The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should we create new infobox template for the Indian states and territories ? Prymshbmg (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes: I think we should create a new template for Indian States and Territories as each country has a different formula for catagorizing their states and provinces, India has a unique method of linguistic division of states and territories. Also India merged the provinces and princely states and created new states and territories, which is much different from other countries and requires different type of summarisation than the states of any other country; Hence needs different type of infobox in which every section is in sync with the catagorization of State or Territory. Many other countries have their own charachteristic infobox template for their states, so India should also have one. Here is the one that I made.User:Prymshbmg/Infobox Indian State. Please Comment and suggest.Prymshbmg (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template used above is just a sample template, you can suggest thing to be added and refined, in this topic or on my talk page. Please don`t consider the template for expressing your views in the RfC. As it is not complete yet.Prymshbmg (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes As said above. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 11:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet This RfC would be better conducted once an adequate replacement infobox has been completed, since otherweise we don't know what we are voting to replace the current ((Infobox state)) with. The draft infobox is not an improvement in its current sate since it does not deal with any of the India-specific issues of linguistic division; state and UT categorization; historical reorganizations etc that are mentioned by Prymshbmg. Also it contains ambiguous/undue fields such as "Landforms", "Rivers", "Minerals", "Festivals", "Classical Dance", "Classical Music", "Folk Dance", "Folk Songs" that are certain to become locus of disputes and/or Infobox larding and lacks many important fields. Lastly, a new template will require the help of an experienced template coder, since we wouldn't want to loose the data parsing and error-checks in the ((Infobox state)) template. Abecedare (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with Abecedare: Draft something for us to examine. Just proposing that "we create [a] new infobox template" for this topic is kind of like promising "change" in a political campaign. The devils are in the details.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Not with this version - Abecedare sums it up pretty well. I love the idea and I do believe this is most certainly needed. But I don't agree with the choice of parameters you made. Perhaps it will be best to close this RfC and start a discussion on this talk page about the parameters to be included in the new template. The idea is great and there is plenty of scope for a better template. — Yash! ^(Y) 13:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• What is it that should be on the infobox that's missing currently? I don't see anything at all at Tamil Nadu. At this point I'm not seeing a reason for another template to add to the Settlement hierarchy. —SpacemanSpiff 20:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• User:Prymshbmg asked on my talk page for suggested changes for the proposed infobox. Here are some quick thoughts (just to get the discussion started):

1. Firstly, the infobox should replicate all the needed fields and features of ((Infobox state)). A survey of the state and UT pages should show which fields are needed for the Indian pages.
2. Secondly, any fields that are definitely not needed for Indian states and UT can be removed. For example, unlike the ((Infobox state)) template, the India state and UT template need not support non-metric units.
3. Thirdly, any fields that are usually needed for Indian state and UT articles can be natively supported by the new template. For example, currently Official Languages are specified in the infobox by defining such a field under the optional demographics fields supported by the template; and the HDI and literacy index by using one of the blank fields (see the Tamil Nadu or Gujarat page in editing mode to see what I am talking about). In the new template, these can be pre-defined options.
4. New fields to be added: This will require the most thought and discussion. I don't have any concrete proposals right now, but any field whose definition and inclusion criterion is not indisputable should be kept out. So for example we should not have infobox entries for popular sports, dances, music, or even spoken languages (as opposed to official languages) etc all of which are better discussed in the article body.

Abecedare (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks User: Abecedare for suggestion, as I am currently working on new format and style of template. I think flora and fauna present in the state should also be in infobox along with state's animal, state's flower, state's bird, state's tree, etc., as many of the states in India asign for themselves. This also shows the significance of state in preserving the biodiversity. Prymshbmg (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]