Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Goa, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Please refrain from deleting infobox information without a talk page consensus. Tamravidhir (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Dear @Tamravidhir:, this is further to my edits and reply to your post. All states and UT's of India have some or the other history of being ruled by either a foreign nation or a local Kingdom, we cannot put up all that history in the infobox as the same exists in the history section if each state/UT. same is the case in this article. Can we put date and details of Kadamba, Vijayanagra and Maratha rule dates in Infobox ??? NO. same way we can only put up the existing details. I hope i have made u understand the reason behind my edits. Regards. Qwerty3594 (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty3594 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Tamravidhir: @DBigXray: @Qwerty3594: - noting that user Qwerty3594 has once again today removed content from the Goa infobox without consensus. This is inappropriate and disruptive, and needs to be discussed here first. To reply to the argument above, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that other Indian states do or don't mention particular things is not relevant here. Goa is in some ways unusual anyway, having its Portuguese history, and it is IMHO self-evident that it should include key dates froom history in the infobox, not just the date of formation of the modern state. In any case, consensus is needed before such a removal is done. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru:. I am a local in Goa. And its my personal belief that the same should not be shown in infobox. Like that Pondicherry also was a former French Colony, why no previous establishments dates shown for it ??? Why hyderabad doesnt have the Nizam who was the ruler dates of his rule ??? Why Sikkim and North east states have the same ??? Why only Goa. Frankly speaking as a local i do not wish to see the same in Goa article. Goa has much more history than that of Portuguese era. I waited for a discussion but there has not been any hence i edited it Qwerty3594 (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty3594 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: actually, you mention the Pondicherry example but our article on the union territory, Puducherry, does in fact list three dates, the first of which is the date of its establishment as a French colony (1673). This is entirely consistent with the previous status quo version for Goa, which lists the formation of the Portuguese colony in 1505. The infobox is not overloaded with dates, it just has the date when the Portuguese colony was established and the dates when it was annexed by India and achieved statehood. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru:. When the titlr/heading of the articles Goa (State of India), Pondicherry (Union Territory of India) are clearly mentioned, then the infobox must contain the present status of the same. If you want history then the same is available in history section. Sir, like that all states and UT have some or the other rulers in the past, but does that mean we will insert those dates in the inforbox ??? Example, Goa was ruled by Adil Shah, Kadambas, Maurayas, etc does that mean we will insert their dates in the infobox, it would be huge. I firmly believe that such details are not needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty3594 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Amakuru thanks for the ping. I can now understand why Qwerty3594 is removing this info. Overall this is a trivial issue either way and IMHO I feel the historical dates are best served in the article text and not in the infobox. He does have a point that why a special preference to the Portugese dates should be given. So unless someone has a stronger arguement, I would let the edit by Qwerty3594 stay in the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@DBigXray:, thank you for understanding what i have to say. I tried to make my self understandable in the best way possible. As a local of the state whenever anyone wants to visit this article or Pondicherry, they wish to see the existing status of existing information with respect to that state/UT and not its history dates in the infobox as the same is available in detailed under the history text/section. Every state/UT has lots of dates as they were many rulers be it domestic or foreign, if we put those details in infobox the list will go on and on and be huge. Thanks Again Sir.
- DBigxray I disagree, and I've explained why above. Establishment of a colony is a key part of this territory's history. Sure, people in Goa today may not wish to think about the Portuguese era, perhaps it was not a good time for them, but inclusion of the date is not intended to make any political statement it is simply a summary of the historical facts. And 1505 is obviously a key date for this territory. As indeed the 1673 date is for Puducherry, as highlighted in that infobox. In any case, per WP:BRD the change should be reverted until a consensus is established. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Qwerty3594, please WP:SELFREVERT and undo your edit. We will continue the discussion here and hear everyone's opinion. based on WP:CONSENSUS a final decision will be taken, but for now please restore the dates per WP:BRD--DBigXrayᗙ 12:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru, i feel the decision to edit and remove the unwanted dates must be left to us locals who are the native of the land. Yes you are right we do not want to think about that era as it was not a good time for us. Every time we open the article the first thing we read is the Portuguese establishment date in the infobox. When the same is in detail explained under the history section, there is absolutely no need for it. And Goa was not established or created in 1505, its history and culture dates much more back, and the same cannot be also added to the infobox. I request to ps let the edits stay. Qwerty3594 (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I too feel this shouldn't be in the infobox. This article is on the Indian state that was formed in 1987. Before 1987, there was the union territory Goa, Daman and Diu from 1961 to 1987. Portuguese India is a different political entity that existed from the 16th century. DeluxeVegan (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: @DBigXray: @Qwerty3594: @DeluxeVegan: I disagree that this article is on the Indian state alone. We do not have separate articles for the colony and the Indian state. The present Indian state of Goa is the direct successor of the erstwhile colony. Qwerty3594's firm belief that "i feel the decision to edit and remove the unwanted dates must be left to us locals who are the native of the land" is wrong and bad because the Portuguese history forms an inherent part of Goan history and the dates should be mentioned in the infobox given they are important for the state's history. I fail to understand how the inclusion of merely two days will clog an infobox when they are key to the state's history. Qwerty's "i feel the decision to edit and remove the unwanted dates must be left to us locals who are the native of the land" disregards Wiki rules and merely stems from prejudice, further they do not represent an entire state. Irrespective, decision needs to be reached through consensus and not entitlement over who has the right to ensure what information goes into the infobox. The dates should not be deleted as Qwerty3594 has repeatedly done without a consensus as that is disruptive. Further please ensure to sign your posts, which you have not been doing on the talk pages, with four tildes (
~~~~). --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Further the purpose the dates serve in the infobox is that readers have a quick reference to important historical dates and their events, which gives the reader an impression of the colonial history of the state and its subsequent liberation/annexation, whichever term one may choose to use, without going through the tedious task of reading an entire section to cull out the same information. Infoboxes give general impression of an article and these dates here are of imperative importance to the present article. Their erasure will be akin to attempts to subdue the Portuguese history from the infobox, which may be one of the first things a reader goes through. --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru, User:Tamravidhir my apologies if i have gone against Wikipedia rules. That said, i wish to repeat myself, every territory of India has some or the orger past, be it ex rulers- old kingdoms or Mughal rule. Why id that no such dates are put for other states ??? Why only Goa and Puducherry. What about Sikkim, North East states ??? Also Jammu and Kashmir has a separate article on its erstwhile princely state, and another new article is posted for the future Union territory of J&K. If rules are to be followed, apply the same to all states/UT, and not only selective ones. You said "The present Indian state of Goa is the direct successor of the erstwhile colony". Its False. What was past was Goa, Daman and Diu, which was divided in 1987 and Daman and Diu were made a Union Territory. The present state was created in 1987 and not in 1504. If u wish to know what really was Goa, go back in past more from 1504.
And I once again appeal to all that viewers can get all the desired information about the past in the history section, and same should not be added in the infobox. Wht isn't the Maurya, Kadamba, Rulers dates been added in InfoBox ??? If unwanted details are removed then the infobox looks neat and better to read for the viewers. Qwerty3594 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: Though whataboutery won't help the current situation I will still engage with all your points. Sikkim mentions in its infobox the day it acceded to India, further the history of Puducherry is different as there was no full-fledged war by the Indian state against colonial forces, so I cannot fathom what you are trying to get at. Further, J&K has a separate article on the princely state because editors created one after, perhaps, reaching a consensus — to state all edits made to J&K are heavily monitored by the Indo-Pak Wiki boards. When I talk of Goa being a successor of Portuguese Goa, I do mean it. Goa was a part of the Portuguese colony together called "Goa, Daman, and Diu" and that component Goa is today what is the Indian state of Goa. "If rules are to be followed, apply the same to all states/UT, and not only selective ones" doesn't help because it simply implies that we shouldn't reach a consensus here as there exists none for other articles. And I am talking of this consensus to which "go back in past more from 1504" is irrelevant. And medieval rulers are not in the infobox as they are not immediate history which acted as an immediate precursor to Goa being a component part of the Indian republic, now if you want to add that to justify adding details of the liberation that will surely defeat your concerns of "the infobox [not] looks neat". Further mentions of Goa's liberation and colonial history are not "unwanted details" in the infobox as you stated. If you are concerned of readers I will quote from my message before this that: "the purpose the dates serve in the infobox is that readers have a quick reference to important historical dates and their events, which gives the reader an impression of the colonial history of the state and its subsequent liberation/annexation, whichever term one may choose to use, without going through the tedious task of reading an entire section to cull out the same information. Infoboxes give general impression of an article and these dates here are of imperative importance to the present article. Their erasure will be akin to attempts to subdue the Portuguese history from the infobox, which may be one of the first things a reader goes through." --Tamravidhir (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: @DBigXray: @Qwerty3594: @DeluxeVegan: Even after repeatedly asking Qwerty not to delete infobox information without reaching a consensus Qwerty has repeatedly and disruptively been deleting details in discussion here unilaterally. Qwerty, I hope you are aware that edit warring and removal of information, without consensus, when editors have repeatedly appealed not to delete it, is disruptive and you may be blocked for engaging in the same. Your repeated disruptive edits are proof that you are neither interested in reaching a consensus nor you care for other editors trying to engage in reaching a consensus. Your appeals are not bonafide. --Tamravidhir (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. They have been instructed several times to desist imposing the change when consensus has not been established, and it is becoming disruptive now. I also find the above comment "the decision to edit and remove the unwanted dates must be left to us locals who are the native of the land" worrying - there are no geographical restrictions on who may edit, and it is not valid to shut other editors out of a disxussion. While qwerty has made some valid policy points in this discussion, which are welcomed, I do also fear that this is partly motivated by a desire to "airbrush out" part of the history of this territory. Coverage of the Portuguese era in Goa does not imply that we like (or dislike) the history in question, or that we approve of the Portuguese colonisation. All articles are written from a a neutral point of view. But personal opinions on the rights and wrongs should play no part in the decision. — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: Qwerty has also mentioned: "Every time we open the article the first thing we read is the Portuguese establishment date in the infobox". I see this issue stemming merely from their own POV, which is not neutral. --Tamravidhir (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- +Agree. Qwerty3594, you made a bold edit, and was reverted. Per WP:BRD, you should present the rationale for your edit on the talk page, gain consensus, and stay away from edit-war. It would also help if you provide reliable sources to support your claims. Edit-warring is disruptive and can lead to a block. DeluxeVegan (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I tried to convince you all, but your not getting it. May be my English is weak so I can't get the right worlds to express myself. All these years such dates were not added in the infobox, why suddenly now it's been added. I feel some agenda here. Is it right for me to edit article on Canada, or Australia or UK, or any other state of any Nation ? There is no consensus happening here. Goa was not a part of Portugal, it was a overseas colony. Example why is such no dates added on infobox for Hong Kong or Macau??? There too were once rules by Britain and Portugal before being returned to China in 1999. I feel all these dates are better off in history section and only important dates should be allowed in the infobox Qwerty3594 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: I do not understand the constant urge to deflect from the issue at hand by engaging in whataboutism. Let's talk about the article in hand which covers a subject with its case specific history? You write: All these years such dates were not added in the infobox, why suddenly now it's been added. This is false as these dates had always been there until you started repeatedly deleting it. You wrote: There is no consensus happening here. Editors reached a consensus on certain aspects and pointed out issues which you have still not engaged with. You wrote: Goa was not a part of Portugal, it was a overseas colony. This is half-true. Goa was an overseas colony but a very important part of Portugal and the Portuguese empire (it fought a full-fledged war with India to guard its interests). If you disagree please rely on a reliable source to vouch for your information. You wrote: I feel some agenda here. I do not want to engage with this but I will. Editors have raised issues concerning to various aspects of your edits from which you have deflected engaging in whataboutism by ultimately implicitly mentioning us of furthering an "agenda". You have not engaged with the issues raised by User:DeluxeVegan, User:Amakuru, or me. I have also stated that your intent to remove these three dates, which as you have implied clearly, stems from your non-neutral point of view. Amakuru also stated that they fear your edits are "partly motivated by a desire to "airbrush out" part of the history of this territory". Further, the article can be improved in so many ways — note that this is a former FA — I would suggest, if you are that concerned of readers, to improve other aspects of this article, whereas your are now intent on making edits which are seemingly non-neutral and implicit accusations of "agenda" are non-constructive to reaching a consensus. --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lastly, we have never raised the concern that we do not understand you because of your English. You have made yourself quite clear. --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
My queries on Hong Kong and Macau are not answered but have been ignored. Weren't they part of Britain and Portugal. And Goa was a overseas colony of Portugal and not it's territory, I speak as a local of Goa. Lol and there was no war. India didn't to to Portugal, but took back the territory it owned. Goa before Portuguese rule was a part of a princely state of India. Why do u speak without knowing much ?. Agenda, yes I feel as few months back those dates were Not added in the infobox. As a local I know more about my state then anyone else. So plz don't say it was a part and there was a war. Qwerty3594 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
And I don't know what good it does if these dates are shown in the infobox ??? Who does it make proud ??? And how is that someone who doesn't have the right information on my state decide what details are shown on the infobox ??? Qwerty3594 (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Qwerty3594:, @DBigXRay:, @DeluxeVegan: have said that the dates should go from the Infobox and my edits should stay. Only @Tamravidhir: and @Amakuru: have disagreed. So that's 3:2. So don't we have a consensus or does all of Wikipedia need to give their view ??? Qwerty3594 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Qwerty3594:, @DBigXRay:, @DeluxeVegan: have said that the dates should go from the Infobox and my edits should stay. Only @Tamravidhir: and @Amakuru: have disagreed. So that's 3:2. So don't we have a consensus or does all of Wikipedia need to give their view ??? Qwerty3594 (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: Consensus is !vote. — LeoFrank Talk 18:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: Your constant going back to the same issues we have given our opinions on is tiresome and unsavoury. I specifically engaged with your whataboutery of Hong Kong. Please go through the article on whataboutism. Further, I do not understand the implications of you knowing everything about Goa. Goa was not a part of Indian territory until its annexation and there was a war. And what princely state are you talking about? We have repeatedly asked you for reliable sources to vouch for your information which you have not provided. DeluxeVegan gave no consensus but stressed on the same aspect which you have conveniently not acknowledged. Please go through each of our messages. Lastly, what is this geographical entitlement over who gets to decide what information should be in an article single-handedly? If you go through earlier talk pages of Goa you would realise how non-neutral POV is key to writing this article. You also have not given a link to the date when the infobox did not allegedly have these details. Your constant accusation of editors who disagree with you of having an "agenda" is semingly non-constructive and self-serving and further affirm my view that I have no faith in your edits as they are not neutral. Please go through WP:POV and provide us with realiable sources. Two simple suggestions. And until you can engage constructively with this please refrain from making the same edits to the page. --Tamravidhir (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Goa was culturally a part of India even before the Portuguese set their foot in 1504. Konkani is one of the languages born from Sanskrit along with Marathi. And did u live in Goa in 1961 for you to say there was a war??? Do u have anyone from here who has said that. I am living and trust be there was nothing. Repeatedly saying it won't become true. I don't know what's Ur obsession about Goa, and u quietly ignore other articles. U can keep locking the article that only shows how u can change rules of Wikipedia from being an open editable website to a personal one. I will challenge this wherever I can. Qwerty3594 (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: Do you have a reliable source or a neutral point of view? Your repeatedly stating things sans citations also won't make things true. Please refrain from making this personal for no reason whatsoever but to disrupt this conversation. It seeems more about "Ur obsession about Goa". Please refer to our last messages for issues we have already raised and countered which you have still not engaged with. --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Also the article was protected given its recent history of disruptive edits, including yours but not only yours. --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lastly, Wikipedia explicitly provides against original research. --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I just realised how your concern so swiftly shifted from merely removing certain dates from the infobox to ultimately disputing important sourced content of the article, clearling implying that your edits are personally motivated by your own point of view. Please be consistent. --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I am speaking with proof. Based on the archives in our state museum. Can I go ahead and add such info box with dates for other states of other nations that were once ruled by a foreign nation??? Will you give me that permission??? It's sad that I cannot contribute to my own states article on Wikipedia. Pls let my edits stay as the infobox looks much better. Qwerty3594 (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: Your edits violate principle Wikipedia policies of WP:RS, WP:POV, and Wikipedia:Original research and are not constructive. --Tamravidhir (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
So someone has locked the article from Editing till 2020. Just Wow. Cant tolerate others views ??? I tried to convince but it looks like u guys do not want to listen. There have been numerous attempts in the past by some user Portugal Editor Exploration to make changes in the Infobox by adding dates related to Portugal Colonial rule, but those edits didnt stand and were reverted. Now again some people wish to spoil the infobox by adding unnecessary details when the same is already available in much details in History section. If u do not wish to listen to a local, a native Goan about his views and edits. Do what u feel like. I guess there is no place for people like me to give my views. Qwerty3594 (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: We tried to engage with you but you did not even bother to engage. You have unabashedly made this personal and have distastefully resorted to whataboutism to deflect from the issue at hand. --Tamravidhir (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: Also please note your earlier serious of disruptive edits to this article where you stated: "leave Goa to us Indians and let us decide on our article". Those edits in dispute were reverted because there was a lack of consensus. --Tamravidhir (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC) Updated: Tamravidhir (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: Also please refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Principles. --Tamravidhir (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: @DBigXray: @DeluxeVegan: Could we please reach a consensus with vote on Qwerty's edits here? Because this is being dragged on for no reason, given Qwerty's refusal to engage with issues raised. --Tamravidhir (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: Also take into account Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:No vested contributors. --Tamravidhir (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tamravidhir:, I really posted a Genuine query related to Macau as that too was a former Portuguese Colony, but no such Infobox has been added to it, same for HongKong. I am ready to engage, and i said that the dates of previous establishments are already available in much details under history section of the article and there is no logic of posting the same in the infobox. Example, The details of the sitting CM is mentioned, can we insert all CMs details right from 1963 ??? Does it look nice ??? same way the dates of the previous establishments should not be there except for the latest one that is Formation of the State in 1987. I have expressed myself in the simplest way possible. Qwerty3594 (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Qwerty3594's edits that repeatedly went against status quo and their failure to abide by WP:BRD was certainly problematic. Retrospectively, I don't really have a strong feeling on whether we include Portugese colony details in the infobox one way or the other. They should certainly be covered in prose, there is no question about it. The argument that Goa was historically one unit since Portuguese rule (save for the Daman and Diu fiasco) holds weight - the India article's infobox includes British rule and further details even when we have articles on the British Raj and Dominion of India. Same goes for the American state of Texas. I see Qwerty mentioned the WP:OSE example of Jammu and Kashmir - If you noticed, that article's infobox lists "Accession to Indian Union" as 1947, but the present state of Jammu and Kashmir was formed only in 1952 after the abdication of monarchy. That said, for the sake of accuracy and consistency, I would propose amending "State of the Portuguese Empire" to "Portuguese India" in the infobox (which quite ironically, began on 15 August), and "Union territory of India" to just "union territory". BTW, I see the Macau article mentions Portuguese rule in the infobox. DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree in entirety with DeluxeVegan. --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: Both Hong Kong and Macau Wikipedia articles mention important historical dates in the infobox, including references to colonial rule. --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@DeluxeVegan:, i agree. I feel Admission/Accession to Union - 19 December 1961 would be better. Also The Portuguese dates can be shifted below from its current location in the infobox, if not for its removal. I dont see any reason for it to be placed there. The infobox must be clutter free with only important details of the existing/present state be shown. Qwerty3594 (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am fine with "Admission to union". Shifting the historical bullets to the bottom of the infobox in the source code is not going to change the display per the template source at Template:Infobox settlement, which has technical constraints. DeluxeVegan (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- It cannot be brought down below, as DeluxeVegan stated, given technical constraints. Further, if the information is to stay in the infobox I do not see a rationale behind suggestion to bring information down. Further what is "important" and what is not is POV. Further whether "annexation of Goa" should be changed to "admission to India" is absolutely WP:POV, which has been covered in talk page discussions, currently archived, this is an altogether different issue which was not the purview of this consensus. For this we should refer to archived talk pages. I do not agree with User:DeluxeVegan to change "annexation" to "admission". The text for the dates in the infobox, IMO, may be as I have demonstrated in the infobox attached herewith. --Tamravidhir (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Quick facts Goa, Colony of Portuguese India ...
Close
- You may refer to Talk:Goa/Archive_2#Annexation and Talk:Goa/Archive_1#POV. Changing "annexation" to "admission" opens up the floodgates to make such changes throughout the article which are seeming not neutral. --Tamravidhir (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Tamravidhir, I supported "Admission to union" in the place of "Union territory", not "Indian annexation of Goa". Goa becoming a union territory, in essence, can be considered as its admission to the Indian union of states/union territories. I thought that's what Qwerty3594 meant, given the date 19 December 1961 in their earlier reply. Like stated earlier, I don't have a strong feeling on any of this given the trivial nature of the dispute. DeluxeVegan (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- The choice is a simple one. Either include all relevant founding dates for the territory throughout its history, including Portuguese, or only include the founding date of the state (which is 1987). Cherry picking only those dates which suit a particular point of view, and rejecting others, is not acceptable. — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
We are going off topic. Absolutely no need to go back to the archives. If the dates in the infobox cannot be brought down then best is to remove it. Only Keep the current dates if the establishment. Qwerty3594 (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The heading says state of India so the established date should be 30 May 1987 which supports the heading. Remove the rest of the unwanted dates as they are available in history section. I agree with Amakuru. Qwerty3594 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Qwerty3594: If you agree with Amakuru then we have certainly reached a consensus. The dates stay as they are. --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am editing the infobox in light of this discussion. This issue is extremely trivial and this has been extremely tiresome. --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Reiterating User:Amakuru: "Cherry picking only those dates which suit a particular point of view, and rejecting others, is not acceptable". --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Also User:Qwerty3594 note that you are using as many rationalisations as possible to somehow press your personally motivated edits and as soon as one gets exhausted you come up with another. This has become a cycle here and to me such engagement is extremely disappointing and untoward. --Tamravidhir (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I said I agree with Amakuru as he said this "Either include all relevant founding dates for the territory throughout its history, including Portuguese, or only include the founding date of the state (which is 1987)."
Either add all dates even before the Portuguese came before 1504 like kadamba, Maurya, Adil Shah, Vijaya Nagar, etc. Or else remove all and only keep the state established date of 1987. This is what I said I agree. I didn't say to keep the existing dates. Qwerty3594 (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- OK, Looks like we have multiple folks supporting Amakuru's suggestion of all or nothing. I for one, strongly support only including the state's formation date (1987) only in the infobox and leaving everything else for the article body. Qwerty3594 User:Tamravidhir also seem to agree. If so, lets do this and close this discussion. DeluxeVegan what is your stand on this proposal. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am fine either way. I don't really agree with all as that would mean inclusion of the Vijayanagara Empire and Delhi Sultanate details in the infobox too, so state formation it is. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- There you have it. Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts. I am updating the infobox based on the agreement above. I dont see anyone disagreeing to this, but in case anyone does, feel free to comment below. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dbxray. — Amakuru (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: @DBigXray: @Qwerty3594: @DeluxeVegan: I do not agree to this wholly. The annexation date and the date of the formation of UT should ideally be in the infobox, while we may let go off the date of the Portuguese colony. --Tamravidhir (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: @DBigXray: @Qwerty3594: @DeluxeVegan: Further nowhere in the article the dates have been mentioned (even for the colony bit) which show why these dates should remain in the infobox. Qwerty did not point that out. --Tamravidhir (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Tamravidhir as soon as someone can provide a reliable source for the date I can add them into the article body. You are free to disagree with the three of us, but please make a case for why it Has to be included. You may reuse what you stated above in a new subsection below. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- @DBigXray: I cannot speak for the date of the colony and hence I do not support its inclusion, but dates for the annexation with citations already exist in the article, so I may be discharged of the burden to provide with more. The annexation date should precede the formation date in the infobox. --Tamravidhir (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- References may be: The Wire and the BBC. --Tamravidhir (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- thanks for the links. I will add them tomorrow. Please make a case why "annexation date" MUST BE added to the infobox, when it is already written in the article body. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- with these edits I have made sure that the old content from infobox is available in the article text. Tamravidhir you can update the article body if I missed something. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
.svg)
