Talk:Tonse

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 March 2022. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://manipal.info/placestovisit.html
Triggered by \bmanipal\.info\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

content of page

The Banner, the reason I turned the page into a disambig is that Tonse is not a legal entity, whereas Tonse East and Tonse West both appear on the 2011 Census of India. In addition, all of the content on the page is unsourced. Can you please explain your restoration of challenged unsourced material? Do you plan to source it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you started reverting the page, claiming that the restoration must be discussed first while your controversial removal was completely undiscussed and came out of the blue.
The change to a disambiguation pages caused problems elsewhere, like links to disambiguation pages.
Bad quality of an article is not a reason for removal.

The Banner talk 20:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ow, and number 4: the article is not unsourced. The Banner talk 21:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it's "bad quality", it's that it literally describes a place that does not exist in a legal sense, in a manner which duplicates the content of two existing separate pages for separate settlements. There is no such entity as the "combined village of Tonse West and Tonse East". As to your assertion that the article is "not unsourced," every single external link at the bottom of the page is about Udupi district, the city of Udupi, or the entirely separate village of Kemmannu. Please advise which ones you feel cover the "combined village of Tonse West and Tonse East". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you politely skip the links to disambiguation pages that you created. And as far as I know, a place is not necessarily a legal entity. The Banner talk 23:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links to a disambiguation page are the least concerning and most easily fixed of the issues here. Allow me to point out that your reply also politely skips every single point I made. Do you have any actual response to the issues I highlighted in response to your questions, or will your next reply also fail to address any of the sourcing concerns? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you failed to fix those links...

I love to see you improve the article instead of removing it. The Banner talk 00:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the answer is no, you don't have any actual sourcing that indicates that Tonse is a combined village, nor do you intend to find any - you just want to snipe at me for some reason. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear, you want it your way and your way only. And you are willing to leave the mess for others to fix. Thank you. The Banner talk 00:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This entire conversation has consisted of you aggressively defending a revert that restored challenged unsourced content, in direct contravention of WP:V. You have not provided a single iota of sourcing to back up the article's assertion that Tonse refers to a combined village, let alone any of the other unsourced content you restored. If you had provided so much as a sniff of sourcing that backed that up, I would have thanked you for it and gone away hours ago. Instead, not only have you refused to do so, you have instead resorted to petty complaints about linking to disambiguation pages and assertions that I have failed to respond to you (while hypocritically failing to respond to my points) to cover up the fact that you don't actually have a policy-based reason for restoring a large amount of unsourced content. If anyone here wants it "your way and your way only" and is leaving messes for others to fix, it is you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can not help to notice that you were asking for discussion when somebody else reverted, while your removal was absolutely undiscussed. And now you try to shift the blame to me. You can keep your aspersions with you. The Banner talk 01:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it, you have no sourcing that backs your point nor do you intend to provide any. In that case, I'm going to revert to the disambiguation version, please don't revert back unless you have sourcing for the disputed content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion, we are better off without this. The Banner talk 17:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonse.

Article, not dab. Guys, nobody is arguing for deletion, so "speedy keep" makes no sense. The page obviously doesn't work as a dab because "T(h)onse" isn't an ambiguous term. Tonse East and Tonse West aren't two unrelated places that just happen – by a miraculous coincidence – to be named as though they were the eastern and western parts of a single thing. As far as I'm able to tell from looking at a map and a random set of google hits, Tonse is a single, sprawling, settlement that for administrative purposes is divided into two (and possibly more) units. The article on that settlement was turned into a disambiguation page with the rationale, expressed on the talk page, that Thonse doesn't exist as a legal entity. I don't think that makes sense: London, for example, didn't have legal existence between 1986 and 2000, but if Wikipedia was around at the time I doubt anyone would have argued for London to be a disambiguation page simply listing the boroughs. Wikipedia's coverage of populated places shouldn't be organised around an enumeration of census tracts or municipal bodies, but on geographically and culturally meaningful entities, like villages and towns (it doesn't hurt to have coverage of census tracts, but that shouldn't happen at the expense of coverage of actual towns). If there's any change to be made, then that would be for the two Tonse stubs (and probably others, like Kemmannu and Hoode Beach) to be merged into Tonse. – Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have any actual reliable substantive references to back up these assertions, or are you just making assumptions based on what you saw on Google Maps? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking for a reliable and substantive reference for the assertion that Tonse East is the eastern bit of Tonse? – Uanfala (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, yes! If it's not a legal entity, it doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND automatically, so there needs to be some manner of sourcing in order to demonstrate that it meets the second bullet point of GEOLAND regarding populated places without legal recognition. Otherwise you're just looking at a map and making an assumption that might very well be incorrect. By analogy: the cities of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam have similar names, and if you looked at them on a map without knowing otherwise, you might think they were the eastern and western parts of a single thing, because they're smashed up against each other. Except they aren't, they're distinct cities that have never been the same city, and writing an article titled Greater Coquitlam that discussed both of them as a single entity would be incorrect. For all we know, given the complete absence of sourcing, the same goes for Tonse. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I had looked at were these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Are they great? No, but they demonstrate that a place with the name exists and has coverage online; I don't think you can expect better online English sources for a random village in India. Do these pages say that Tonse is made up of Tonse East and Tonse West? No, but they have little reason to go into details about the structure of local government; relevant here is this community Facebook page: obviously that wouldn't qualify as an acceptable source, but the fact that what is says in the "About" section matches the description in the Wikipedia article is an indication that this description isn't seen as complete nonsense by the locals. – Uanfala (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

end copyThe Banner talk 20:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to restore the article. Yes, it's not very well sourced, but the disambiguation page isn't better: the two statements that it makes about the meanings of "Tonse" are just as unsourced as anything else in the article whose verification issues it was created to solve. PMC, you're welcome to nominate this article for deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]