publisher of this information. All other publications will be derivatives from this original. Please check the article Monument of National Importance. For which exact url was being used, I guess that wasn't the reason for your template - but it was partially a convenience thing (I had to create about 50 of these pages manually) and partially to ensure that if for whatever reason the ASI changes its website structure, it is still likely to be found. Also, it is only one extra click, and it provides a better insight in the total view of how the monuments work at the ASI level. So my confusion stands, and I hope you can elaborate on what kind of reference you're looking for. What kind of reference would add more reliability to this list than already given by the ASI-link? effeietsanders 16:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
end copy