Talk:2011 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election

What the?

What the devil is the problem? Discuss it here before calling me a vandal. GaneshBhakt (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Be a sport. Take it easy. It is better not to act like a wild bull. - Ratan Siddiqui (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Posting here because my sentiments are as indicated by the title. Do either of you know what happened to a nice fat para I added on this being the end of the the world's longest-serving democratically-elected communist government ? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

General Election of Legislative Assembly of West Bengal 2011

Schedule for holding General Election to the Legislative Assembly of West Bengal. The title should be best more specific General Election of Legislative Assembly of West Bengal 2011. as per http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/press/current/PN_AE_010311.pdf - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 14:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we move Indian general election, 2009 to General Election of Lok Sabha of India 2009.
Will move the page back after I prove you wrong in the other two discussions started by you. GaneshBhakt (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I shall be very happy if prove that I was wrong. Thank you.--- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 05:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Be happy, since I already have. GaneshBhakt (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop providing dead links like this. Now, you have got no basis to move the page. GaneshBhakt (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

look at title Kerala State legislative assembly election, 2011 Tamil Nadu legislative assembly election, 2011.-- - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said, Why don't we move Indian general election, 2009 to General Election of Lok Sabha of India 2009. GaneshBhakt (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the page. If you have any problems contact me but please read this before:
Explanation of title:

1. Moved title to more apt title.
   
2. West Bengal - Name of State
   
3. state - so that not confused with national
   
4. general - because only two types of elections in India, general election or by-election
   
5. elections - because they are elections
   
6. 2011 - year in which elections were held
   

GaneshBhakt (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Dont move the page till consensus, 2 people is not WP:CONSENSUS when in disagreement

2. this is not a general election, you dont have GENERAL ELECTIONS in a province.Lihaas (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Who says we don't have GENERAL ELECTIONS in a province? It is simple Class IX Political Science. Can we say that Indian elections are democratic? To answer this question, let us take a look at how elections are held in India. Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha (Assembly) elections are held regularly after every five years. After five years the term of all the elected representatives comes to an end. The Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha stands ‘dissolved’. Elections are held in all constituencies at the same time, either on the same day or within a few days. This is called a general election. Sometimes election is held only for one constitutency to fill the vacancy caused by death or resignation of a member. This is called a by-election. I know you don't believe me, so click here for the proof. So this proves that the article name I provided was right and you guys made an unneccesary fuss out of it. Also, even if two people reach a consensus, its still a consensus because they two are most interested in the article and assume good faith for the article. GaneshBhakt (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

1. the two of you havent reached consensus

2. that link was flagrant bias, (its the persperctive of an institued body that advocateds'[') we work on consensus. see the lead General election, where the term varies right there with the general election and the variety of local elections which also defers in terminology for the recently concluded devolved elections for scotland and wales. Furthermore, an MLA is a member of a legislative assembly...Lihaas (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

also as an aside dont shout and bold, itll help yoru arguement

Also as an aside use correct spelling and grammar, it will help your arguement. GaneshBhakt (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Move protected

Following the move warring that has taken place, I have moved the article to match all the other West Bengal election article titles and locked it in place for one week. If you want to move it, create a move request using the process at WP:RM. However, the article title must be in the format "West Bengal fooian election, 2011" to conform with the election article naming format. Number 57 21:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change, of which obviously consensus has to be sought first, i agree ;)Lihaas (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Alliance in infobox

Trinamool is a member of UPA at the national level, but UPA has no role in WB election. Rather it should have a link to the mahajote alliance that Trinamool leads in WB. --Soman (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

is that the cooperation w/ inc at the mo? itll probs be a red linkLihaas (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

TMC is a member of UPA irrespective of the fact whether or not INC contests a majority or minority of seats. It all depends on the national alliance. If TMC is member of UPA in Lok Sabha, it has to be a member in WB Vidhan Sabha. GaneshBhakt (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

not necessarily, but id be iclined to stick with upa till some sourcing indiactes otherwise.Lihaas (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In Indian politics, regional and national alliances do not necessarily match. The UPA has no role in WB politics. Rather, there was a broad Trinamool led alliance in WB, mahajote. For example, SUCI(C) is part of the Trinamool-alliance, but not in UPA. --Soman (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

[Preicsely, do we have a source though?(Lihaas (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)).

Some links; http://www.dailypioneer.com/248947/Question-mark-over-TMC-Congress-Mahajot.html, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/specials/assembly-elections-2011/west-bengal/Sonia-to-take-call-on-Mahajot/articleshow/7750330.cms, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/specials/assembly-elections-2011/west-bengal/Mahajot-hope-hits-a-high/articleshow/7732398.cms --Soman (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

SUCI is no more a part of either the so called MAHAJOTE or UPA. GaneshBhakt (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

ourcing

The user who keeps reverting was within his rights t o change initially, but was reverted by another editor and then needs to follow WP:BRD. get consensus for a change, i have sicne re-reverted epnding consensus.

Furthermore, you hae revrted sourced info for unsourced info, which questions the vandalism accusation you impose. [1]Lihaas (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

PUF/copyvio

Some PUF/copyvio images I replaced by free media available in commons I use. There are no necessary need to add copyvio images. The user is newbie in wikipedia he don't know about copyright policy of wikipedia and philosophy of wikimedia.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 16:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Current_event_election report to ANI, so I am not reverting GaneshBhakta's revert.-- - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Good One There! Didn't know you had such a good sense of humour. ROFLMFAO. GaneshBhakt (talk) 09:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the images are contested as PUF, so that should be resolved before inserting them into the article, especially when there are free images available that are not contested (and are also used on many other wikipedias, including ta.wikipedia and bn.wikipedia). Since this is a current event and the page is likely to receive a good deal of attention, it would not be in the best interest of Wikipedia to have images in this article that might violate copyright. Please resolve this before reinserting the images into the article, and also explain why they are preferred over the current images. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary 'sic'

The 'sic' placed in the article is unnecessary, as the word is not misspelled. It also indicates the passage appears exactly as in the original source, and again, this is not the case. 'Sic' is not only not required, but is misleading. - SudoGhost™ 20:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

MB spelling

we cant have a variety of spelling of the SAME person on the page . SIC implies the sage of the variation as all the edits were in quotes. Furthermore refrain from blind trevers that were not contained in the edit summary(Lihaas (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).

The Osama bin Laden article has many variations of his spelling of the SAME person on the page, including Osama Bin Laden and Usama Bin Ladin, and as these are both accepted spellings, you will note that sic is not used in the quotes when this occurs. Sic in modern usage denotes an error. If this is an accepted alternate spelling of her name, than this is not an error, and the use of sic is misleading. It would be better to mention that her name has an alternate spelling at the first mention of her name. - SudoGhost™ 21:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No it does not denote an error it denotes a difference.

At any rate per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a reason to cite for the reemoval. it still need consistency to any ONE version. bearing in mind, again. tah t the sic references were in quptes vs. teh MB article on WP.(Lihaas (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).

I didn't cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for the removal, and regardless that policy is generally intended for AfD discussions (scroll up), and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists says that When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.

Spellings of names do not need consistency when inside quotes, so the consistency argument does not apply. Stating at some point the variations of spellings (perhaps in the lead) would suffice, and would not confuse the reader by thinking that there is an error with the sic usage.

However, I feel one way about the matter, and you feel another way. I don't believe either argument is inherently wrong, but simply a matter of differing opinions. I think the best thing to do would be to get the opinions of other editors, and let the consensus decide what is done from there. - SudoGhost™ 23:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)