Wikipedia

Talk:Delhi/Archive 9

< Talk:Delhi
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Fowler&fowler in topic Why was the revision undone?
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Infobox Implementation

Latest comment: 1 year ago31 comments7 people in discussion

After careful consideration of the RFC consensus, the Infobox Indian state or territory was implemented on this page following standard and systematic procedures. However, a recent edit by an editor ( @Fowler&fowler ) resulted in the reversion to the previous version. The editor claims that Delhi is solely a city and not a union territory, but the fact remains that Delhi is both a union territory and a city. Therefore, it is reasonable to use an Infobox that accurately reflects the administrative type of the region without disregarding any parameters or information related to its "city" designation.

There are only parameters related to megacity and metro population, and perhaps a few (1-2) established history parameters that are not available in the new Infobox. Apart from this, everything remains the same, and nothing will be altered. In fact, the new Infobox is even better and capable of providing information more clearly and consistently.

Additionally, the editor asserts that the RFC was not properly announced, which is incorrect. In reality, the RFC was announced across various relevant wiki projects and numerous talk pages. Hence, it was not an "unannounced RFC."

Wikiprojects and talk pages which were informed about the RFC:


... And many other pages.

Regarding the RFC itself, it was evident that a WP:SNOW decision was reached, as indicated on the closer request page. The overwhelming majority of comments (not just three) expressed agreement with the proposal.

The editor mentions that altering an infobox format that has been in place for an extended period is not a valid reason. However, it is important to note that pages can still be updated as necessary, and changes can occur over time, as outlined in WP:WIP. The editor states their status as the primary author of the page, but this does not imply ownership, as per WP:OWN. It is not feasible to inform every individual involved in the development or creation of an article. As mentioned earlier, the RFC was announced on all related talk pages. The editor's lack of awareness regarding the RFC does not invalidate the broader community consensus.

Therefore, I strongly advocate for the re-implementation of the Infobox version, emphasizing the importance of respecting the consensus reached through formal processes and the wider community. Prarambh20 (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You mangled an article which took a long time to write. You removed pictures the consensus for which took many months to form. Delhi is an old city, a mostly Muslim city founded ca 1300 CE. It was the capital of three major empires, the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughal Empire, and the British Raj (from 1911 onward), not to mention the Republic of India. What is a "union territory" of recent vintage in comparison? By forcing a consensus achieved by three lukewarm votes in a mysterious, faraway, place, delivered by people who very likely did not have full information, you have done nothing but assert out-of-context form over content.
At the very least you need to add to the new template every feature that was available in the old, so that nothing is removed by this change. I thought I'd seen it all on WP. You live and learn. Copying some wiser minds and cooler heads @Abecedare, RegentsPark, Johnbod, Johnuniq, Vanamonde93, El C, Kautilya3, UnpetitproleX, DaxServer, Arjayay, and Fylindfotberserk: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
It is not like we don't mention union territory. But the version to which the infobox had been changed had: New Delhi is the capital of Delhi and Delhi is the largest city of Delhi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Also pinging those who took part in the RfC: @SMcCandlish, Chipmunkdavis, Tojoroy20, Peter Southwood, and Uanfala: I can't speak to the other states, but in the instance of Delhi, the entire state/territory is the city. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Firstly, I did not remove any pictures. Please refer to my revisions. If any other editors have removed or changed those pictures, it is not my fault to blame. Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, this RFC is not 'mysterious' or 'faraway' in any manner. Merely repeating something does not make it right. Prarambh20 (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Setting aside for a moment the fact that the RfC was very poorly attended; the question participants examined was really about adding relevant information that may be specific to Indian states and territories, and not about replacing an image gallery with a drab map. If you want to remove image galleries in the name of uniformity, then you need a much better attended discussion (and I can already tell you what its result will be). Furthermore, the other articles this infobox is used it are administrative entities created after 1947. Regardless of the administrative status of Delhi today, the article as it stands covers a far longer history, and it's entirely reasonable to argue that it is therefore out of scope for the RfC cited above. For both reasons, I suggest that anyone seeking to replace infobox content needs to establish a specific consensus for that here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
    And not about replacing an image gallery with a drab map. - A lengthy discussion and another RfC have already taken place regarding the images, resulting in a decision to keep them. Therefore, revisiting the image issue doesn't seem logical. Moreover, the replacement I made includes all of the images. During the RfC, all relevant Wikiprojects were notified, and if some editors chose not to participate, it does not diminish the value of the RfC in any way. Prarambh20 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    The replacement version I see does not include images; if you are now referring to a different version that you would like to see implemented, please make that clear. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
    The replacement version you referred was not implemented by me, I edited this one h
    http://en.m.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Delhi&oldid=1146762409 , which includes Images. Prarambh20 (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • For comparison: Infobox 1, Infobox 2.
    This appears to be a classic case of the inflexibility of infoboxes coming up against the fluidities of the real world. Delhi is both a living city and a formal administrative entity, and each infobox prioritises one of those aspects. That seems a matter of editorial judgement rather than a question with a correct answer, so my view would be that the best option is the most informative one to the casual reader. On that, while I question aspects of both infoboxes, I think most readers would come to this page wanting to learn about the city and so an infobox which covers that seems more apt. CMD (talk) 02:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    The Infobox2 version should be this, not the mentioned one.
    http://en.m.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Delhi&oldid=1146762409 Prarambh20 (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    Updated, thanks. CMD (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Am I right in thinking that the issue concerns the proposed infobox in permalink (Pamelathequeen 19 May 2023) compared with the established infobox in permalink (Fowler&fowler 27 May 2023)? The RfC was pretty vague with few details on what differences would apply to a major article such as this. The question should be settled for this article, namely which infobox is more appropriate. That should be based on which provides more useful information for readers rather than an opinion that all articles with a certain label should have the same infobox. Unfortunately, another RfC might be needed for this specific case. Before that happened, there should be a discussion about the actual differences. I think CMD has answered my question but it would be desirable if participants were to agree on that. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    And, can either of the infoboxes be presented in a really minimal form, like a full city infobox followed by a territory box that only has non-redundant parameters (or the opposite order, a full territory box and a minimalised city box)? I agree with the general thrust above that the understood intent of the original RfC was to add i-box information, not reduce it. PS: Are the city and the territory co-terminous? If they are (like the city and county of San Francisco) then oh well. But if they're not, they should probably be two separate articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    In India, the terms "city" and "union territory" have specific meanings and are not always synonymous. According to the 2011 census, a settlement is referred to as a city only if it is classified as an urban area and has a population of one lakh or more, which is equivalent to 100,000 or above.
    On the other hand, a Union territory in India is a political administrative division that functions similarly to a state but lacks a legislative assembly. They serve as direct representatives of the central government and have jurisdiction over specific territories. Union territories are generally smaller in size compared to states. while most union territories do not have a legislative assembly, there are exceptions. Delhi, for instance, is a unique case where it is classified as a union territory but has a legislative assembly. The National Capital Territory of Delhi has its own elected government and Chief Minister, allowing for a degree of self-governance within the framework of a union territory.
    In short, a city in India is a settlement with a population of 100,000 or more and is characterized by urban, while a union territory is a political administrative division with or without a legislative assembly, depending on the specific circumstances. Prarambh20 (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
    The original implemented version was this one, http://en.m.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Delhi&oldid=1146762409 Prarambh20 (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd agree with this statement "At the very least you need to add to the new template every feature that was available in the old, so that nothing is removed by this change". The chage of templates should not interfere with the stable version of the infobox and lead, layout, images, et al. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:52, 28 May 202
The new Infobox differs from the current one in a few parameters (approximately 4-5), but these changes do not impact the lead, layout, or images in any way. It is important to carefully review both versions to understand the specific differences. These 4-5 parameters mainly pertain to city-related information rather than state or union territory details. Therefore, including these additional parameters that are not directly related to the primary purpose of the Infobox may not be the most appropriate approach. Prarambh20 (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Prarambh20: Pardon me for using "Your infobox" and "My infobox." "New" and "Old" can be confusing.
Of course the infoboxes differ, and quite a bit. Your infobox has an outsize but entirely unlabeled map of every inch of India and every twist and turn of India's other states, not to mention a few of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Delhi appears as a point, famously of no dimension after Euclid's first axiom. (Contrast with my infobox which not only has labels but also allows you to zoom in or out. )
Before a reader gets to that, however, their visual field in your infobox is suffused by a dead ringer for the Emblem of India appearing also as the emblem of Delhi. (It matters little that I was slaving over Lion capital of Ashoka last year, on which the Emblem of India is modeled.) Does a new reader needs these vacuous manifestations of nationalism, both more about India than Delhi? Contrast that with the realistic interactive map in my infobox?
Your infobox has nothing about the empires, dominions, and republics of which Delhi was the capital: the Delhi sultanate, Mughal Empire, British Raj, Dominion of India, and Republic of India. Review your infobox and mine
Your infobox has three very perplexing bullets:
  • New Delhi is the capital of Delhi. Which is odd for we know that the legislature of Delhi does not meet in New Delhi. Its building is in Old Delhi. See here).
  • Delhi is the largest city of Delhi. That suggests there is nothing in the Union Territory that is not in the City (extent-wise)
  • The largest metro of Delhi is the much bigger National Capital Region (India). ("It encompasses Delhi and several districts surrounding it from the states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.")
I could add more, but I think you need to address these issues first.
Copying also @Vanamonde93, Johnuniq, SMcCandlish, and Fylindfotberserk: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Also copying @Chipmunkdavis: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I assume you are forcefully trying to make your point and, for some reason, attempting to present me as the one who is "wrong" here. The difference between the two versions of the Infoboxes is just 4-5 parameters. Now, the question should be: Does the absence of these few parameters result in not using the new Infobox version? Cheers - Prarambh20 (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
These are not faults or issues of an Infobox, but rather of an editor (me) who implemented the Infobox on the page. An editor's misunderstanding cannot be considered an issue with the Infobox. Any editor is free to be bold and make necessary changes after the implementation (if needed). Also, I do not own the Infobox or the implemented version. If the implemented version of the Infobox by me has some issues, you may consider correcting them instead of completely reverting the edit based on assumptions of what should or shouldn't be done. I don't think that's how editors work with mutual understanding on Wikipedia. None of us can achieve anything by criticizing me with comments and pointing out every this and that. Prarambh20 (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
(Uncalled for remark by me, which I have removed. Apologies to @Prarambh20: and thanks to @Chipmunkdavis: for drawing attention to this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)) I have interpreted the consensus of opinion here to be against your unilateral imposition position. You will need to garner a special consensus on this page for changing the infobox to state and union territory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Prarambh20 Infobox 2 is better neat choice. Delhi is administrative union territory and has been for last 75 and so years defined by its borders and status as capital territory recognised internationally. Infobox 1 seems like more a settlement based– Had Delhi been just another ordinary city in usual state I would have agreed with this but it is not and this infobox seems like more of a "historical city" settlement. Infobox 2 is the way to go as per standards of a federal territory.JayB91 (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@JayB91: Delhi is much older than what it became 67 years ago in 1956, i.e. a union territory. From 1912 to 1947, it had been a chief commissionership under the Viceroy in New Delhi. In 1946, during the Interim government of India, the prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru's home minister Vallabhbhai Patel, ever the surreptitious Hindu nationalist, took direct control of Delhi and one of his first acts was to thin out the Britons, Anglo-Indians, and Muslims in the police ranks, and to fatten up the Hindu and Sikh ranks. From 1947 to 1956, Delhi was a part C State, becoming a Union Territory in 1956. (See, for example, Rotem Geva's excellent Delhi reborn, Stanford University Press, 2022.)
Historically, Delhi had been the capital of the Delhi Sultanate from 1299 CE. It was the capital of the Mughal Empire from 1526 CE with intermittent abscences to Agra. During the twilight of the Mughals, it became a Residency. See the article, List of British residents or political agents in Delhi, 1803–57, which my fading memory seems to recall was written after a query by @RegentsPark:. See also Samuel Ludlow (surgeon) another misadventure of my youth. Ludlow was the Residency surgeon from 1813 to 1831. From 1836 to 1858, Delhi Territory was a part of North-Western Provinces. After the Indian rebellion of 1857, Delhi became a district within the Punjab Province with a Chief Commissioner. (See, for example, the article Ludlow Castle, Delhi, in particular its section "After the Rebellion" when Ulysses Grant, the US president after Lincoln, visited Delhi in retirement as a guest of the Chief Commissioner.)
In other words, in Delhi's long history, the union territory is mostly a continuation of the British Chief Commissionership and a minor footnote or appendix. You may view that in the Google ngram with a wildcard "Delhi,union territory * Delhi,union territory": plain old Delhi occurs some 6000 times more often than UT of Delhi Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Delhi has long history but every place on earth has long history since dawn of civilization. This article is about modern NCT territory of Delhi which it has been for decades as a special Union Territory and the article and it's infobox should reflect so. The long good and bad history is already present in history section and it belongs there– no point history of a settlement to dictate the modern article about an Union Territory of India that is internationally recognized. So my consensus is with Prarambh20 that this Infobox is better neat choice. Regards.–JayB91 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
You need to tell us what makes Delhi a union territory. The article says precious little about Union Territory, other than naming it in the lead. What then is the difference between Delhi the pre-1956 city and Delhi the union territory? Also, you need to ensure that the new infobox has all the features that the old one did. A new infobox cannot remove information. If all the features of the old infobox are present (and a few of the Union Territory are added) I don't really care what it is called, Union territory, Federal territory, Centrally administered territory, etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
And making sure that the new infobox has all the features of the old is not my job, it is the job of the person who changes the infobox. Altering infoboxes requires a knowledge of their syntax. It is not the same thing as adding a comma here or removing a period there which all of use can do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Since everyone here is a volunteer, technically it is not anyone's specific "job." If you notice any parameters containing incorrect data, you can simply correct or remove the specific information instead of reverting the entire Infobox version. That's what I meant earlier, nothing more. However, if you prefer not to do that, it's fine. It can also be done or corrected by any other willing editor. Prarambh20 (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, please refrain from being mean to others. I understand the importance of assuming good faith, but it seemed a bit harsh. Thank you very much. Prarambh20 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Using the Infobox Indian state or territory does not imply a lack of acknowledgment of the long history of Delhi as a settlement. Rather, it aims to provide all the necessary demographic, political, and economic information about the current administrative status of Delhi. The proposed version does not result in the loss of any (UT related) information, except for parameters such as "Capital, Delhi sultanate" and "Mughal Empire" that are related to previous historical periods. However, these can be included in the "Before was" parameter, specifying the previous status of Delhi, or by adding new parameters specifically for Delhi in the Template.
Ultimately, it is not possible to ensure that every little detail from the previous version remains unchanged. There may be some minor differences, but this is not intended to be a "drop-in" replacement. The new Infobox was designed to cater to the specific needs of a state or union territory, and this version is capable of fulfilling those requirements. Prarambh20 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Like I said, the onus is on you or someone else to first fix the new infobox so that no information in Delhi's old infobox is lost. Once that is done, you may call the infobox whatever you want: union territory, federal territory, province, state, city-state, 20th century janapada, centrally administered city-state. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Reverts by User:Fowler&fowler

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Repeating indefinite articles

It’s redundant to repeat indefinite articles unless distinctness of their nouns is ambiguous. I don’t think any reader would misread that “city and union territory” is a one entity (different from both ‘cities’ and ‘union territories’), it's obvious we’re talking about two distinct things (‘city’ and ‘union territory’). I’m reinstating my edit on this issue.

“Straddling” and the “right bank”

“Straddling”

The current phrasing

Lying on both sides of the Yamuna river, but chiefly to the west, or beyond its right bank, Delhi …

is the worst out of all the variations.

Straddle does mean to be on either side of—but all definitions of it include some sort of ‘imbalance’ or ‘irregularity’ in that positioning (on either side), so as to speak. I believe the meaning of straddle used here is in the sense of an ‘irregular sprawl’ (MWO, “Straddle”, V. (1): intransitive verb #2). “Chiefly straddle” is a fine construct—it means the sprawl is much larger to the west of the river, which it is; ‘straddling the Yamuna, chiefly its western bank …’ is an identical construct in meaning, I don’t understand why Fowler wouldn’t have issue with the usage of chiefly in one but not the other.

I removed that bracketed clause and replaced it with “chiefly on the west bank” because I felt the former was unnecessary. It wasn’t incorrect, but the prose felt tighter without it.

But the current wording of that sentence is much worse. It’s not wrong to say ‘lying between’, but it’s needlessly wordy. Straddle was a great word to describe that the river flows through the city, there’s no reason to make it more verbose the way that Fowler has; I think they’re mistaken about the meaning of straddle somewhere if they think “chiefly straddle” is an incorrect usage of that word here.

Right bank

And I disagree that “right bank” needs to be mentioned in the lede at all. I can think of two reasons:

  1. The Yamuna isn’t navigable at Delhi to begin with, how often are the right or left banks of the river mentioned for directions by Delhiites?
  2. The “or” there in “western or right bank” throws me off, the fact that it’s an inclusive-or isn’t intuitive. Maybe ‘western and right bank’ is preferrable? Personally I would like to cut “right bank” from there entirely.

I’m sure there’s a place down in the article somewhere to mention that most of Delhi lies on the right bank of the Yamuna, but I fail to see why it needs to clutter the second sentence of the lede.

 —I'llbeyourbeach (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see this. You are looking at one of the secondary meanings of the intransitive verb straddle; we, however, are using the word transitively. Straddle is not used transitively in the meaning of sprawl. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
PS Oxford English Dictionary (subscription required): 1.d. 1565– intransitive. transferred of a thing, esp. of a thing having legs; also, to divaricate, sprawl. Also with complement and figurative.
Example:
1875
"Lubber prose o'ersprawls, And straddling stops the path from left to right." R. Browning, Inn Album i. 1 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The right bank has little to do with navigation. Most rivers don't flow (in all scales) in a direction with respect to which "west" is clearly defined. Indeed the Jumna river has twists and turns in its course, one in Delhi's northeast, and several just beyond its southeast.
Also, although the word "bank" has come to imply relatively large areas, e.g. West Bank or the Left Bank of Sartre and Camus, it does not extend beyond the flood plain of a river, i.e. beyond the visible valley. So we can't say: Delhi lies on the west bank of the Jumna. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Or for that matter, "Delhi lies on the right bank of the Jumna." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
See my map: File:HeadwatersGanges1.jpg. The headwaters are hardly navigable. See also the larger-scale maps: File:The Indus river in the Kashmir region.jpg or File:DoabUnitedProvincesIGI1908.jpg Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Finally, "a city and a union territory." When the coordinate nouns X, Y, in X and Y act as one unit an article (whether indefinite (a/an) or definite (the)) does not need to be repeated. Example, "the horse and jockey surged ahead in the closing minutes." But "the horse and the jockey were thrown in different directions by the unexpected interruption," unless you are aiming for poetic or literary effect.
A union territory is a different entity than a city; it is more like a state, e.g. Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). You wouldn't say, "Delhi is a city and state in India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Also American English tends to drop articles (i.e. use the 0-article) more than Commonwealth English. E.g. Artist John X was commissioned by the city. (AmE) The/An artist John X was commissioned by the city. (ComE). I'm assuming that Delhi follows the rules of Indian English, which in its standard variety is no different from standard Commonwealth or standard British English. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Infobox tweaks

Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I did not mean to use the 'rollback' tool but the changes need a consensus. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 months ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I am writing to request that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s logo be added to the Delhi Wikipedia page in the logo section. As you may know, many cities without a flag or logo use their municipal logo as a symbol of their identity. Examples include Lucknow, Ankara, and New Delhi, etc. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi is the governing body of most of Delhi, providing civic services to a population of about 20 million citizens in the capital city 1. It is one of the largest municipal bodies in the world, with an annual budget of over ₹16,000 crore (~US$1.95 billion) 1. The corporation covers an area of 1,397.3 km² (539.5 mi²). Adding the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s logo to the Delhi Wikipedia page would help to provide a more complete picture of the city’s identity and governance. I believe that this would be a valuable addition to the page and would help to make it more informative and engaging for readers. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler and Tamjeed Ahmed: MOS:INFOBOXFLAG applies in this? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, MOS:INFOBOXFLAG does apply to logos. Unless there is something particularly identifying about the logo, it is better not to include it. RegentsPark (comment) 12:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
But most Indian cities do have a logo. I think Delhi should have one too. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Let's add both the state government emblem and the municipal logo as well? Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
What do they add to the article? --RegentsPark (comment) 19:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
So, by this logic we should remove the logos and emblems of all Indian states and cities. Right? Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
??? Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been an infrequent visitor here lately. I agree with @RegentsPark: entirely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Why was the revision undone?

Latest comment: 3 months ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Asking for @Fowler&fowler on the edit 18:14, 8 August 2024‎:

Please note that it is a state or territory, not a settlement. It does not need an oversize emblem that is almost identical to the Indian emblem, not a map that offers little information. Per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS please take to the talk page.Undid revision 1239238785 by Pur 0 0 (talk).

If it's a state or territory and not a settlement, then why did you remove my state or territory infobox and replaced it with the settlement infobox? The one I had replaced was of settlement and the one I added was of state or territory. You basically said I was correct, and then removed my correct template and replaced it with what you said is wrong.

The emblem, map or whatever things you're saying are a part of the Infobox Indian state or territory. Look at all the other states and union territories too, they are all also like this (Chandigarh, Puducherry, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu etc). Pur 0 0 (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler I said it 3 days ago and you still didn't reply. What is making you undo my revision??? At least tell what's wrong about it. Pur 0 0 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't particularly care what argument (i.e. settlement or Indian state or territory) is chosen as long as nothing else in the infobox is changed. But you have fiddled with the rest: added a rudimentary map of India with no labels in place of a multiscale map in place. You have also fiddled with the pictures. What is in place at the moment of writing is the hard-won consensus version. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Indian state or territory needs an overhaul....should not duplicate info/images. Moxy🍁 14:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
So if I keep the same images and use the multiscale map instead of the one which has been used for all other states or territories, then it will be fine? Because I don't particularly care about those things. I only want the correct infobox. Pur 0 0 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Delhi is only technically a state or territory, for the world knows it as a city, or metropolis. All other sister metropolises: New York City, London, Tokyo, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai have only the Infobox settlement. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
That's because people often get Delhi and New Delhi mixed. It's even mentioned in the second paragraph of New Delhi's article. It's similar to how people get mixed up between New York and New York City.
New Delhi's infobox similar to the ones that all the cities have. Delhi, on the other hand, is the union territory, and the easiest way to clear the misconception to everyone is to have Wikipedia say it. If it has an infobox that tells its state symbols instead of things like nearest airport and metro system, that could clear things up. Also, the infobox Indian state or territory gives the option to write city in it, so that can enter both metropolis and union territory. Pur 0 0 (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
PS. I think it would be best if you present here what you have in mind; you can then get the input of many; otherwise, edit-warring results. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Now what? I kept the same pictures that were in the previous infobox, I used the multiscale map as you wanted, what else do you want now?
As of the emblem, it is the emblem of Delhi (sources: List of Indian state symbols#Delhi, List of Indian state emblems#Union territories). Just because it is a replica of the Indian emblem doesn't mean it has no significance. By your logic Rajasthan, Gujarat, Assam, Mizoram, Tripura, none of them should have their emblems shown in their infoboxes because they are all similar to the Indian emblem.
Also, why do I have to keep justifying myself for my edits, even when I am the one following the prescribed order? You keep undoing my revision which took me a long time to create. Why don't we do it the other way around? You are the one who is making an exception for Delhi alone. Pur 0 0 (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I think there has been a misunderstanding. I looked up the edit history, and turns out it was @JRDkg who has changed the images. Maybe that is why you might have thought I replaced them again when I changed the infobox. If I keep the same images, I guess there should be no conflict between our interests. I will make the edit when you see this. Pur 0 0 (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Your edits were undone because they are redundant. You have two emblems of Delhi which appear to be very similar to the Indian emblem, and do nothing but make the infobox dip into the next section. So, no emblems, no city bird, city mascot, city flower, ... whatever else you were attempting to add. The model for us is the featured article, Darjeeling, which successfully cleared featured article review not too long ago, and where the FAR referees explicitly asked us to avoid redundancies. Btw, I do know about New Delhi. I uploaded File:NewDelhiInaugurationSecondDayCancellation27Feb1931.jpg Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC) Corrected 12:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Alright, you should have started by telling about the featured article model, because that seems to be a valid reason. If that is the case, I will not pursue this any further. Thank you and have a good day. GG )) Pur 0 0 (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
In turn, I apologize for not explaining things to you clearly. I had too much on my plate then. Sometimes it takes thinking to explain what one has done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your cordiality. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Delhi/Archive_9&oldid=1257970490"