User talk:Sundar/Archives/2008/April

Scientific names

Hi Sundar, the convention for scientific names is to always keep them in Roman. This is something that is followed even in Russian (Cyrillic) texts. I think the Tamil name for Bungarus fasciatus is "Bangaara paambu" although the snake may only rarely be seen within the region of Tamil Nadu. Shyamal (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shyamal, sorry, I didn't get what you meant by "in Roman". Did you mean that the Tamil Wiki article should have its title in Roman? Or did you mean the title should be its common name and not the scientific name? By the way, form from this page, it appears that the Multibanded Krait is "kattu viriyan" in Tamil, do you have any idea? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sundar, by Roman, I mean the "English script" as used here. See this from Common name

A binomial is a formal name, and it is the same the world over, independent of the language in use: a binomial is rendered italicised in Roman script, for example, Patella vulgata.

It is a convention and is followed for instance here ru:Беркут. You will have a lot of trouble with Tamil interwiki and I think you need to get the input of experts on the topic of interlanguage biological name usage. Regarding Katti Viriyan, it is quite a generic name - often even ascribed to the Kukri snakes. It is usually however mainly restricted to Bungarus caeruleus which is commonly seen in Tamil Nadu unlike the Banded Krait. Shyamal (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it didn't strike me that you meant the Roman script. Yeah, we do almost always give it in Roman script italicised (it's even recommended in Tamil Wiki style guide), but rendering it in Tamil script alongside. Do you think that violates the convention? If so, let me suggest it to fellow Tamil Wikipedians. But, what will readers who don't know the Roman script do? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the taxobox on [1]. That looks fine and I suppose that is because it has a good Tamil common name. Somehow the transliteration of scientific names to Tamil looks a bit contrived. It can also be tricky to pronounce some of these names. But I am unable to think of any better options. Shyamal (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does look contrived, because we (per local policy) make it conform to Tamil phonetic rules whenever written in Tamil script. For those who wish to know the original pronunciation, audio, IAST, and/or another notation being discussed locally shall be provided. But, we're not there yet. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Are scientific name redirects avoided? I think this should ideally work properly ta:Bungarus caeruleus and inside Tamil you redirect to whatever is suitable. I just tried http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_chrysaetos but http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungarus_caeruleus fails. This also makes interwiki addition quite straightforward. Shyamal (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We're pretty liberal about redirects. Will suggest that. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene, but I have a slight hobbyish interest in snakes. Bungarus fasciatus is often called மஞ்சட்சாரை in Tamil. IIRC, the same name is also used for zaolys mucosus. Also, கட்டுவிரியன் is used of different snakes in different parts of TN - in Thanjavur, the snake it's used for is Dryocalamus nympha, which is also the meaning the Madras Tamil Lexicon gives it. According to the Tamil Lexicon again, Bungarus caeruleus is பனைவிரியன் (which is the name used in my area) or கரும்பனையன், and எண்ணெய்விரியன் or எண்ணெய்ப்பனையன் is actually bungarus cerculens. I've not studied biology in Tamil medium so scientific usage may be different, but I thought I'd just chime in just in case it was of any use. -- Arvind (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only vague memories of what was called "மஞ்சச்சாரை" (colloquially) in Madurai. It did have the same kind of colour and length, but the "bands" were perhaps less pronounced or missing. In any case, I could be totally wrong about this. Given that the name for the genus comes from the Telugu word for gold, "மஞ்சச்சாரை" sounds plausible. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Feedback requested in an RfC

Hi Sundar, I am wondering if you might like to weigh in on an RfC that I initiated earlier this week. I fear that the discussion there has degenerated. I've tried to explain this more precisely in my statement (at the expense of using too many words which I hope you don't find too off-putting). Needless to say, if you do decide to say something, I don't expect you to say anything in support of my position, only to provide you best opinion. Request for comment: When does the literary tradition in a language begin? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Chola dynasty

Chola Dynasty 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. Sarvagnya 19:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tamil language page

Some editors are removing existing citations and adding frivolous tags to a featured article. Is there not a way of locking up the page? --Aadal (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ta:பொனொபோ

...is a fabulous article, stylistically. Is that something you wrote?

I can't locate a copy of Negotiations. I suppose we could drop that sentence for now, and re-add it once we have a couple more sources. Apart from that, words fail me in re what's happening here. Or rather, it's probably better that I pretend they fail me, because anything I might say would be utterly unprintable. -- Arvind (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Qns

I've left a couple of questions at Aadal's talkpage which I would be grateful if you could look at. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I came across Chola dynasty at FAR and noticed that some of the passages are completely sourced to Sastri. While that book is, of course, perfectly reliable, its also a little old and a lot of the assumptions about organisation have been questioned since then. Rather than blindside you when raising it at FAR, I thought I would give you a little heads-up so you could try and get hold of the other major books... I haven't got access to them at the moment. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User srirangam99: oh, thanks for the quick reply, pl. be my admin

Oh, Sundar, I was overjoyed to see your quick reply. As I admitted in my letter to Venu who unfortunately has left wikipedia (as informed by you), I am unfamiliar with procedures at wikipedia and being keen to learn always, thought, it would smoothen up the process if I have a guide and mentor in the beginning itself.

By the way thanks for your advice to me to place reliable sources. I openly would state and admit that I indeed rely on epigraphical evidences (not from books and historians as they are not my first preference) but from inscriptions which have been translated and whose accuracy and veracity has been attested by renowned archaeologists etc. I strongly believe that historians themselves would be unable to complete their own work unless backed by these very epigraphical and inscriptional evidences on which they cannot but rely on. I mainly look to scour through inscriptions from the website (which link I place before you, purely as an example but which is thoroughly verifiable and whose veracity should not be doubted) http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_3/no_30_manimangalam.html

Sundar Sir, with regard to the content on Chalukya pages starting with Tailapa-II and his successor Satyashraya. While Dinesh Kannambadi and KNM etc. are instructing others to post reliable and verifiable sources, all they are doing in support of (for example) one statement, i.e. Tailapa-II defeating Raja Raja I in 992 AD and securing 150 elephants etc. or Satyashraya defeating both Raja Raja I and his son Rajendra when they attacked Manyakheta, is stating that they have taken the content from Suryanath Kamath or K.A.N.Sastri. But they have not presented one epigraphical evidence. At the moment I am in the midst of a minor revert war on the Tailapa-II page where I had placed and presented inscriptions of Tailapa-II himself between pre-992 AD to 996 AD where he has not made any mention of his victory in war against the Cholas. Also it is a known fact that among Chalukya kings, inscriptons of Satyashraya are very few (actually as per Chola records Satyashraya and his successor Jayasimha-II were banished from their capitals because they ran away from war at Maski and Muyangi)... but at least in support of the victory of Tailapa-II and Satyashraya, at least I have been unable to see any epigraphical or inscriptional or other historical evidence. Dineshkannambadi says that I should not give an interpretation of inscriptions, but when it comes to Chalukya victories or their other achievements, he and others have placed reliance on the same www.whatsindia.com/inscriptions website.

This is the contradiction I have noticed with pain.

That is why I request you to kindly become my admin now that Venu Sir has left wikipedia.

Thanks. Do reply on my talk page pls.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply

Dear Sundar,

As regards your comment on purely relying on epigraphical evidences like inscriptions is that at least we are able to separate their opinionated-ness like ignoring words of over-praise (such as weaker kings of either the Cholas or Chalukyas calling themselves Trailokyamallas or Bhuvanaikamallas) - what I personally rely on is the bare content of those inscriptions such as the claim of Virarajendra of having defeated Somesvara-I (strangely and surprisingly, if you pause to think for a minute, the only major inscription of Somesvara-I regarding the Cholas speaks about his having killed Rajadhiraja-I at Koppam, while inscriptions of Rajendra-II the successor of Rajadhiraja-I and Virarajendra (successor of Rajendra-II) all the way till at least Raja Raja-II (1146-1170 AD) have confirmed both the death in war of Rajadhiraja-I at Koppam as well as the victories of both Rajendra-II and later of Virarajendra against Somesvara-I at Koppam and Kudalasangam). I was reading your pages of itneractions with WikiRaja and the talk page on Yakshagana where Dineshkannambadi (I strongly suspect for his own selfish ends) relied on the very similar inscriptions of Rashtrakutas describing the Chalukyas as the Karnatabalas - and goes on to (absoloutely wrongly in my view) interpret those very inscriptions as "referring to the army of the Badami Chalukyas who defeated the Pallavas, the Cholas, Pandiyas etc. etc." when in fact the Rashtrakutan inscriptions at least did nothing else other than refer to the Chalukyas as Karnata balas, i.e. "the force from Karnata, the land of the Kannada speaking people."

Pls. be rest assured (feel free to see and review my contributions or edits mainly on the Chalukya and Chola pages (for the present) where I have not made any attempt to INTERPRET, rather present them proof of both occurrence or non-occurence of a historical event. A case in point is Dineshkannambadi reverting my edit in Tailapa-II's page about my placing inscriptions of Tailapa-II, none of which claims any confrontation or victory against Raja Raja Chola. On the other hand one of these specifically mention his meting out punishment to a man and women accused of adultory with death to the man and cutting off the nose of the lady accused of the offence in good detail which according to me is very reliable (does not need any interpretation also). What I would like to ask is that why wouldn't the same king place another or any number of inscriptions proclaiming his victory over the Cholas describing it at least as specifically as he does about the punishment meted out to criminals among his subjects?

I believe, Sundar, that this example exemplies the importance of epigraphical evidences, though as you cautioned me, I would never try to interpret them independently.

On my part, however, I requested Dinesh Kannambadi to present his set of evidences in proof of victories of Satyashraya and his father Tailapa-II over the Cholas.

Srirangam99 (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Prambanan.jpg

GFDL-self sounds quite reasonable. I transferred the image to the Commons (Image:Prambanancomplex.jpg - the original name was taken) and tagged it accordingly. Thanks! ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Sundar,

Thanks for the welcome. I was going through ur contribs; phenomenal track record!

On a different note, I had this idea for quite a while but didn't know what to do with it: Projectmadurai website has a very good collection of tamil literature, but most of them are unreadable unless one's vocab in (poetic) tamil is very good. Can we import the poems/inscriptions from projectmadurai (they are already in public domain) and provide a framework where people can write notes/urai on the poems? Once enough people get interested, this should hopefully evolve quickly, and then anybody can enjoy these poems. Let me know what you think.

PS : I saw the wikibooks on tamil wikipedia; it has some poems from kuruthogai, etc. But this has some things not going for it: 1) It should be easier to get the tamil poems from Projectmadurai, since it is already in digital form there? 2) I just now stumbled into it by chance; it doesn't show up in google search. We should probably have means for people to write both English and Tamil meanings. 3) Arunchorporul should be on the same page as the poem, rather than having to click to know the meaning of each song (actually, we should be able to come up with something better than both schemes; we can discuss this later).core (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)corecirculator.

More thanks

I'm also writing to say thanks. You corrected my mistake at Tamil language and assumed my good intentions which was certainly the case. I'm aware of, and follow, the MoS guidelines on preferences and conventions but this one just slipped past me. I somehow didn't recognize that spelling as a Commonwealth usage and assumed it was a typo, so I "corrected" it. The article itself is excellent, although the first several paragraphs seem a bit patchwork in comparison to the rest. I'm trying to make a few small contributions, but hopefully I can do better than that last one. Happy editing  : ) Doc Tropics 05:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I replied to you on my talkpage. Perhaps Arvind can place the relevant quotes on the article's talkpage? I think that would be a huge assistance. Doc Tropics 07:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is an eyesore. In point of fact, though, I'm not too sure we even need to discuss the age of Tamil literature in so much detail in the lead. At best, we'd need a reference to the earliest Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions as examples of early attestation of the language. I'm thinking about a complete rewrite along the lines of the leads in Swedish language or Turkish language, which are actually a lot more informative about the language than the lead in Tamil language. We can deal with the history section once that's done. I'd welcome your thoughts. -- Arvind (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)