Central Discussion Forum
Welcome to the Central Discussion Forum. Here you may discuss any matter related to Sarkarverse.
The forum is divided into multiple sections. Click the relevant section tab, and start a new thread or participate in an ongoing discussion.
If you need urgent technical assistance, use the Help Desk.
We need to start assessment drive. My hands are full at this moment. Someone else should be the co-ordinator. --Tito☸Dutta 15:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Kolkata name and spelling
Three different names and spellings of Kolkata have been used in P. R. Sarkar's works (mentioning places)— Calcutta (old city name), Kolkata (current name), Kalikata (Roman Sanskrit). We may use anyone, "Kolkata" preferably? --Tito☸Dutta 03:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer Kolkata. Kalikata would be confusing, and Calcutta is not current. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- So do I. --Tito☸Dutta 06:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Please move it to Project:Infobox after creating it.
There has been a confusion:
If articles like Parama Purusa, Aeshvarya, Relationship with Parama Purusa, Tandava, Yatamana, Yoga, Tantra and all other concepts go under "Literary" then Template:Infobox Literary Works should be used. The problem is, however, it actually based on book, and does not match a single parameter with these articles. We, therefore, may require a child infobox— Template:Infobox Literary concepts. or something so. --Tito☸Dutta 07:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Those are not literary. How could a dance or yoga or tantra or an occult power... much less Parama Purusa... be literary? They are non-literary works that also happen to be mentioned in various books. This is the very reason why Prabhat Samgiita is classified as a non-literary work, that is, it transcends the literary field. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Nonliterary work has these parameters. --Tito☸Dutta 07:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point. Items that are not people or foundations and cannot be pigeonholed as literary are classified as non-literary (even when there is a literary component). --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, that sounds good. Regarding proposed additional parameters, I'd rather add parameters as the need for them is felt, rather than spending much time speculating on what might be required. It is easy enough to add a parameter or two, and I don't mind if there is a little bit of inconsistency in respect to how much information is presented in infoboxes for similar topics. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Namaskar, thank you once again for your reply and you suggestion. I want to inform you what you have suggested, exactly the same is being done. I am suggesting new parameters only when I am feeling its necessity, as you are aware I am working in infobox section (for Prabhat Samgita, I needed "period", for "Parama Purusa", I needed "In other languages)". Yesterday,I copyedited that section and removed signatures after each entry to keep things clean.
Please note, if we keep changing parameters after adding the infobox in many articles, that will add more tasks to copyedit the existing usages. Regards. --Tito☸Dutta 06:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't mind a little bit of inconsistency in respect to how much information is presented in infoboxes for similar topics. So, in my opinion, the addition of parameters in an infobox template does not compel any revision of earlier usages of that infobox. It merely enables enhancement of the infobox in any future edits of existing articles. --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Please move it to Project:Infobox after creating it.
We need to start infobox project which will be different from SV:P. In Wikipedia it is called WikiProject, see wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes..
- We may try SVProject, but that will duplicate SV in shortcut, or call it "Project" only.
- We may create a separate project space Project:
--Tito☸Dutta 07:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand the issue. What's wrong with SVProject or WikiProject? --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Namaskar, thank you for your reply. SVProject might be okay, but so far we are using SV for shortcut. Let's see how it sounds Sarkarverse:SVProject infoboxes. WikiProject sounds like a Wikipedia-based title. Regards. --Tito☸Dutta 06:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- "SV:SVProject infoboxes" seems like overkill. What would be the problem with "SV:Project infoboxes" or "SVproject:Infoboxes"? As for "WikiProject" sounding like a Wikipedia title, I don't have an issue with that. Sarkarverse is a wikipedia, and its software is wiki software. We have a whole area of Sarkarverse that is prefixed with "MediaWiki". So I don't think that any confusion arises with an area called "WikiProject". But if you feel otherwise, then use "SVproject" or "SV:Project ". --Abhidevananda (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Namaskar, Acarya Ji, thanks once again for your reply. Let me directly tell you right now, I am more and mainly interested to host the "Infobox project". I am giving you few rationales: I am seeing a) we already have Infobox book, which is a duplicate of Infobox Literary works. b) we have infobox website, I am not sure about its position, should it be "organization". That may need a discussion (please do not delete these templates now, as these may break few articles, I am tracking these. Don't answer these questions here too, as there are many more such questions, we'll discuss all later), there are more such queries and discussions. Of course we may discuss here, but, I feel it would be better if we start the infobox project, as infobox has become a task of high priority. And for that I need to know where actually should I start this work. --Tito☸Dutta 06:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fine. Start the project. Call it "SVproject:Infoboxes" or "WikiProject:Infoboxes" or just "Project:Infoboxes". Any of those three should work okay over the long term. As for existing infoboxes, I am not tampering with them. They may remain. As I said, I'm not overly worried about a little bit of inconsistency in respect to infoboxes as long as all of the infoboxes relating to the mainspace contain an SVmap. Regarding websites, the SVmap/infobox would be determined by the nature of the site, specifically, whether it is the website of a person or a foundation (organization). In most cases, the website would simply be a reference (possibly also included in the infobox) in an article on the person or foundation. But, if there is a need for a separate article on the subject of the website itself, then the infobox would be derived from the nature of the website's association (with a person or with a foundation). --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- As I said, "SV:SVproject" is overkill (i.e. redundant). Better then to have "SV:Project" or "SV:WikiProject" or "SV:Infobox". --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be a copyvio --Tito☸Dutta 08:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Protection against system installed adwares
Here at Swatantra after using several computers, laptops, now I am seeing (what I felt previously as well), we are lacking protection against user-system adwares. Sites like Wikipedia have protection against it. Sarkarverse, however is filled with ads in an affected system. --Tito☸Dutta 09:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (from seminar laptop)
As MW has seeral by default skins, we need to check main page and other two three important pages' appearance in other skins. --Tito☸Dutta 15:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- Vector is fine. --Tito☸Dutta 15:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)