Template talk:Infobox Indian state or territory

Proposal of parameters

This is a proposal for adding new parameters to {{Infobox Indian state or territory}}, which are not currently used on the version of {{Infobox settlement}} on the states and union territories pages.

like , "before was", "population share", "spoken languages", "growth rate", "national highway", "state highway" and "recognition order" these new parameters describe more specific information about the formation and demographics of the states and union territories.

The parameter of {{{recognition order}}}, gives information about the first schedule of the constitution and the act by which the state or union territory formed, merged or bifurcated. for a state it would be, first schedule I

and for an union territory first schedule II - followed by act.

Although it is not compulsory/necessary to use these parameters, but before implementing this template onto pages, need the suggestions of other editors.

What do editors think? Should we keep these parameters? Tojoroy20 (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice: Infobox replacement for Indian state or territory pages

As per the proposal and the consensus of RFC, the {{Infobox settlement}} used on Indian states and territories pages and {{Infobox former subdivision}} on former territories pages - are going to replace with the the {{Infobox Indian state or territory}}. This change will be made to ensure consistency across all pages related to Indian states and territories.

The Infobox Indian state or territory is a more comprehensive template that provides a wider range of information about the state or territory, including details about its geography, demographics, economy, and government. By using this template, we will be able to provide readers with a more complete understanding of each state or territory ( former or present )

We request all editors to make the necessary changes to the Infobox Indian state or territory and help us with replacing Infobox settlement/ former subdivision with this Infobox. This will ensure that all pages related to Indian states and territories have the same template and information.

If you have any ideas for how we can improve this template, or if you have encountered any issues with its current design, please let us know on the Talk Page. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter, and thank you for your contributions. Tojoroy20 (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Tojoroy20 Please add the parameters "image" and "image_caption" and if possible, please add "official_script" too because unlike other provinces of other countries of the world, Indian states & UTs have uniquely official scripts of the Indian Republic. The parameter for image will showcase the important sites in the respective states & UTs. The parameter "official_script" will showcase the official script of the official language of the states & UTs. I tried to add them by myself but it's very complex that I don't know how to do. --Haoreima (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Haoreima, I greatly appreciate your suggestions. The thing about adding  "image" and "image_caption" parameters might be a thinkable decision. In my opinion, as the states/territories are an administrative and political division, we should not add these two parameters. Those added images might be shown a glimpse of the state's culture or major locations, but still it does not have any informative value for presenting these to the readers. Also, some 5-6 images can not represent a whole state/territory or be considered as symbolic figures/values of the state.

Regarding the "official_script" parameter, I think it would be a nice decision and I don't see any obstacles to it. I should consider adding these one to the template. Although, we can discuss more about the changes and image parameters. Tojoroy20 (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the script parameter. And for the image parameter, I think almost all the infobox templates in the wikipedia include the parameters "image" and "caption", no matter additional parameters like "image_map" or "map_image" maybe present or not. Plus, for every wikipedia articles on the provinces of every country in the world, they display at least one or two or three or more pics in the infobox. It's not about showing the entire culture, which is impossible. The concern is for a few of the important landmarks, which is extremely useful for quick information on identification at least. Please add the parameter, like almost all the infobox templates of the entire wikipedia. Thanks! --Haoreima (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done "official_script" is added. I add this one in the Language section with the label [[Official scripts of the Indian Republic|Official Scripts]], Give it a look. Thank you very much, keep suggesting. Tojoroy20 (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Tojoroy20 Thank you for adding it. Recently, I added two more parameters, which is also seen in almost all templates of similar types, "image" and "image_caption", whose existence, which I believe no one will oppose. Another very valid and reasonable rationality for their additions are because as this template is to replace the template infobox settlement in all the Indian states' articles, it needs to add those highly used parameters in "all the articles of the Indian states" before the replacement happened. We should respect the previous tradition done by the article editors in all those articles and should not be judged by the decision of one or two editors' motive. If anyone wants to remove it, we can create an RFC at any place, most preferably in this talk page. If you are ok, it's great. If not, you are welcome for the RFC discussion. But please don't remove it before any consensus. --Haoreima (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Haoreima, thank you for your suggestion. While I don't personally object to adding these parameters, I believe they may not be necessary at this time, as I explained earlier. I think we should hold off on creating an RFC for small variations like this and instead discuss them on talk pages. If other editors express concerns about the need for these parameters, we can revisit the issue.

I would also like to point out that the new image parameters you added may not be valid, since this infobox is a wrapper of Infobox settlement and only accepts parameters that already exist in Infobox settlement's template code.

Also it is a request to stop reverting any change, decision of which made by the RFC. Tojoroy20 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Tojoroy20 You said you don't believe that parameter to be necessary at this time but you might have seen that before you replace template infobox settlement by your newly created template, all the articles on Indian states and UTs used that particular parameter 100%. So, that particular parameter, high in usage, denotes it is highly in necessity. Considering it to be not necessary may be just a WP:ORIGINAL.

I know you might have felt bad because I re add the former sufficiently working template in place of that newly created still developing template. I consider it as just re addition of the better template instead of considering as an undoing of someone's edit. But I am clarifying you again that I have no bad intention to demean you at any point. Even if no one re-adds it, I myself will add (you may consider it as "undoing that undo") this new template infobox to the article once all the required parameters are sufficiently added. Btw, both of us are here for the betterment of wikipedia and not for any own interest. --Haoreima (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We two should develop this template by discussing what is in need as of now rather than discussing for one edit happened in an article, because I found people asking not to remove or to re add some particular parameters in other talk pages about this particular template. And one point to be noted is that the template which is allowed by a particular RFC to be added in some group of articles don't necessarily mean that that particular template should be added immediately after the end of the RFC, until And unless it is developed properly, possessing essential parameters sufficiently. :-) --Haoreima (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've done what I could, I've tried my best to make it an flawless and generally good Infobox. If you want to add these parameters or if these changes satisfy you enough to add the Infobox to live pages, then go for it.

I can't win with you, in front of your efficiency and experience on Wikipedia. So,

I have no objections, and if there are any issues in the template's code, please inform me or discuss it on the Talk Page. ( I may never make a 100 percent flawless template but that doesn't mean it's not worth using on the pages. ) Again Thank you and sorry if I sayed anything harsh. Tojoroy20 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not experienced editor. I am just like you. I feel embarrassed with your words! Please don't say like that. We are all equal. We will listen to each other's words for any constructive edits. --Haoreima (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Now the steps, we need to follow for the replacement process are:

1) Pages where the Infobox has not been replaced , should complete the replacement process as soon as possible.

2) If any changes are to be made in the Infobox or any new parameters are to be added it can be done with or after this replacement process.

3) After the replacement is complete, we editors can discuss on other topics/issues, if necessary.

• • Update here when the replacement process is done! Tojoroy20 (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Check if there's anything wrong in the template when in usage in the article "Manipur". It's re installed. Haoreima (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Your implementation is not properly done, if you don't understand properly how to do it, try not to make any changes or implement anything.

I suggest undo the changes in Manipur page, If you can't implement the Infobox properly. Tojoroy20 (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Tojoroy20 I am going to create an RFC here. So, don't change anything in the template. It's only you who was against the inclusion of those parameters and it's only you who claim that those parameters are not in favor of addition to the template. No one said like that, except you. Stop your personal aggression. --Haoreima (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to start an RFC then go for it, I will respect the decision. But it should be neutral. Tojoroy20 (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I request you not to twist my words and try to express them in any other meaning. You are trying to make these changes, on which no decision has been made. Tojoroy20 (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Please upgrade

@Kwamikagami: Please check if there's anything to update, upgrade or fix in this newly created template. Please fix the problem of this template not functioning about the parameter "image". Haoreima (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This Infobox doesn't have an error in its code. You may be trying to create a problem that does not even exist. ( Which I don't appreciate at all ) The thing about the image parameter and why it is not working, I discuss this above. Please read my replies where I discuss the reason.

It seems like you are just trying to target small issues to score a point, and I don't think this is how we can discuss mutually about a template/ article or any Wikipedia project.

And also, the template was developed properly before replacing it with the Infobox-- settlement on the articles pages ( Maybe some inter-wiki linking was left but that is done now ). Of course, I'm very willing to accept that the editors who participated in RFC, they made the decision after reviewing the accuracy of this template. I've also suggested this infobox on 5-6 other Wikiproject talk pages and welcome other editors to point out its errors ,and the results also turn out positive.

Again, as I said before many times,  that is just one parameter which is not used in the current version, and only and only based on this, is it fair to make a decision to not use this infobox? or make a decision against the consensus of RFC?. Tojoroy20 (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Haoreima, The template has been developed with considerable time and effort, and the process of its replacement has begun after proper improvements have been made. It just doesn't have one peremeter, and based on that alone the template replacement process should not be disrupted.

Yes, there are still many changes to be made, many suggestions to be made, and a long way to go. But this does not mean that the process of template replacement will stop.

By the consensus decision and a systematic process, the Infobox settlement will be replaced with this template, and new parameters may be added or deleted during or after the replacement process, depending on a proper discussion - Which will not hinder the replacement process in any way. Tojoroy20 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do not own this code,( none of us ) and we are all responsible for improving this template. But I have every right to defend my efforts and time that I invested here. Tojoroy20 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, I apologize if I sound too bitter. I am very willing to work with you on other aspects of this template and get your suggestions. Tojoroy20 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_settlement does not have an 'image' parameter. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Tojoroy20 Get cool. I am pinging User:Kwamikagami because he's well experienced about templates. He will not do anything wrong. Yes, I have read your replies, according to which I will do what you have suggested. --Haoreima (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, because this template calls Infobox_settlement, an 'image' parameter will not work, because one is not supplied by Infobox_settlement. — kwami (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Haoreima Now, I hope you understand why the parameters were not working, as the reply of kwami and as I said earlier the same thing.

I suggest you, un-done your reverts. We must continue this process of replacement. Tojoroy20 (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Kwami's reply in this section is irrelevant to the edit happened in another article. Don't get confused. Btw, I have re added the template. Have a look. Haoreima (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Another article? What are you talking about. Here we are discussing about Infobox Indian state or territory, which is this page not in "another page or article" . Tojoroy20 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Haoreima, I am going to deactivate the newly added parameters, as the discussion is currently not in favour of adding these parameters. We can discuss this later, or you can suggest that other editors participate in this discussion.

So far it is only considere as a proposal, to add the image parameters. Tojoroy20 (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not make any changes that have not been decided upon. Tojoroy20 (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Haoreima, Try/test your proposed changes in the sandbox befor implementing those in the main Template page. Thank you. Tojoroy20 (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Tojoroy20 Even though this template is created by you, let me remind you that it does not belong to you. You aren't the owner of this template. You should respect what was prevalent in the articles before you changed them, instead of applying your own personal ideas, different from the former ones. The RFC only allows to add the template in the articles. But the RFC has no provisions of any particular parameters. Do not intentionally remove or leave any particular parameters from the template which will cause great differences in the articles where it is to be used. Doing so will be confused as WP:VANDALISM and may lead to loss of editing privileges. Don't try to be too much aggressive over your personal ideas. It may lead you to trouble because wikipedia is all bound by various policies, which you need to be aware of, before dealing with other wikipedians! Thanks! --Haoreima (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop making baseless argument . Please. Using image parameters it is just proposal and does not reached any decision. All the things you said also applied to you. Please do not make any changes that have not been decided upon. Tojoroy20 (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you focus on the little things that I talked about above rather than take this thing to an another level ( Which has nothing to do with my replys ) and turn it around completely? Tojoroy20 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Guys, sorry for interjecting in your conversation, but I hope you won't mind a few comments by a passer-by. First, when replacing a template, the understanding is that all the old functionality will remain. So, unless the images have been explicitly discussed somewhere, the expectation is that if |image_skyline= was used on these articles before, it would continue to be used after the template conversion. That is the status quo here. Now, whether it's a good idea for state articles to have those images in the infobox is another matter. Personally, I concur with Tojoroy20: such images aren't helpful in articles about large administrative units, and they don't appear to be used in American states, English counties, or provinces of Indonesia or Canada. Maybe we should have a discussion on WT:INDIA and see if we could agree on deprecating them here as well? In the meantime, let's not get in the way of editors who want to bring them back on individual articles. I'm assuming here that |image_skyline= and the few extra parameters here don't interfere with the rest of the template, is that correct?. – Uanfala (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your ideas. I understand your comment, bro! But I think Indian editors' wishes (as testified by the former outstanding usage of that particular parameters, just before being removed by Tojoroy) might be different from the editors of the articles on American and English countries. Thanks! --Haoreima (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As you said I agree with you.  Any other infobox representing a federal state division doesn't use any image parameter.  These image parameters may helpful to promote the states as a good travel destination, but I feel where all other information represents the state's census or symbolic figures, the images are doesn't seem necessary.

I think, adding or not adding the image parameters should not effect the template replacement process. Tojoroy20 (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC : whether to remove some parameters or not

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This template Template:Infobox Indian state or territory was created to replace the Template:Infobox settlement in all the articles of Category:States and union territories of India. An editor Tojoroy20 doesn't want the existence of the parameters "image_skyline", "imagesize", "image_alt" and "image_caption" in this template. Tojoroy assumes that those parameters aren't useful enough. On the other hand, Haoreima wants the existence of these parameters. According to Haoreima, before the creation of this particular template, all the articles on Category:States and union territories of India, used the Template:Infobox settlement, and all those articles utilize those particular parameters (whose existence is currently in conflict between these 2 editors), thereby considering it is logically reasonable to put them in the new template (this template) also, which is going to serve all those very articles. Wikipedians are welcome to comment whether to remove them or not. --Haoreima (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC),

• Remove Is it necessary to do RFC for such a small matter/issue? However, since it has been done, I also want to present my side as well. The states and territories are the federal administrative and political divisions, these are not cities or towns that necessitate using images to give a glimpse. In this Infobox all the datas are official/census/symbolic figures or values of the state/territory, where images don't fulfil these needs. I think besides promoting the state as a great travel destination, we should focus on giving informatics values which represent the state's political, economic, democratic individuality. Also, any other Infoboxes representing a federal state division don't use any image parameters, like: Template:Infobox province or territory of Canada, Template:Infobox U.S. state. Of course, I know Infobox for India should not be compared with Infobox of any other country. Nevertheless, they help us to give an idea. Tojoroy20 (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep :At least one image to be present in the infobox is highly appreciated in all the global Wikimedia projects for which even the m:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos contest is organised in various wikis, which help to grasp the reader's attention better than a wall of text, illustrate content, and make the article more instructive and engaging for readers. Presence of more than one picture (if anyone consider it as burdensome or very messy) is not because of the those particular parameters but because of using of additional templates like Template:Multiple image, Template:Photo montage, Template:Image array, Template:Image frame, etc. inside the very template. The existence of a few parameters don't really make the infobox template burdensome. If article editors want to add one or more pictures for illustration purpose, let them add. If they don't want, let them not add. It's better to give them their choice rather than removing the parameters. --Haoreima (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Remove, A image_map of state serves the function of image for a state article. Having separate image parameter leads to misuse by using additional templates as stated by @Haoreima--Arjunaraoc (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

0fficial Langs

Is there a reason the | 0fficial_Langs = is different to the other field params, using a number and capitalising the second word? CMD (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Population updates

The population numbers of Indian states and union terr. in the Infoboxes are still from the 2011 census. Shouldn't there be newer official updates added? The estimates could be added in the Infoboxes as an addition. I found population projections from the Indian government for here: (Report of the Technical group of Population Projection July 2020 (2011-2036) | Ministry of Health and Family Welfare | GOI (mohfw.gov.in). Any opinions? Afus199620 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Parameter for Government Banner

Since every state and union territory of India has a banner, can we add that as a parameter too? Even if they are similar to state emblems, they do serve a purpose, and people can know which ones use a blue background and which ones use a white one. Pur 0 0 (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

overhaul

needs an overhaul....should not duplicate info/images. Moxy🍁 14:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)