Talk:Agri (caste)/Archive 1
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ref?
- Is it ok to give references of things without hyperlinking them? Wouldnt hyperlinks be good? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is not absolutely required, and if references are to books that simply aren't viewable online there's nothing to hyperlink to. That said, if a given book is online (as many of these historical and/or reference works on India are) it is definitely preferable to hyperlink to the work and page in question. You might want to check GoogleBooks to see if this book (and the proper pages) are viewable. If a public-domain book is viewable at places other than gBooks (Gutenberg, Archive, etc.) those are even better, since the ability to view pages of GoogleBooks varies by country depending on various intellectual property laws. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- So whats the point of even having it as a reference when you cant prove it to be right? Its as good as nothing. Better not have them at all. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Some of us remember the days when there was no alternative to sources that readers would have to get off their butts to verify. Yes, if you wanted to see the source, you'd get yourself to a bookstore or to a public or university library and request the resource in hard copy or on microfilm or on microfiche. Web-based sources are more convenient, but if offline sources are where the information is, they aren't pointless, they're invaluable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Agri people
The articles seem to be about the same group of people. Whatever is of substance and referenceable among them should be combined in that case, and the WP:PEACOCK, non-neutral language, and trivial characterizations in both should be removed. Are they a caste? If not, then the merge should obviously be to Agri people. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- It does not seem to be a caste.See here.--MahenSingha (Talk) 17:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have redirect Agri people to this article because it was completely unsourced and has been so for years. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)