Talk:Environment of India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of environmental organizations[edit]

I am removing the List of environmental organizations, and referring it to discussion here to determine if there is a consensus to add this type of content in this type of format.

A bit of background. The content in question originally made up the original Directory of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu, later renamed Lists of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu. The article was deleted after an AfD, which was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Directory of Environmental Organizations and Resource Persons in Tamil Nadu. The consensus was delete, and the articles were deleted. The author of that article has now added the same content to this article, and recreated the original article as redirect to this article's section.

I specifically note that a merge suggestion was brought up at the AfD, but the consensus was for delete, not merge.

Ultimately, there was a consensus that the content crossed the line of WP:NOTDIR, notwithstanding the fact that the content was renamed a "list" instead of a "directory". WP:NOTDIR is concerned with an article's content. Therefore, if the content of the deleted article was inappropriate for Wikipedia, adding the same content to a different article is still not appropriate for Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deleting the list, because it was too detailed for the article (containing even individual professionals whose notability has not been established). But there seems to be no reason for also deleting the portal box, which I am herewith reinserting. That gives me the impression that the revert contained a personal element, and I have to admonish all involved editors to remember to Focus on content. — Sebastian 19:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I removed additional content by accident, it was an honest mistake. I think my editing history confirms that I normally a very careful editor. Please remember AGF. Singularity42 (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! I didn't doubt that one second. I'm sorry, I didn't express myself well. What I meant was that it's in our human (or animal) nature that, when someone does something we don't like, we tend to react quickly in an emotional, or knee-jerk action. Obviously, it is emotional for someone who put a lot of effort in some work, if that work gets deleted. If that person does something rash, we others, who aren't so directly affected, need to step back for a minute and think about how we can give the other person also a chance to calm down and lick their wounds. When both sides calm down, we are more likely to see that the best solution is often somewhere in the middle. — Sebastian 22:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I think Marcus's new version is much better. It gets across the fact that there are these organizations without turning the section into a directory. Singularity42 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying that! I see that I didn't have to write so much in my previous post; you already know what I mean; what I was hoping for seems to be working already. — Sebastian 23:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Collaboration of the Month[edit]

Summary style and "copying" from India[edit]

This article largely follows summary style so there are numerous sections which may have to duplicate the sections found in India. I'm not saying we should copy verbatim from there, just that it would be a good frame of reference, being an FA after all. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Capankajsmilyo: While your work here is good, copying from other articles is recommended especially when we don't have the sources. Would you remove the inline cites to sources you haven't verified? the content can be obviously kept because that's a welcome addition compared to empty sections, and I see that you have attributed it as well. We only cut and past while merging and splitting. Just to be sure that my interpretation of WP:CWW right, pinging @Yash!, AshLin, and Titodutta: Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Search for the references instead of plain copy & paste. During the FA preparation of Mahatma Gandhi (now reverted to GA), an article which read well turned to have more worms than a barrel of rotten apples, I have 3rd highest edit count of the article but 8th in material added - this is because I used them all to verify almost every reference - I changed about 150 refs and rewrote dodgy bits. So cut & paste is bad practice for a self-respecting editor, Instead make specific queries on problems faced about data/facts to me & @Shyamal:. Also accept the hard work and develop parts of the connected articles so that you can justify the summary article, For this reason, I feel that true article development takes lots of time. :) AshLin (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing those citations which have been among the copied and not verified. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Free sources[edit]

  • Section Geology: I spent a good amount of time at GScholar and GBooks for something basic to cover this section. I've never researched like this before and I had no luck. Most of the works were on some specific topic, nothing about the basic geology of India. All we need is to cover a summary of it, I thought that would be possible. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can try looking for secondary sources like articles instead of primary sources or material or references from Geology of India article, I'll see if I can do my some research myself too later. Galobtter (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got some luck, found two sources and expanded it somewhat. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also found Geography of India, by Majid Husain, which covers, in addition to climate and geology, contemporary issues like environment, geography, resources (energy), national vegetation, soils and wildlife. In short, this looks like an ideal source this page should be ideally based on. I'm currently working on the geology part. if anyone else has access, do the other parts as well. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Environment of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environment_of_India&oldid=1201773339"