Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Hi, I have just been notified of a change to the list related to India at Heads of former ruling families. Never seen the article before today but I'm not convinced that it is correct. It uses a typically self-contradictory Times of India source + a primary legal ruling to verify that royal titles are valid despite the constitutional measures of 1972 etc. The ruling comes from the Kerala high court, which is not the national constitutional adjudicator and, if my memory is correct, flies in the face of the 1972 amendment which specifically abolished all royal titles. Have I lost my marbles? There are obvious policy issues: ToI is unreliable & we don't use legal rulings directly as sources because we lack the expertise to interpret them + be sure that there have not been subsequent over-rulinfs etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at garbage removal. Let's see ... Thanks for the info! And great to see you back! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC) And no you have not lost your marbles; you are acute as ever. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added to your comment at the article talk. I think the Princely states article may also have been affected. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added images that are more representative of Delhi. As someone who is from the city itself, I have made changes using legal images. Monuments like the India Gate should be present in the infobox. Thanks Vinrpm.p6054 Vinrpm.p6054 (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not my user talk page but the article's talk page that you should present your case and seek a consensus. That typically takes time, sometime even several weeks. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your continued interest and editing in Darjeeling. I have become quite busy in RL and not able to participate lately. Will try to catch up (there are some more citation needed tags/reference problems towards the end of the article). Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries. It shall be saved! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of major famines in India during British rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natal, South Africa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello this is AtishT20. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Prime Minister of India have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please note that what is there is a precise paraphrase of the source, a highly esteemed scholarly source. If you have concerns, take then to the article's talk page. That is always better than editor warring. AtishT20 (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the brahmi script page, user learnindology is causing problems there as well. Metta79 (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Metta79: Hello Metta. Well, I have just woken up. Let me get the coffee cooking and clear my head. Will look. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Phew. Just fixing Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus took so much time, which I will find out when the time stamp shows. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Fowler I cannot help but admire your efforts on Wikipedia over the years you have always maintained integrity and honest in a place which lacks it. I as someone who has chosen to watch from a distance and not edit look upon thee with awe and respect. You currently face an onslaught of unprecedented proportions from people who watched a certain movie and now believe they are historians on Kashmir. I pray and hope you stand firm in the face of such insurmountable odds hold firm Wikipedia must not be held to ransom by nationalists and historical revisionists who seek to sully the word GENOCIDE! Do not give up even though India is in the grips a virulent Hindu nationalist wave seeking to rewrite history and spread misinformation you must not kneel to their demands. Your admirer/fan wishes you well! DestinyManifest0 (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the gracious words and your support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

May I remind you that trying to threaten me just because I don't agree with you is wrong. The prime minister can be the leader of the Council of Ministers. I don't see why not. Someone has to lead it and that's the role of the Prime minister. Don't know what's so hard to comprehend about that unless its hars to understand simple things. You said you're going to take a break so go and take one! AtishT20 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I apologize if I came across that way.

Thanks for your post. In published books, the answers to: Please complete the sentence "The Prime Minister is the leader of -----" seem to be:

• the House; the party or coalition; the legislature; the ruling party in the legislature; the party with the most seats in the lower house; both the executive and the legislative branches; the country; the majority party or coalition; a country;

On the other hand, the answers to: Please compete the sentence A/The Prime Minister is the head of----" seem to be:

• government; the government; the cabinet; the council of ministers; Union Government; the Government and the Council of Ministers;

As I understand it, a leader usually leads a bigger group of people; the head leads a smaller group. So, X is the head of a family or household, but the leader of a clan or tribe; Y is the head of a noun phrase; Z is the head of her department, but a leader of her profession. A council of ministers is usually not of the size of a clan, tribe, or profession. So, head of government, the cabinet, the council of ministers, but the leader of the party, the country, ... This is my limited understanding. They are not hard and fast rules, for sure, (X can also be the head of a clan or tribe) but generally followed. They can also be used figuratively, ironically, in transferred form, and so forth, in which case, rules are meant to be broken. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"Councils" usually have chairpersons rather than leaders, I would have thought. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod has a very good point. I didn't break it down as much. A council is an advisory body. If an advisory body has been constituted to advise you in the better blank of blank, you can't really be their leader. If they are giving you advice, you can't lead them, i.e. literally get them to follow in your path. It would defeat the purpose. You could manage them, direct them, be in the position of chairing the deliberations, and so forth. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azadi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

refer you this rev. always give proper, meaningful and justifiable edit summariesKichupila (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Saw your ping and at a quick glance, while the discussion is really long and somewhat repetitive, the involved editors do seem to be discussing mostly sources and content and (again at a quick glance) appear to be open to compromise. So I don't think there is a need for admin intervention yet. Instead I'd suggest that it would be good if:

• concrete alternate suggestions are made
• everyone slows down and sleeps over these suggestions rather than react instantaneously
• Avoid questioning each others good faith/competence since that just poisons the well and makes a consensus harder to reach. It may not appear so to the ones involved in the frustratingly lengthy discussion but to me this is one of the better discussions on wikipedia in terms of the focus being on content and high quality sources. Some rancor is likely inherent in the subject.
• if the current crop of involved editors are stuck get some fresh eyes in; I see Kautilya has recently joined in in the 'secular' discussion, which might help; I'll also ping @Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish, Hemantha, and TrangaBellam: in case they have the time/inclination for the deep dive needed
• if the above steps fail, perhaps try to narrow down the options to 1-2 alternate suggestions (with accompanying sources) and try an RFC. But keep in mind that you cannot expect the RFC responders to be as well informed as the current discussants, so their 'unbiased' input will come at a cost.

Posting this on your talkpage in order not to clutter the article talkpage with such meta issues. But will ping the currently involved editors @Kautilya3, Akshaypatill, Jhy.rjwk, and UnpetitproleX: so that they are aware of the above. Abecedare (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish, Hemantha, and TrangaBellam: again since I messed up the code earlier. Abecedare (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ty @Abecedare: I really appreciate the effort you have put in here, suggesting the various good options. Unfortuntely, SandyG has pinged me on the Darjeeling FAR so that's where my labors will belong in the short run. I've left it in the hands of @UnpetitproleX: who is making progress. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And, I forgot, also Kautilya3 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Fyi, I am thinking of taking Jhy.rjwk to AE. Not a single contribution is helpful to the cause of writing an encyclopedic article. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Please I am waiting for your inputs and guidenace, kindly add a section for Punjab/Harayana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renuka bhattacharya (talk • contribs) 05:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to you please intervene at Next Pakistani general election revert page move & edits, beacuse of constitutional crisis going in Pakistan, between Government and Opposition parties there is no clear political status yet, matter is in supreme court of Pakistan. Also see:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pakistancrisis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.141.159.74 (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look but contemporary South Asian electoral politics is not generally my area of knowledge. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you've been well since we last encountered each other at the FAC for The Heart of Thomas in 2021. (Sadly, Fantagraphics has still not reprinted Thomas in the intervening year.) Over the past few months I've expanded Kaze to Ki no Uta, which is something of a sister work to Thomas that emerged from the same context of 1970s girls' manga, and have recently brought it to FAC. No worries if you're committed to other things or simply aren't interested, but your input at the FAC for Thomas was incredibly valuable in getting the article promoted, so any comments or suggestions you might have to improve the article would be deeply appreciated. All the best in either case. Morgan695 (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey F&f, it is advisable to not comment on editors in edit-summaries since that it is venue where issues cannot be discussed (and if one makes an error) corrected. So, for example, this edit-summary could simply have been "notion of "genocide" is not a conspiracy theories and "Muslim" is not reductive; can discuss on talkpage". Abecedare (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Very true. I am of course discussing things on the talk page, have already answered two of the three points. Apologies to you and to @Tayi Arajakate: for letting my fingers run away from my brain. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. You know I respect your content knowledge and I often learn a lot from both your article contributions and even userpage posts. DaxServer too is one of the good folks and not a POV pusher, so I am sure they'll be open to hearing what you have to say on the topic. But as you can imagine, paradoxically, it becomes difficult for any of us to fill our knowledge-voids if one is scorned for having such knowledge-voids :). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

True. I have undone my edit for now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I had no issue with the edit itself. I haven't read the relevant sources closely enough to have an informed opinion on the exact language. So you are welcome to retain, revise, revert the content as you see fit; others can and will chime in if they object. Happy editing! Abecedare (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The map is indeed authentic; but the caption at the top has some issues and is certainly a later edit by some ill-informed armchair historian. Kindly allow me to explain: The file has a caption 'Indian Empire 1909'. British India maps never had the caption 'Indian Empire' - they always called it the 'British Empire'. The caption 'Indian Empire' is likely fabricated.

Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulveer (talk • contribs) 05:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kulveer: Hello. The picture, File:India1909PrevailingRaces.JPG is authentic, scanned from my copy of the 1909 Gazetteer of India. But the label you noticed was indeed added to the scan by me. So, good catch. If I had to do it again today, I very likely would not have added it, at least not in that font.

The label "Indian Empire" was used, both in the IGI, see: File:BritishIndianEmpireandEnvirons2.jpg (even though I uploaded it with "British" in the file name) and by other publishers: File:IndiaPolitical1893ConstablesHandAtlas.jpg, or File:Jopen1907IndianEmpire1907a.jpg. I'm not privy to the decision-making with regards offical usage at the time, but I could guess that (perhaps) by 1909, it was obvious to everyone that the empire was British. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I had some difficulty choosing a barnstar — Home-Made Barnstar, The Teamwork Barnstar, The Epic Barnstar, Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar. And of course accepting the barnstar is up to you. I finally chose this one-

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I think you know how important your opinion is, but from my personal experience, and how articles where our paths are crossing have developed and are developing such as Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, this barnstar seems perfectly apt. "This barnstar was created for awarding to Wikipedians who don't realize that something they have said has helped make Wikipedia better." I don't want to specifically mention any one example as the barnstar suggests, as there is more than one. So just a simple, thank you! DTM (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

DTM (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This is thoughtful, and more meaningful than the run of the mill barnstars. So, thank you very much!

Since you had worked on the article earlier, I thought I should notify you about these changes [1]. Regards. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

In view of your comment I will be requesting the closer so inclined to close to also change Gladstone and Disraeli to The Gladstone and The Disraeli [2] which you later described as deadly serious [3] I think you should review WP:POINT.

Were you to actually carry out this action, I think you would be on very shaky ground. All the best. Andrewa (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

:@Andrewa: In view of BusterD's caution to not allow myself to be baited, I will reply on Talk:Gautama Buddha. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a behavioural issue, and should be discussed on your talk page if you wish to do so. Or, if you believe that this raises an issue of my own behaviour, that should first be discussed on my own user talk page,

I raised it here hoping to dissuade you from actually doing it, and in view of the fact that when challenged you said you were deadly serious (see above for the diff).

There are two reasons I do this. One is to avoid the waste of time that this would cause. The other is to protect you. I want to be sure that you realise that such behaviour is taken seriously. Even threats of it are frowned upon.

But there's another unfortunate consequence. Were you to do such a thing, the question could be asked, were you warned on your talk page? And you have been. I think it important that you be aware of that too. Andrewa (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any interest in being baited by you. Please buzz off. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Not only are you clearly allowing yourself to continue to feel baited, even if that is clearly not @Andrewa's intent, but I would note that you are continuing to bait others. This edit, where you essentially compare other editors having a discussion around you to an external irritant that disturbs your inner piece or being at odds with your own enligtened experience, that is itself baiting. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bodhicaryavatara

SÄNTIDEVA, The Bodhicaryavatara Translated with Introduction and Notes by Kate Crosby and Andrew Skilton With a General Introduction by Paul Williams. Oxford World's Classics, 1995.

36 I bow down to the bodies of those in whom that excellent jewel, the Mind, has arisen, and towards whom even harm will lead to happiness. To those mines of happiness, I go for refuge

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The file File:Mandell Creighton Bishop of London Cartoon Vanity Fair 1897.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Superseded by c:File:Mandell Creighton Vanity Fair 22 April 1897.jpg.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, on the Indus River page you deleted the actual Indo-Persian term for the river which is Darya-e-Sindh in the infobox. It's the most widely used and appropriate name, used by its indigenous people since the Persianization of the Indus centuries ago. "Sindhu" is an anachronistic Sanskrit term used by virtually no one. If you refer to other river pages on Wikipedia, such as the Amu Darya and Rhine, they have all the appropriate names of the river, and anachronistic and outdated terms from thousands of years ago are rightly relegated to the etymology section. Please let me know what you think, because the Indus needs to have its commonly used name in the infobox.

Thanks. Windafarna (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

As you will see in that article, the very first citation is to Britannica which begins its own article with, "Indus River, Tibetan and Sanskrit Sindhu, Sindhi Sindhu or Mehran, great trans-Himalayan river of South Asia." They give preference to the original (etymological) name (Sanskrit), the name in land where its rises (Tibet), and the name in the region where it empties into the ocean, which is also the historical region of its great civilizations; they do not to national languages (Urdu) of present-day countries through which it may pass. You are welcome to add Mehran Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Its not just Urdu, the entire Persianate world and its influenced cultures (be it in South Asia, Inner Asia, the Iranic world) refer to the river as Darya-e-Sindh. Sindhu is an anachronistic and outdated term used by no one, if it has to be there fine but the modern name has to be in the infobox as well. Mehran is itself borrowed into Sindhi from Persian, and the Persian-derived Darya-e-Sindh, is more widely used both in and outside of the Indus region (including in Sindh) so again, the Persian-derived term which it is most commonly referred to, and which the river's heritage is tied to and widely used today throughout Asia, ought to be in the infobox.

I'm not sure what the river descending from Tibet actually has to do with anything, I mean the Rhine doesn't begin in Germany but naturally it is referred to in German first, in order of geographic and historic importance. And all rivers on Wikipedia referred to by their appropriate names, the Volga is not referred to in Proto-Slavic, the Don is not in Scythian, the Amu Darya is not in Proto-Iranic, etc. Sindhu, an ancient Sanskrit term, makes about as much sense as any of these.

"They give preference to the original (etymological) name (Sanskrit), the name in land where its rises (Tibet), and the name in the region where it empties into the ocean, which is also the historical region of its great civilizations; they do not to national languages (Urdu) of present-day countries through which it may pass" I'm sorry but this is beyond me, when you refer to the Indus river as "passing through" you are referring to a country which bears its majority, its hearth and being in terms of history, civilization and ethnicity. Tibet has and had virtually nothing to do with "Indus civilization", it bears only the source of the river, which is not a even major geographic, cultural, or historically important part to Tibet. It was not part of the IVC nor has it ever been a major influence over the "actual Indus" in any way shape or form, cultural or genetic. And I'm not sure what "civilization" Tibet ever beared in terms of its relationship to the Indus, which is in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Indian Punjab. Indus culture and civilization are, and have been for thousands of years, influenced by Inner Asia and Iran, this being Persianate influence but also population migrations from pre-Indo-Iranian and Indo-Iranian times as well which cluster Pakistanis and likewise Indian Punjabis with peoples of the Middle East broadly, including their culture and language (Northwestern Indo-Aryan languages are all significantly influenced by Persian).

Also, Urdu is a national language of Pakistan but its used commonly used in India amongst Muslims and also has a deep and significant history throughout South Asia and into Afghanistan, its vocabulary are largely Persian-derived and fall under that broader Persianate culture which made Darya-e-Sindh the common name for the Indus to this day.

Lastly, I'm sorry but Britannica is the not the always the greatest source, its sometimes written dubiously especially when it comes to its smaller articles, which are often just a paragraph. In so, it misses crucial information and in the case of the Indus river, its baffling that its most notable name which is Persianate, is not mentioned considering its history and that it is the most commonly used name. Windafarna (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Since you seem to be passionate on the subject of Pali/Sanskrit language usage, I was wondering if you had taken up your umbrage at Sanskrit being wielded unchallenged as the principle naming language for Buddhist terminology with WikiProject Buddhism. I've noticed that the entire Buddhism Portal prefers Sanskrit over Pali for names and the Buddhism infoboxes also place Sanskrit sequentially above Pali. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some preference for the Sanskrit in the literature as well (e.g. Abhdharma vs Abhidhamma) I could hazard a guess that Sanskrit is considered to be the major, and the primordial, liturgical language of South Asia even by the Southeast Asian cultures that practice Buddhism, e.g. Thailand. The preference I can understand. But they should mention both. And if they are talking about Theravada texts then the Pali should be preferred. As for infoboxes, I'll have to check the tertiary literature. Will do later, today or tomorrow. Unfortunately, Buddhism as a religion is somewhat peripheral to my interests in South Asian history. Thanks for posting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess the final irony in all this is that it's "Gautama Buddha" that's at stake in the debate, not "Gotama Buddha" - whatever else is switched, Sanskrit wins the day there. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The page name is no longer an issue for me; I'm just trying to improve the lead and given Pali its due, an equal partner, even a junior partner, but a partner. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Editors who infest a page with OR at every stage in every sentence have no business templating experienced editors with no history of OR on Wikipedia. Should I list your offenses. Let Talk:Neolithic suffice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Your accusations are misplaced. I have not edited the target article Buddha Preaching his First Sermon (Sarnath), except for a link, a reference from the Sarnath Museum, a title change per your request, an infobox and map. The body of the article has nothing to do with me, I am uninvolved. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Neolithic/Archive_1#PLOS_citation_and_image_spamming Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

From the get go. Spam pictures. Copy text. Cut out pictures within pictures. Join them to others. Spam them some more. That is the MO Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

You didn't sculpt the Sarnath Buddha or invent the Brahmi script either. But you are spamming it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, like the Priest-King (sculpture) of infamous memory, this was an article started by someone else some time before, and in this case the great bulk of the text is by that original editor. You should check edit histories before starting to fulminate. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That I've never added OR to WP is true. That you haven't either is also true. That Pat has not is about as blatantly false as the Pope is Lutheran. Pat, whose MO is OR at every stage of every contribution, does this unceasing, specially cutting and pasting images and text from articles with a Creative Commons tag. I, on the other hand, agonize over paraphrasing 200-year old tracts quoted in a modern article I use for a source. It would be unethical to do otherwise in my book, even if WP allows it. When I said, "Editors who infest a page with OR at every stage in every sentence have no business templating experienced editors with no history of OR on Wikipedia." I was speaking generally about any page at every stage. If they seriously thought the page has unencyclopedic content, enough to deny any claim of contribution, why would they link it again and again in such a prominent position of Gautama Buddha? Why would they edit war again and again, and offer the excuse it has a changed title? Please Jb, you are fighting the wrong person here for reasons known best only to you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi F&f. Hope you are well. I landed upon the Gazetteer of the Nellore District: Brought Upto 1938 prepared by Government of Madras Staff in 1942. I've 2 questions related to this one.

1. What's your view on this gazetteer, aka how reliable is that? I'm thinking to source some geographical data (like this one). This seems to be treasure trove, it this a reliable one for us to use here, despite being a "Government" source.
2. Is a redirect Government of Madras to somewhere useful? That seems handy, if there's one entity that we could redirect to.

Thanks and Cheers :) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC):

Hello @DaxServer: The district and provinces gazetteers are probably less standardized than the Imperial which you can search at the DSAL site in Chicago, but which stops at 1909 (or 1937 for the atlas). They claim to fill the gap from 1909 to 1947 (or even later), but they often carry the old descriptions minimally changed. One problem with this one is that it is published by Asian Educational Services, a vulture of the back alley somewhere in Old Delhi that feeds on expired copyrights (whose expiration in India is often dubious) and publishes facsimile editions with the old copyright info removed. I will check this one and get back to you, and also about your other questions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Nellore district from the IGI Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is the original 1942 version (a non-AES reprint) from the Central Archaeological Library (?) in New Delhi. You could check. The copying is not very clean but you could spot check the AES for reliability.

The uploader has uploaded some Biggles whom most people on WP today will not know about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes and links. I'll use the Imperial Gazetteer and/or non-AES reprints. Searching on the Archive.org seems not possible as it's not indexed like the Google Books does. But the page numbers should almost match.

I'm afraid I'm one of those who don't know Biggles 🙈😅 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I have one question regarding the Archive.org upload, the title says "Gaxetteer" instead of "Gazetteer". I'm just wondering if this is a variant or a typo or an intentional typo to thwart possible copyvio? I hope I'm wrong — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A couple of points. There is no need to downgrade the Asian Educational Services, because they are just doing photo-printing of old books. But usually the photo quality is not great. archive.org is great. Once you go into the "All books" section, click inside the search box, and you get a menu where you can select "search contents". It works amazingly fast, probably using the same technology that Google uses.

On the contents of the district gazetteers themselves, they are great for factual information (geography, populations etc.) The history bits usually narrate folklore, filtered through the British ICS minds. They can be used as a last resort. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I know for sure they've printed books whose copyright has not expired, only the author has. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful Kautilya, thanks for the pointers on how to search! Works perfectly. Atm, I'm only planning to use them for geographical data in the foreseeable future as time permits. I want to create missing villages/tehsils/mandals articles. Not all of them get mentioned in the newspapers. So, this would be useful as a quickie to pass WP:GEOLAND. Going thru 600 pages would be a herculean task for me, so will see how it works out — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Darjeeling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamalpur.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. In nearly all my interactions with you on Wikipedia, I have usually written one comment and then disappeared, (for whatever personal reason not important here). With regard to editing this article The Kashmir Files, I intend to complete conversations on the talk page. This is with regard to the GA review comments. While you haven't changed the status of the GAN template to fail, maybe signaling you may give some time before doing so, I will continue editing the article irrespective. There are 7 archive pages. I will go through them. DTM (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

A subject which is several weeks old, the critical assessment of which is still in flux, the subject comprising not factual events, but art involving interpretation of past events that has become a current affairs topic, whose article, moreover, on Wikipedia has evolved in light of the belabored back and forth of dozens of editors over nuances within sentences, even clauses, is not in the settled state or stage in which it can be substantially changed in a process that is different from the normal talk page free-for-all. No one is saying you can't edit it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see, I didn't realize that a template needed to be changed. Thanks for letting me know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/templates says, templates are not required. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi F&f. In this article, should "centred" be used instead of "centered", given that the template has "Indian English" in the source page? Regards, Mathsci (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should. I'm not surprised. It seems to happen all the time. I'll check. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I must say I've noticed that "centre" seems to be dropping out of IE. Or are all our "Indian" editors actually US-based or educated? Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Sidney Greenbaum (who despite his latter-day reputation) did write with Randolph Quirk the seminal English grammar of its time, and directed the UCL Corpus of Current English, said somewhere that Indian English could have the chance of becoming a regional variety — maybe not approaching Australian English, but yet with its own grammars, dictionaries, and usage guides, — were Indians to show confidence in their language. They did but the internet shattered it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I conjecture this could be the reason for the lack of any significant English fiction in India today. What there is is not rooted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Fowler. I am working on Maharashtra and have stuck on a sentence. I want to paraphrase it, as it sounds a little odd and is grammatically incorrect. I am unable to come up with something good.

"Before Indian independence, the state was ruled by most of the mainstream political entities that have existed in ancient and medieval India including the Satavahana dynasty, Rashtrakuta dynasty, Western Chalukyas, Deccan sultanates, Mughals, Maratha Empire, and the British."

How would you paraphrase it, if you were to paraphrase it? Akshaypatill (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's clearly not true as it stands (Cholas etc etc), & what's a "mainstream political entity" anyway? I'd just say "Before Indian independence, the state was ruled by a succession of rulers, including the Satavahana dynasty, Rashtrakuta dynasty, Western Chalukyas, Deccan sultanates, Mughals, Maratha Empire, and the British Raj." Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod makes very good points. There are POV issues. The others were never quite as "mainstream" as the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals, and the British; they reached the extent and heft of only regional "entities." The Mughals weren't medieval, at least not wholly; perhaps they were early-modern overall. The East India Company was early-modern, its last years even modern, and the Raj was modern. The bigger problem in the sentence might be the outsized claim. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

But as a point of grammar: You'd want the past perfect, "had been," instead of "was (ruled)" when you refer to events leading up to an event in the past. If the judgment of "mainstream" is the judgment of today, i.e. not contemporaneous, and you had to repeat the form of the sentence, you could write: Before Indian independence, the state had been ruled by most of the mainstream political entities that are thought to have existed in ancient and medieval India including the Satavahana dynasty, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod, User:Fowler&fowler, thanks to both of you. I didn't know these points and was just paraphrasing things for better coherency and readability. I should have checked the sources. Thanks again. Akshaypatill (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Very welcome @Akshaypatill: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		I have read so many articles on various complex topics related to historical events etc and your exceptional editing skills have improved a lot of these articles. This is perfect for your contribution, your value to Wikipedia cannot be summed up in two lines. Sir, Keep continuing the great work. Respect !! RS6784 (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

What a pleasant surprise. Thank you very much. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Let’s see. The autobiography of Laurence Olivier which I read long ago had a story about Orson Welles at whose lecture at the Old Vic or some similar place three people had turned up. I’m guessing this must have been in addition to Olivier and Vivian Leigh, his wife, or maybe it was Joan Plowright by then.

Began Welles: You don’t know me but in my 20s I directed Macbeth with an all-Black cast, I bought the Mercury theater and directed Cradle will Rock, I am the man behind War of the Worlds, I also wrote, directed and acted in Citizen Kane, I directed The Third Man and on he ran through his accomplishments. Then he turned to the audience and said

Isnt it a pity that there are so many of me and so few of you? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

F&f, I took the liberty of adding a "I am aware of DS in IPA" template at the top of your page. That way, you won't have to deal with this sort of thing. Just undo my edit if you'd rather not see that notification at the top of your talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Not at all. Thanks greatly for doing this! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, it is to notify you about this change to your version of the lead. Don't know whether South Asian is a better term but Kashmiri in the lead surely isn't per WP:ETHNICITY. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: Thanks. It seems to have stabilized back in the previous version. I agree Kashmiri is not the correct characterization, as he did not speak Kashmiri, and did not write in Kashmiri. His most notable lines about Kashmir were written in Persian. His mother as you probably know was Punjabi of somewhere down to Jhelum valley in what is today the Pakistani province of Punjab, but I don't think he wrote anything in Punjabi (or Lehnda) either. Off the top of my head, his grandfather, I think, or great-grandfather was supposedly Kashmiri Hindu, who converted to Islam. There are tales that the conversion happened under the gun as it were, the way out of a misdimeanor, but those tales are neither here nor there. (My roommate in college came from a Boston Brahmin family; an ancestor had been a sheep-thief who was given a chance of choosing between going to the gallows or to America ... All fables, essentially.) If I find Iqbal's lines on Kashmir, I'll post. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think speaking a certain language warrants inclusion of the ethnicity per above policy. Though I'm kinda OK with the South Asian part, but wouldn't mind if it is removed since British-ruled India is already written in the lead sentence. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t remember MOS:LEAD exactly but biographies generally mention the nationality, citizenship, or stomping ground of notability. For without one of them how would Iqbal be different from a hypothetical Iranian Muslim poet M Iqbal Isphahani whose poetry in the Urdu language was the greatest of the modern era and whose ideal for the Muslims of British-ruled India was to animate the impulse for Pakistan.

In other words anything that Iqbal did could have done in theory by an expat in South Asia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your pet. You might be interested in this, given other recent discussions. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda. A timely reminder of why we are here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

We have had another death of a beloved pet of many years. His absence is now in every room. But just as in early Buddhist iconography the Buddha was represented by empty space, the absence is no less deserving of respect. The arguments of Wikipedia, however, the arrogant, the vengeful, the deceitful, and the cowardly, on the borders of which I have found myself teetering lately, would very much disrespect the memory of animal that did not have those failings. I am therefore taking a few days off.

A drop of dew is
A drop of dew, but even
So, but even so.
Issa
written after the death of a child. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I will continue to work offline on the Darjeeling FAR, and ask that it be given more time. It won’t be more than a few days. But I do need to get my priorities in order. @RegentsPark, SandyGeorgia, Nikkimaria, and Dwaipayanc: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, sorry for the circumstances. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Condolences, F&f. Abecedare (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Heartfelt condolences F&F. We had a cat killed a couple of months back and it does rip into the family. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss :/ — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that F&f. Condolences. --RegentsPark (comment) 11:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Its sad and tough as pets can practically become family members with their own unique and irreplaceable personalities. Condolences man. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I am so sorry F&f; please take care of yourself. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks all. What can I say. What broke my heart was that when I set him down on the floor to get the cat carrier for his final trip, he faltered over to his sister, listing at first one way like a sinking ship, and then the other, and began to groom her. We have had many many animals and many have passed on, and we have cared for all deeply, but this time around I have abiding guilt and shame. I need to think hard about what I am doing on Wikipedia, and to proceed in a manner that is a meaningful way of mourning. Thanks again for such heartfelt posts, and Jb too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Ouch! Yes. You must not allow yourself to feel guilty or ashamed. Animals live in the present and he would not have had any inkling what was coming. If an animal is past help and is suffering then you are doing the kindest and most loving thing by taking it to the vet's on one last trip. Take time to grieve but be comforted that he is not suffering, then at your own pace come back to normal life. It is the re-establishment of normality that allows us to move on, albeit with a cat-shaped scar on the heart. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I heartily agree with Martin's take which is bang on. Having lost several people, and pets, over the years, they would not want time to stop, or you to be overcome with guilt, at their passing. It doesn't mean that you forget. Presumably the "scar on the heart" is composed of happy memories. Re guilt: Fond affections are rarely said, they're only sung in song Ceoil (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both for replying. My guilt is not about having him put down, but about not listening to him with greater empathy earlier (in the way he did to his sister on his last legs) because I was too busy correcting someone who was “wrong on the internet.” But your wisdom and eloquence applies to that guilt too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Re someone who was “wrong on the internet.” , I've never gotten that right either, but maybe try and convince rather than show them how they are wrong. This is just a pointer, it goes without saying that I have considered you a friend for many years. Ceoil (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

No offense taken, Ceoil, only gratitude for the wise thought. Will certainly make an effort. Fond affections … sung in song is beautifully said, as is “cat shaped scar on the heart,” Martin. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler: You have added about Krishna Dev, whose article is included in the Mahabodhi Centenary volume, 1891-1991: "Krishna Dev, formerly and latterly, David Berry Knapp, the mayor of Rajneeshpuram"

I was wondering how you equated the two? Malaiya (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed your contributions to the India page and wanted to introduce myself. I saw a lot of your contributions are from your own collections, are you a historian? I ask as a fellow academic and philosopher. Johnnytest5 (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Good morning. Yes, I have added some maps, stamps, and coins, but the credit for collecting them does not belong to me. They were handed down to me. Thanks so much for your nice note. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You might remember this discussion concerning an apparent "consensus" — attributed to Sitush — to exclude certain details from lead all articles on castes etc. The issue is being re-discussed at the Notice-Board for India related topics. Thanks for your participation, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding my last edit on India that you reverted, by removing a sentence that was repeated I meant literally remove two sentences that were doubled. Read the section you'll see what I mean. I didn't remove anything you wrote. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@WonderBoy1998: OK, if that is the case, I will self-revert. Apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

... much worse than I thought @Mathsci and Johnbod: much worse, if you thought "center" was bad. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed! Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please take a look at the article Ahir. A lot of recent edits by a extended confirmed user have been put in to enlighten the “Shudra” status, in various instances, and many particulars have been constantly added over time to negatively show the caste in low light. Little has been constructive as to say it good faith, since most of the efforts were vested to cast a shadow over the hierarchy. Hoping if you could have a look, since you are so experienced editor, and help the article with substantial improvements. Thanks. Harshv7777 (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of original research, as you did here: We can't come barrelling through the article and engage in our usual OR, Joshua Jonathan.. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are the ngrams for Indus Valley C/civilis/zation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

As the IVC was discovered in 1923, changing the lower bound gives a better spread.

First things to check are the different spellings,

• -sation, (the British (non-Oxford; or Chambers', I like to say) and Commonwealth spelling)

  IVC leads from 1995 onward; Done

  with the definite article, the IVC leads from 2005  Done

  running prose, "IVC was" and "IVc was" are more or less tied

  running prose: "IVC is" leads from 1995  Done

  running prose: "in the IVC" has been leading from 2005  Done

  running prose: "of the IVC" has been leading of 2003  Done

• -zation, (North American, and Oxford spelling)

• IVC leads from 2014 onward.  Done
• with the definite article, the IVC leads from 2015  Done
• running prose "IVC was" leads after 2013  Done
• running prose "IVC is" leads after 2014
• running prose "in the IVC" led "in the IVc" from 2014, but they seem to be tied now
• running prose "of the IVC" leads from 2013  Done

In 10 of 12 categories, IVC leads; in the remaining two IVC and IVc are tied.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fowler&fowler. I'm a bit disappointed to see you accusing your fellow editor(s) of bias. I'm sure you have strong reasons and enough evidences to stand your ground but such comment feels unwarranted as it is neither helpful in building consensus nor trust. Wouldn't have bothered too much if it was some new user but since it's coming from a experienced editor like you, I'm compelled to leave a note. Regards -- Ab207 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not accusing WP editors of bias, only saying that the choice would be biased, or would result in catering to the bias of Indian newspapers. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Bias too is meant in a neutral sense, i.e. as a tendency to favor something, which obviously is the case with Indian newspapers, without implying that it has resulted from some preconceived notions, let alone malicious ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay. But when you chose to invoke that word, it invariably brings its negative connotations along, regardless of whether you mean it well or not. -- Ab207 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Invoke that word? What does that mean? "Bias" has many meanings in the English language. I used it in the statistical sense: (OED, 3rd edition, revised 2021): 5. Statistics. Of a statistical result: subject to a systematic distortion arising from the method of sampling, measurement, analysis, etc. Also of a method of sampling, measurement, analysis, etc.: introducing bias (bias n. 6). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that you are anyone else is prejudiced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

A lot of what follows is based on personal knowledge + OR + extrapolation, which is the reason I am placing it here and not at the RM discussion

Regarding this list: it's noteworthy IMO that many of the names are of those who had/have careers in the west. In several of these case, I believe, the 'preferred'/'original' individual style of the name would have been of the form P. Given where P stands for the father's given name and Given is the individual's given name, and the longer form is probably adopted as a matter of convenience or compatibility. To wit:

• Robert Kanigel writes about Ramanujan, "'Srinivasa'-its initial syllable pronounced shri- was just his father's name, automatically bestowed and rarely used; indeed, on formal documents, and when he signed his name, it usually atrophied into an initial 'S.' 'Iyengar,' meanwhile, was a caste name, referring to the particular branch of South Indian Brahmins to which he and his family belonged. Thus, with one name that of his father and another that of his caste, only "Ramanujan" was his alone. As he would later explain to a Westerner, 'I have no proper surname.'"
• Note the form used by S. Chandrashekhar's biographer and by Chandrashekhar himself
• Personally I am aware of numerous Tamil emigrants who spelled their name as 'P. Given' in India but changed it to 'Given Patronym' (in effect, treating the Patronym as their 'last name'; even passing it on to their kids) when immigrating to the West, simply because most individuals/documents in the West expect the name to be in that form. Relatedly: I know of people from Bihar/UP whose parents, following caste reform movements prevalent in mid/late-20th century dropped their family's last names altogether (cf Mayawati) and were later induced/compelled to adopt a lastname (often Kumar) by bureaucratic institutions in India and the West.
• It is instructive to take a look at, say, Category:Tamil Nadu MLAs 2021–2026 to see how Tamil people in Tamil Nadu typically write their name.
• Personally, I would place a lot of weight on the style used by The Hindu if I were, say, emailing a notable Tamil person and wanted to know what would be the 'correct' way to address them.

All that said, this is not to argue that, say, Viswanathan Anand should be moved to V. Anand because, whatever be the reason for it, 'Viswanathan Anand' is how he is (formally) known now. Ditto for many of the other names in your list. And I am sure there are both individual and caste-based variations, which Sitush or SpacemanSpiff may be able to shed some light on. So take this is just a set of general factoids rather than an argument for what that one particular article should be named. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• • I have stopped getting involved in naming discussions as they are a quick way to get a headache. However, in TN, the naming structure is definitely changing. Venki Ramakrishnan is one example where the person's name has actually become the first name. I also changed my name structure during college but my brother did not. Looking at some of the sports bios from TN, Ravichandran Ashwin and Murali Vijay are still under the full name although they are seldom referred to by the full name. —SpacemanSpiff 13:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

    I don't know too much about Tamil names, but am dimly aware of the Tamil naming conventions, both from old names from history books such as C. P. Ramaswami Iyer or C. V. Raman and new ones such as Kamala Harris's mother Shyamala Gopalan, whose scholarly papers are cited as G. Shyamala or Shyamala G. (I seem to have forgotten which one now), P. V. Gopalan being the name of her father.

    There is another issue. In the old days, say in pre-independence India it was quite common even in other parts of India for people to only use there initials and for others to call them by their last name with a ji or sahib at the end. Ambedkar is called Babasaheb after a fashion these days but when he was alive he was B. R. Ambedkar. There are many such non-Tamil names, witness J. R. D. Tata. Even Amartya Sen was most commonly called A. K. Sen until he went abroad. Speaking of AK, the economist Amiya Kumar Dasgupta might have that WP page, but no one would have dared call him anything but AK Dasgupta when he was alive. Who the heck would have called Dhananjay Ramchandra Gadgil anything but D. R. Gadgil when he was alive, or Prasanta Chandra Mahalanobis anything but P. C. Mahalanobis. But all those traditions have changed with modernity, international travel, and cosmopolitanism.

    So why are we in a hurry to give this young man, whose future looks anything but traditional, the forced benefits of tradition. My gripe on that page is that there is a relentless effort being made on changing the young man's name. They just had an unsuccessful page move a few months ago. What is their hurry is what I don't understand? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

    Spaceman and your observation that naming conventions are being homogenized with globalization is both interesting and consistent with my RL observations. As for for the particular case of R._Praggnanandhaa vs Rameshbabu_Praggnanandhaa: if it were clear, either through a media statement or use on a personal website, that the subject preferred one form over another, I would have !voted for that since either is justifiable under wikipedia policy. But my impression is Praggnanandhaa and family are focused on more important issues (chess!) rather than such trivialities; so I too am indifferent to the matter and don't intend to participate in the RM debate. For me that debate was just a spark for the above-listed thoughts on the general topic and not of interest in itself. Thanks for the indulging them here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Here are the ngrams for Indus Valley C/civilis/zation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

As the IVC was discovered in 1923, changing the lower bound gives a better spread.

First things to check are the different spellings,

• -sation, (the British (non-Oxford; or Chambers', I like to say) and Commonwealth spelling)

  IVC leads from 1995 onward; Done

  with the definite article, the IVC leads from 2005  Done

  running prose, "IVC was" and "IVc was" are more or less tied

  running prose: "IVC is" leads from 1995  Done

  running prose: "in the IVC" has been leading from 2005  Done

  running prose: "of the IVC" has been leading of 2003  Done

• -zation, (North American, and Oxford spelling)

• IVC leads from 2014 onward.  Done
• with the definite article, the IVC leads from 2015  Done
• running prose "IVC was" leads after 2013  Done
• running prose "IVC is" leads after 2014
• running prose "in the IVC" led "in the IVc" from 2014, but they seem to be tied now
• running prose "of the IVC" leads from 2013  Done

In 10 of 12 categories, IVC leads; in the remaining two IVC and IVc are tied.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)