Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 16:14, 9 January 2025

	This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
India This page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia This page was last assessed in April 2023.

Noticeboard for India-related topics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 14 November 2011.

Noticeboard for India-related topics was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 26 December 2007.

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Pete Hunt (September 22, 2024). "Will Indian Courts Tame Misplaced Pages?". The Diplomat. Retrieved September 22, 2024. "I would personally hate to see Misplaced Pages get banned in India," an editor at an India-related noticeboard said. Apoorva Mandhani (October 30, 2024). "In ANI vs Wikimedia, Round 1 goes to India's tech law. The US firm has taken a beating twice". ThePrint. Retrieved October 30, 2024. "I would personally hate to see Misplaced Pages get banned in India," an editor at an India-related noticeboard wrote. These noticeboards are public administrative pages where editors can discuss issues related to Misplaced Pages articles. Vineet Bhalla (November 5, 2024). "A Delhi High Court case could end up threatening how Misplaced Pages works in India". Scroll.in. Retrieved November 5, 2024. Indeed, this is what is indicated by public discussions on Misplaced Pages noticeboards – public forums where editors of the encylopedia discuss issues related to content, policy and site maintenance. "I can't imagine they would reveal any names," wrote one user. "That would set a terrible precedent."

Shortcuts WT:IN WT:INB

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Misplaced Pages Meetups edit Upcoming none Recent Outside India Past meetups

Discussion at Talk:Disney Star#First sentence & infobox

There is a discussion at Talk:Disney Star#First sentence & infobox that may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject. RachelTensions (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Guite people for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Guite people until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

It is alleged that this clan fails WP:GNG, and the sources in use require review by a WP:GSCASTE expert. No comments by other users directly address this concern. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

From a cursory glance sources such as Shakespear, John (1912), Bertram Sausmarez Carey and Henry Newman Tuck (1896) and Shaw, William (1929) should be discarded per WP:RAJ and for being severely outdated. Lalthangliana, B's master thesis should also be discarded unless proven to have had a significant scholarly influence per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Rest, I do not have access to, so I cannot evaluate them. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Template_talk:Bangladeshi_wedding#Requested_move_25_December_2024

There is a requested move discussion at Template_talk:Bangladeshi_wedding#Requested_move_25_December_2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Bongan →TalkToMe← 12:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles # Proposal for WP:INDICSCRIPT

There is an ongoing proposal for WP:Indicscript Velthorion (𑲀𑲰𑱺‎!) 11:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Misplaced Pages's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

More Raj-era sourcing issues on South Asia related pages

There seems to be a new editor (at least on South Asia related pages), user:Van00220, who seems to be employing a very dubious mix of mostly Raj-era census sources and a few less controversial (but hardly contemporary) sources to create large, unsightly, census tables and then to plaster this mix of what at least to me appears to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, on dozens, if not hundreds, of pages. I tried to reason with them on their user talk page, but received a very generic reply. As far as I am aware—the awareness forged in the crucible of writing some caste-related articles with user:Sitush—this sort of thing is a no-no on South Asia-related pages; otherwise, dozens of editors would have already done it, their efforts not being thwarted over the 18 years that I have been watching South Asia on WP. That these tables are outlandishly large does not help either. Pinging some administrators and old South Asia hands. @Bishonen, RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Abecedare, TrangaBellam, Joshua Jonathan, Kautilya3, and Sitush: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC

There is also Wigglebuy579579 who has been adding tables of demographic data from the pre-independence era into many articles especially those related to social groups . - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

PS2 Van02200 has added "religions" related data, but as user:Ratnahastin points out above and user:Fylindfotberserk has pointed out on my user talk page, others have added such demographic data to an even more dazzling variety of pages Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

PS3 There are acceptable historical demography sources, such as Tim Dyson's A Population History of India, OUP, 2018, but these editors don't use such WP:TERTIARY sources as they usually do not have district-level data, only higher level prose descriptions. Instead, these editors have in their tables a more or less verbatim repeat of a census table from, say, 1901, in conjunction with a journal article from, say, 1908. I have now removed an even larger "religions" table from the British Raj page. I note too that user:Van02200 is pretty much an WP:SPA for now. I think this is a very troubling trend. Also pinging @Diannaa, DrKay, Drmies, and Anupam: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Contesting this claim: Historical demographic data is a personal interest, hence the primary focus. Moreover, adding said historical demographic data to various South Asia related pages does not constitute a single purpose account, given the range mix of other recent and prior edits on a plethora of other pages, which can easily be viewed via edit history. Van00220 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

PS I encountered their table on Delhi, but as you will see in their contributions, they have cast their net wide (over hundreds of pages) to further whatever aim they have. A bigger problem, and I have this gripe with those who add climate-related tables, often also unsightly, is that they run against WP's policy on summary style, i.e. the primacy of text (i.e. prose and not to the bells and whistles of infoboxes and tables.) The infobox- and tables- warriors hardly ever summarize in English prose. We may need to revisit the existing consensus on Raj-era sources and perhaps expand it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

For reference, the "very generic reply" to User:Fowler&fowler on my user talk page is below:

Decreeing sourced data is acceptable versus which is not based on one premise is faulty, given the very same Raj-era sources have been used in academia for decades, if not close to a century at this point in time.

There are thousands of papers, journal entries, media articles and other forms of encyclopedic material that reference census data from the Raj-era, many of which are sourced on a plethora of Misplaced Pages articles that either specifically delve into demographic-related topics or have sections that are dedicated to the demographic-related topics.

Proceeding under the premise regarding the the removal of every single mention of these topics, any historical demographic-related note, table, or refrence from the colonial period of South Asia would be required to be purged, not just from Misplaced Pages, but also from all of academia and various media sources as well as anything else which has been published across the public and private spheres since 1947.

This indicates a complete contrast regarding the constant addition of encyclopedic-related data and materials on a free, publically available website such as Misplaced Pages. Rather than proceeding with a complete purge, I would suggest a compromise that would benefit the reader(s): Any page that sources Raj-era censuses should include a disclaimer regarding the contemporary discussion surrounding potential inaccuracies. Any source(s) that can serve as further reading on the subject would also be helpful.

Regarding other sources: historical demography sources, such as Tim Dyson's A Population History of India references Raj-era census data down to the district level when addressing the demographic change that occurred in Punjab between the censuses of 1941 and 1951.

Any additional feedback is appreciated. Thanks. -Van00220 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This is typical of any interaction with user:Van00220. Their contribution, i.e. a table, is entirely devoid of prose; their engagement on a talk page is full of nothing but non-specific prose. OK, I think I have made my point. I will bow out for now so as to allow others to participate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Using Raj-era census sources for prose isn't acceptable - there's consensus and precedent that we don't consider those reliable. Using the same sources for a demographic table seems pointless more than anything. We are not a database - statistics without context don't belong on Misplaced Pages, and if reliable sources are analyzing the Raj-era censuses, then we should be reporting those analyses, not reproducing the raw data. Van00220, how does a table like the one you added to Jhang district benefit the reader? There is no context for those statistics. There is decadal data for the Raj era but nothing between 1941 and 2017. If Dyson cites these statistics, as you say, why aren't you adding what Dyson says about them, rather than attempting to turn Misplaced Pages into a census database? As a complete aside, this is a good example of why Misplaced Pages:WikiProject South Asia is needed; much of this content refers to present-day Pakistan. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Copy pasting raw data is not helpfull for anyone....As prose text is preferred, statistical charts and diagrams that lack any context or explanation such as; historical population charts should be converted to prose text that explains why population go up or down. WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS. Data dump as seen at East Punjab is an accessibility nightmare that deters readers. Moxy🍁 16:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Appreciate the reply, Vanamonde93. My responses to your main points of contention below:
  
  1. Regarding the context on statistics
  1.1: Given various statistics have been added in the "demography" section of articles, the context is inherently implied (i.e. the comparison of population from one census to the next, or the comparison of one religious group from one census to the next, or the comparison of one age group from one census to the next). Another example of this on Misplaced Pages is the addition of a climate table/graph in the "climate" section of an article, whereby data is presented in a section which requires data similar to a "demography" section of an article; as a result, the context to the reader is inherently implied.
  1.2: As indicated above, the "demography" section of an article implies the context of all data that is added into the section will be demography-related, whether that be a population history table, an ethnicity table, an age group table, or a religion table as is contested at present.
  
  2. Regarding the census data gap between 1941 and 2017
  2.1: I am in the process of addressing these gaps (see edit history, for reference) as I have recently begun adding 1951, 1961, and 1971 census breakdowns on the Indian side. This is still very much a work in progress, and while gradual edits are not fully complete given all censuses are not covered, it is still useful and informative data.
  2.2: Unfortunately, as old censuses appear as the original photocopied documents, it is a painstakingly long process given the number of pages regarding provinces, districts, or cities exist across the regions which I have primarily focused on (i.e. northwestern South Asia).
  2.3: Moreover, the data can also take a significant amount of time to find, while at the same time ensuring numbers on old documents are copied over correctly hampers the ability to add and expand historical demographic tables in a timely manner. For example, a recent addition included the 1951, 1961, and 1971 census breakdowns for Delhi. Unfortunately, all of this was deleted yesterday by one user under the guise of Raj-era sources being unacceptable for use on Misplaced Pages.
  
  3. Regarding the Dyson material
  3.1: Various sections that reference Dyson delve into his claims of demographic change between 1941 and 1951 across Punjab province indicate that throughout the eastern regions, districts that were 66 percent Hindu in 1941 became 80 percent Hindu in 1951; those that were 20 percent Sikh became 50 percent Sikh in 1951, while in the western regions all districts became almost exclusively Muslim by 1951.
  3.2: It is pretty clear the reference of 1941 is derived from data in the census taken in that year, while the reference of 1951 is derived data in the census taken in that year. Taking this into account, as the 1941 census took place during the Raj era, the claim negating any additions of said census data on Misplaced Pages should be null and void to avoid any questions regarding a lack of consistency with one editor over another arising.
  3.3: Expanding on these claims with a table illustrating the specific set of census data which was referenced in the source material should not be considered controversial. Conversely, this should be seen as a helpful addition for the reader given the claims can be backed up with the data that is referenced.
  
  As a final note, I would also like to add (for the record) that these additions are being made in good faith; there is no hidden agenda or conflict of interest(s) I am attempting to wedge in, and I believe the accusation made earlier by the other user was quite unwarranted. The lack of easily accessible demographic data (moreso historical than contemporary as already touched upon above) has always been a personal bother, and given the subject is already of great personal interest (i.e. a hobby, not stemming from a conflict of interest) explains why I have made a plethora of additions to countless articles over the years on various demographic related topics. Van00220 (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  When you synthesize primary sources and make deductions on "religions" in a historically contentious article such as Partition of India, dickering over religious composition in the East Punjab (mostly Sikhs and Hindus) versus the West (mostly Muslim), please don't preach to us that we have to assume good faith. Meanwhile as there is a clear consensus against such original research not just here, but on Misplaced Pages, I will remove your outlandishly sized tables one by one, starting with the major articles. That you are a single purpose account is evident from your editing history. You do nothing but plastering tables en masse. When this has been done in hundreds of pages, it becomes a headache for those of us who have to watch over the articles. You have no editing history in these pages. You make no qualitative descriptions anywhere, only plaster tables. Believe me this is one of the most egregious example of disruptive behavior I've seen in my 18 years on Misplaced Pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Qualitative descriptions are not mandatory for all edits, otherwise there would be no statistical data of any kind on this website.
  Regarding the original point: The layman will not spend hours shifting through scanned documents of old census reports. As a result, having this information on a publicly available, and easily comprehensible on a website such as Misplaced Pages provides readers with an ease of accessibility to view historical demographic data should they wish.
  Regardless, I must digress. Despite my good intentions on display here throughout the discussion so far, I have received nothing but a torrent of ill-mannered pushback with no indication that this will change.
  Furthermore, it is also clear from my interactions with you on here that only one agenda exists, and it certainly does not stem from the vast majority of my good faith additions to this website, which at this point have likely taken up hundreds of hours pouring over old data.
  When I attempt to further my case in good faith, you immediately shut it down.
  This kind of behaviour is not at all conducive to creating a free space for for editors, when data is presented and sourced, whereby data may be presented and sourced in one fashion, but using the same source to illustrate it in another immediately turns into an issue that should never have existed from the offset.
  The scenario illustrated above is akin to a rigid set of lines, where confirmity is paramount. If one should dare step across the pre-set line, one must immediately be on high alert for threats, bullying, and harassment from the establishment.
  Some editors, armed with their Misplaced Pages "prestige", have clearly formed a coalition alongside other longstanding editors with the sole objective of limiting dialogue and discussion, indicating a complete disregard for deviation from an archaically set status-quo by the very same "prestigious" group of editors, as highlighted by your reply above.
  When this long-standing status-quo is challenged, accusations of preaching appear, further evidenced through the "please don't preach to us" note in the latest edit summary; "us" obviously meaning the prestigious group of editors as referenced above.
  I apologize if the contents of this reply isn't what you wished to hear, however, it is a point which clearly must be conveyed, based on all the contents of your thinly veiled threats from the onset, shielded under the guise of "talk page discussion" here.
  I project that my point above will be proven in short order, as further false accusations will be flung, alongside several warnings from the establishment, which could ultimately result in a ban.
  It is obviously disappointing that it may end in such a manner, but such is the way of life. Crucially, it can serve as an important warning and reminder to other good faith editors that this website is not functioning in the manner that was originally intended whereby the prestigious few continually practice their smartly disguised mantra stolen from a famous book where "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Van00220 (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• The existence of climate data in articles isn't in any way a justification for census data. Again, we are not a database, and once multiple editors have raised concerns with your addition of statistics, you need to discuss those additions and reach a consensus on what is acceptable. Please note that changes made in good faith can still be disruptive. I am not accusing you of having an agenda, but your additions are still problematic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the respectful reply once again. I greatly appreciate that. It seems as though this may boil down to one point of contention: Whether the addition of sourced demographic data tables should constitute a "disruptive" edit.
  It seems counterintuitive that the addition of clearly sourced, factual information (in this case, census data) onto a website that prides itself on the addition of factually sourced information should not be considered disruptive, especially when similar information derived from the same sources (in this case, books, media, or academic articles) are not deemed to be disruptive.
  What is disruptive (which I believe we can both agree on) are editors, who clearly have an agenda, making a plethora of unsourced additions, that are not based in fact or reality. This is not what is at issue here at all as the additions in contention are the complete opposite.
  Additionally, what could understandably be seen problematic is the bloated size of these data tables, which can hinder readability. If so, there is an option to hide tables which is an easy edit/addition to make. Van00220 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Please remember that NOTDATABASE is policy. Adding tables from 150-year-old censuses, without any anchor in the prose, is in my view a violation of that policy. Even the addition of contemporary demographic material requires care, because the categories in a government survey do not necessarily reflect the messy realities of caste, religion, and economics. Raj-era surveys were not known for their reliability. The peer-reviewed content we have on places in the subcontinent often omit even contemporary demographics. For all these reasons, you really need to obtain affirmative consensus in favor of your edits before adding historical demographic data. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  I can most certainly add anchor prose that accompanies the data tables if that is one of the main issues at hand.
  It would be helpful know if there is any specific age of data that may be considered more controversial, without any anchor prose. For example, anything post-1880, post-1900, post-1920, post-1940, etc, etc?
  On the Delhi page, the edit note stated that 120 year old data must be removed, but in the same edit, data stemming from more recent censuses was also removed. Is there simply a blanket rule that any demographic data for South Asia prior to 1947 is considered unacceptable to post, or should we take a more nuanced approach to this?
  Regarding peer-reviewed sources that delve into historical demographics during the Raj-era: there are some sources that derive data from the very censuses that have been flagged to be at issue, as already discussed above.
  Additionally, on the topic of more contemporary (i.e. post Raj-era) censuses: I have been left pondering why these were also removed on the Delhi page, as the original reason given being 120 year old data must be cleared due to its perceived inaccuracies. Van00220 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  When historians use Raj-era sources, they are presumably exercising their professional judgement in doing so. We are not historians: we don't analyze primary sources. If historians use some data, we should summarize what they say about that data, not present the data itself. Nuance is always appropriate: I cannot say that every single instance of a demography table must be removed, or that it is always okay after a given date; but you certainly shouldn't be adding the tables by default, and it is likely that they are inappropriate in most cases. I could see in some cases a "Demodgraphics of..." page being appropriate if and only if there is coverage of that in secondary sources. Where the census data are all we have, I don't see how inclusion of historical demography is appropriate. I know that's frustrating to hear, but this is a recurring theme over the years; the community has decided over and over that we are not a repository for uncontextualized information, from sports statistics to highway features. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for explaining further context surrounding this issue.
  Regarding tables that exist: I would like to propose adding a two-part anchor prose, with (1) that includes a description of the table, and (2) alongside a cautionary note that indicates the potentially controversial nature of the data.
  The former could look something like this: "Decadal census reports took place during the colonial era. One component of the reports included religious affiliation, as detailed in the table below."
  The latter could look something like this: "Additionally, the role of British ethnographers in regards to demographic data on decadal census reports has been considered controversial by various contemporary authors in academia, which includes data regarding caste, tribal association, religious background, and linguistic affiliation." Van00220 (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's not quite what I mean by context. That doesn't explain why the statistics matter, and what the reader is supposed to understand from them. The description is probably a good thing, but it doesn't address the underlying issue, of presenting a database rather than a coherent narrative. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding the first point: I believe the existence of historical and contemporary demographics on this website matter for readers who may be seeking this information or simply browsing a place page and stumble upon it as a topic of interest, as with the plethora of other topics that exist here.
  As previously highlighted, readers will typically not spend hours searching through historic (and if we are honest, also the contemporary stuff, for that matter) census documents for demographic information, so having a more accessible viewing option on Misplaced Pages is a great way of illustrating the data in a fashion that is unfortunately not easily accessible or available from the source(s).
  The underlying narrative regarding this being that this information should be provided for all places, from the geographically large to the geographically small, from the administratively large to the administratively small, etc. Most of these pages have various sections, with demography (alongside others, such as geography or history) being an important facet that forms the backbone or anchor of an article about any place. I also agree that adding a description is a good thing. Van00220 (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  With respect, you aren't hearing me. You believe that readers may find census data on Misplaced Pages interesting, but that is insufficient per both policy and precedent. I'm asking you to not to add century old data without obtaining consensus first, and I'm advising you that such consensus is going to be hard to come by unless you can elaborate on the statistics with secondary sources. If you persist, it this is not going to be the last time someone raises it at a notice board, and the next time is likely to be at an administrative board. This is the last I will say about this for the moment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  My apologies. The reasoning behind it being to my belief is given the topic has been equated with other similarly data-heavy topics which are permitted and already exist on Misplaced Pages, of which there doesn't appear to be any consistency from one to another.
  I understand the potentially controversial nature of the historic census data. However the solution should not be remove this material (including the bizarre removal of more contemporary material as well) especially given the very same historic census data has been referenced by published secondary sources as well, per previous discussion.
  Upon referencing secondary sources as general supporting material, as was suggested previously, I can proceed with the addition of anchor prose to the existing tables if that is considered acceptable.
  Regarding the wider issue at hand on policy and precedent on this topic, perhaps it is well overdue for a reform? Van00220 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

  We permit data based on primary sources in some limited circumstances (e.g., elections), and disallow it in many others (e.g., features along roads CVs in biographies). In each case they are subject to consensus, however, which your additions manifestly do not have: indeed I don't see a single other editor supporting your plan of adding historical census data, though this discussion has been open for a week. I said I was stepping away, but I want to be very clear that I am not saying your plan is acceptable, as you seem to be assuming. If you have an issue with NOTDATABASE, you can propose changes at the village pump, though this is unlikely to be a good use of your time; you may not ignore the policy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Helping identifying two places in India

Hello. The article Hannah Snell references two places in India: "Devicottail" and "Cuddylor". I can't find either places referenced outside of the article (or sources relating to the article) so I assume they are misspelled. Perhaps someone with a good knowledge of Indian geography could figure out which places the article is referring to and correct the spelling? McPhail (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The source does not appear to mention Devicottail, although it mentions that she was hospitalized at Cuddylorom (perhaps Cuddalore?) after the siege of Pondicherry. There is also this which you can check as well. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Assistance - Palani Falls

In May 2024, I created an article on a surge waterfall located in Himachal Pradesh, Palani Falls. The article has remained unreviewed ever since, primarily due to a lack of sufficient reliable sources.

While an editor, User:Voorts, pointed out that the article clearly lacked enough reliable sources and questioned its notability, he did not rule out the possibility that the subject might merit an article. He referred me to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject India for assistance and help.

While I admit some of the sources in the article are questionable, I believe the subject does meet Misplaced Pages's notability guideline for geographical features. Other published articles in the same or similar category would be Ninai Falls, Rehala Falls, Hirni Falls or Purwa Falls, to name a few.

In the context of Indian geography, and more specifically the geography and ecology of Himachal Pradesh, I hold that the topic of the article, Palani Falls, is relevant and notable. I request help with referencing on the article. This may be a stretch, but I would also appreciate co-authors, if any.

If this isn't the right place to ask, do give me a heads-up. Regards, Dissoxciate (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bhavanishankar

The article Bhavanishankar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved over 15 years. No reliable sources online Google news, newspapers, books, or scholar. Not enough information to merge.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Harewali

Can somebody please source this? Bearian (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Jhaptal

Can somebody with knowledge of Tala please source this? Bearian (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ling Liang Chinese Church Trust, Calcutta India

The article Ling Liang Chinese Church Trust, Calcutta India has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved almost 15 years. No Websites.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maharajaswaas

The article Maharajaswaas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 years. No reliable sources online on Google, and none at news, newspapers, books, or scholar. Run of the mill, very small village. Not enough information to merge.

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. P.S. I tried spelling it a couple of ways. Bearian (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Mavichery

I'm looking for help with verification that this village exists, its coordinates and sources. Bearian (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Meenoor

One last unsourced article that I can't find anywhere. Please help. Bearian (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried a few variants of the name in https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/data/population-finder. No luck. Suggest PROD. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Project-Class India pages
• NA-importance India pages
• Project-Class India articles of NA-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press