Talk:Consecration of the Ram Mandir
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Lord Clayton7 in topic Removal of Invitees Attendees section
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for merging with Ram Mandir on 20 January 2024. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Not merged. |
About the subject
editAs suggested by @I'm tla, I have cleaned up the article. Thank you for suggesting. EEverest 8848 (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for cleaning it up. I still see some small issues, so I'll deal with that. TLA (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- On second thought, there are some issues with the wording here that I think would be best if another editor more experienced with this kind of topic to cleanup. I'll re-add the cleanup tag. TLA (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Page move
editWe should capitalize all letters in the title. A move to "Ram Mandir Prana Pratishta" should be made. PrathuCoder (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Done Exactly, this should have been the title from the very beginning. ShaanSenguptaTalk 07:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Removal of Invitees Attendees section
edit
Inclusion of this section listing all the prominent people invited is indiscriminate (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). While the list is verifiable, it does not merit inclusion as knowing the attendees of any event, however prominent, does not add any encyclopedic value. I propose the section, Invitees "Attendees", be removed in its entirety. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Lord Clayton7 Just to inform you the list is now changed from Invitees to Attendees. You might want to change your suggestion. ShaanSenguptaTalk 11:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for informing. I have updated my suggestion accordingly, because irrespective of the name change the section still does not merit inclusion. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Lord Clayton7 I have a question regarding your view of the list being "indiscriminative". The policy of WP:INDISCRIMINATE that you gave mentions WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRITERIA in its 3rd point. Both define how a list should be made. It says redlink names (subjects without wiki article) should not be mentioned. And WP:N should be followed with reliable sources. I see the list is following all of this. Then how is it "indiscriminative". ShaanSenguptaTalk 12:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Shaan Sengupta Sorry for the delayed response. The policy states that to provide encyclopedic value, contextual explanations that are sourced independently must be provided and that verifiability (WP:VERIFY) does not guarantee inclusion.
- The inclusion of this list, while reliable, does not add any encyclopedic value and thus does not merit inclusion. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Lord Clayton7 I have a question regarding your view of the list being "indiscriminative". The policy of WP:INDISCRIMINATE that you gave mentions WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRITERIA in its 3rd point. Both define how a list should be made. It says redlink names (subjects without wiki article) should not be mentioned. And WP:N should be followed with reliable sources. I see the list is following all of this. Then how is it "indiscriminative". ShaanSenguptaTalk 12:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for informing. I have updated my suggestion accordingly, because irrespective of the name change the section still does not merit inclusion. Lord Clayton7 (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)