Talk:India/Archive 21

message: We should have the INS Viraat instead of the Air Force Jet, only a few countries have Aircraft Carriers in their Navy, but every country has Air Force Jets. China still doesnt have an Aircraft Carrier. India's had it for a long time. The USA page has an Aircraft Carrier picture on it. Why not India? Tri400 (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft Carrier instead of Air Force Jet 

message: I want to add an external link to India's energy profile/statistics from the Energy Information Administration (Official Energy Statistics of the U.S. Government).  I feel this is an appropriate link considering how crucial energy is to the development of India and current energy concerns.  I might want to add some energy content under the economy section as well.  Any thoughts or concerns?
*EIA Energy Profile for India  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARUenergy (talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy link and stats 

message: The India article is very large.If we sumerize it in catagories It would be great.(And keep the Article neat like the featured ones).--Raunak'  ' ( .:: Raunak Roy ::.. ) 13:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean daughter articles. Categories are something else. See Wikipedia:Categories. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually the page gives very little information about Indian history. Compare for example China.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.11.8.10 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is a summary of Indian history. The main article can be found at History of India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let us sumerise the page 

message: Guys, The sports section in article India, lacks detailed or interesting information. Adding info abt the sports along with its prominence in tha nation, few names of outstanding players who have contributed their best in that sport, how the sport is presently going on...info abt these can be added to the section to make it more informative and interesting. At present our sport section sucks.
Secondly, Culture section is quite big including music, cultural arts, film etc.. I think it would be better to have a seperate section abt 'Film and Music' bcoz that itself can speak volumes.Giving info abt different film industries in the country and also which could include famous film stars who have contributed to this field who have made their mark globally. Famous Music directors and their contributions can be added too. 
Thirdly we could have a seperate section abt Indian cuisine. Info abt how the different cuisine is in the north of India, southern, eastern and western can be included. Certain indian delicacies which are famous the world over can be included too. Such kind of info can really spice up the article too.  Your thoughts on this....Cephas 405 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right. But the problem is some people at Wikipedia are so stubborn to allow information they dont like. I mean on this page there is no mention of Aryan heritage (i could be wrong, but if i am, its because i didnt analyze the whole thing. And I shouldnt have to analyze the whole page because it should be mentioned early, at least in the history section). ARYAN818 (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving sections 

message: While I was quickly skimming the culture section to see if there might be room for a quarter-sentence mention of Romani music, I couldn't help but notice the following caption in one of the rotating pictures: "The Amba Vilas palace at Mysore, one of the foremost centers of the fine arts in the post-Vijayanagara days, is an important tourist attraction."  
The Vijayanagara empire began to fade in 1565 and disappeared in 1646.  The Amba Vilas palace was commissioned in 1897 and completed in 1912.  How did the post-Vijayanagara days last 300 years? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Post and pre-something should nearly always be avoided because it tends to glorify the something undeservingly. The only exceptions are when the pre directly influenced what came after and the post was directly influenced from what came before. The time period between the two things being compared also needs to be taken into account but generally speaking, the larger the time period, the less significant or direct the influence will become.  (Sorry if that confused anyone, I can provide an example later to show what I mean). GizzaDiscuss © 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption in the culture section picture 

message: There should be Two section for Foreign relations and military. Even articles like Nigeria have two section when Nigeria hardly has an army as big as India's. And whats so great about a SU 30 why is it on the page. The image shows a plane developed by India and Russia. But everyone knows that now India is on USA's side and if war breaks out we would blindly support USA. Even if one wants to show India's friendship with Russia why not an image of the BrahMos nuclear missile. Another thing pl. increase the size of this page it is smaller than the german version of India, and as long as English versions of small countries like Suriname, Columbia, Kenya etc.Enthusiast10talk 03:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI...just look at the Nuclear deal with the US...we are faaar from even considering the US as an ally! And the pic is perfectly relevant. i do support having 2 sections. Nikkul (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, of course we'll support US. Manmohan Singh and the rest all are all paid by CIA. India in other words is a new Canada that supports US all the time. Nuclear Deal has been stopped due to the Left that is paid by China. All our politicians are sold to other countries if we had a dictatorship we would grow much better than China Enthusiast10talk 03:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be Two section for Foreign relations and military 

message: Recently, lot of tagging has happened to the page asking it to be cleaned, shortened, peacock terms to be removed and also edit warring. Housekeeping can be done easily to remove most of the objections but shortening and edit warring is difficult to avoid. Also, discussion comes every time to add more stuff. My suggestions are -
* Geography section should be reduced. Geography of India was a formal featured article. User's can  seek more info from this section.
* Culture section should be reduced. Sentences like these do not hold much importance in such a main article - 
:#Traditional Indian family values are highly respected, although urban families now prefer the nuclear family structure due to the socio-economic constraints imposed by traditional joint family system.
:#Listings like these should be reduced - Some popular festivals are Diwali, Thai Pongal, Holi, Onam, Vijayadashami, Durga Puja, Eid ul-Fitr, Bakr-Id, Christmas, Buddha Jayanti and Vaisakhi.
:#Eight dance forms, many with narrative forms and mythological elements, have been accorded classical dance status by India's National Academy of Music, Dance, and Drama. These are: bharatanatyam of the state of Tamil Nadu, kathak of Uttar Pradesh, kathakali and mohiniyattam of Kerala, kuchipudi of Andhra Pradesh, manipuri of Manipur, odissi of the state of Orissa and the sattriya of Assam.
*Sports need revamp. These sentences can be done with -
:#Cricketers such as Sachin Tendulkar, Virender Sehwag, MS Dhoni, Anil Kumble are some of the currently best players of the nation and are well known across the world for their excellence and leadership qualities in the game. The recent Indian Premier League championship has taken the cricketing world by storm and lifted the popularity of the game to greater levels. Players from all over the world take part in the championship giving their best to the game as well as putting aside every racial and national attachments.
:# Many places really use peacock terms like popular, famous, etc...
*Economy has lot's of lists -
:# Its natural resources include arable land, bauxite, chromite, coal, diamonds, iron ore, limestone, manganese, mica, natural gas, petroleum, and titanium ore
:#Major industries include automobiles, cement, chemicals, consumer electronics, food processing, machinery, mining, petroleum, pharmaceuticals, steel, transportation equipment, and textiles.
:#Textiles, jewellery, engineering goods and software are major export commodities. While crude oil, machineries, fertilizers, and chemicals are major imports.
* Demographics section should get rid of :Template:Largest cities of India. Added this point per F&F.
* Length What is the max permissible size limit for this page? It looks like some special size consideration should be given to accommodate all users. Added this point per F&F. 
I know I can be WP:BOLD and do it myself. But would like to get consensus since I want to avoid further edit warring/lengthy arguments. Jump-in with your valuable suggestions and if possible take lead to clean-up.--gppande «talk» 12:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The new addition to sports section is going to be removed soon as it is an obvious WP:OR,WP:UNDUE, WP:TONE and WP:WEASEL however I didn't remove it (or rather reverted my revert) as I am not ready for an edit war. A note to all please refrain from warning them as their edits though ... they are nevertheless enthusiastic... - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 12:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you mean new editors. Sports got messed up with this edit. I had reverted four prior major changes of same user as seen from history and left him an advice. But later noticed 5th which could not be undone due to text conflicts with later edits. --gppande «talk» 13:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's headed for an FAR according to whom?  The last time two users (user:Sarvagnya and user:Rueben lys) tried to do an FAR, in summer 2007, and it was in worse shape than it is now, the review was dismissed in less than 12 hours.  It does need to be trimmed but not in Geography, or for that matter even in culture.  True there are some lists in culture (that are there because accommodating the elements of the list was the only solution to the edit war that was plaguing the page at that time).  But then, why is "cities by population," which is a glorified graphics list, needed?  Who cares if the population of number 19 city is a little more than number 21 city? Even the length is debated by the experienced editors.  I know that bureaucrat user:Blnguyen didn't think it was that long, and in fact last year thought that increasing its length might be one way to resolve edit wars.  I would defer to more experienced editors, especially to user:Nichalp (the architect of the page's FA drive) and user:Ragib in this regard.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: A goodfaith point, I did not bring the FAR, I only commented on that as I saw appropriate. :) rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't get that personal buddy. I am not saying it is on door steps of FAR. It's just an effort to build consensus before touching these sections to avoid post edit wars. Just pointing that recent activity has brought some dirt which can be cleaned with good faith. As I said, I tried mopping earlier but failed to do some more. --gppande «talk» 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I wasn't being personal.  My apologies if it came across that way.  The India page is one of the celebrated examples of Wikipedia:Main article fixation; there are many many sub-articles that need work, but they are being ignored.  Fine there has been a lot of automated tagging of various India related talk pages recently (with bots), and all credit to that work, but an encyclopedia is ultimately its "textual content."  That needs to be written.  I don't see that those India-related pages, whose talk pages have been successfully tagged, are being expanded or improved. We should be focusing on those pages.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  With all due respect I have for you, I see housekeeping activities by bot runners and normal contributor are of equal importance. As you wanted this is 'the' effort to improve "textual content" on 'the' most important page of project. My aim was of reducing the talkpage edits after changes by building consensus first. But looks like edits would be more before changes too :-)) --gppande «talk» 16:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I know this edit will not make many people happy but I did this. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think we need an FAR right now.  Some of the specific issues that User:Gppande has pointed out can (and should) be addressed, however.  In terms of length, I think we're fine for now.  Once we cut down on some of the overhead text and content outlined above, the article will be ok.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The cuisine section needs help...how about some examples? The largest cities template must stay...every big country article has this. this is an encyclopedia...uniformity is a must. Nikkul (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second user:Nichalp's remarks.  Please see my remarks in the section below.  I would request all the people here to work on the Culture of India and Cuisine of India pages instead and get them featured.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I see your point. Cleanups to tighten prose are always welcomed here. But for radical revamps, a more solid approach is needed. Getting an article to FA status is not herculean, but rather one that requires solid dedication by those nominating it. I say this because it is very easy for a random person to point out omissions in text without a holistic approach to article writing. Personally, I think an FA should be on every wikipedian's CV. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Points''' to be discussed are below 

message: I think the term "largest city" in the infobox is ambigious. It doesnt tell a general reader "large" in what sense..by area, by population ? More appropriate would be largest_settlement = Mumbai Metropolitan Region. Ninadhardikar (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree. There is a similar discussion going on about calling India the "largest democracy." The words large and big are by their nature ambiguous so it is better to use a more specific word. The less vague the article is, the better. GizzaDiscuss © 07:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are two tags in the template : "largest_city" and "largest_settlement". If the area of a city is considered to be the administrative area of its council, it serves no purpose to list which is the largest city by area in that country. I think these tags should be combined to form "Most populous metropolitan region" / "Biggest urban area/agglomeration" or something of that sort. Ninadhardikar (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  I would favor using "most populous" instead of "large" or "largest".  I don't think we should use the word "settlement" because it's ambiguous.  Does "settlement" refer to a city (an entity within the jurisdiction of a municipal corporation) or an urban agglomeration (city and it's satellites towns and suburbs)? Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest city 

message: I am thinking that we should be writing that the history section should be expanded.  Futhermore, there is not a mention of how we were actually being many many countries before, Awadh, Bengal, Hyderabad, and so on.  The Britishers helped to unite us and making us a India.  Should we not be giving them some credit for helping us to be being a country today?
Thanking you,
A. Kumar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.154.148 (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Im assuming there is a limit of how many pictures can be put here, so I was wondering if there could be a section where we could put more pictures for this article? ARYAN818 (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm>Sure, you might also list the article for featured article removal process right away. :) </sarcasm>. Please see why we can't do so. --Ragib (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok unless I missed it, the link u gave me did say u can have pictures. So why u being sarcastic? 71.106.93.44 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Aryan. The link that Ragib provided probably doesn't explain we don't have picture galleries so directly but it does say that It has images and other media where appropriate. Most people have interpreted this to mean pictures should only in sections where it is connected to the prose. Eg. The quail is in Flora and Fauna, the Bombay Stock Exchange building is in Economy and the cricket match is in Sports. GizzaDiscuss © 00:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Well is that always true? I mean I could be wrong, but aren't there articles that have pictures that are on the side of paragraphs, even though they might not be particularaly related to the paragraph?........and anyway.....if that is the case, can i create a sectoin that talks about India's palaces and temples and then have pictures on the side? And if the answer is yes, is their a limit of pictures allowed? 71.106.93.44 (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is no. The country pages are to follow the WP:COUNTRIES guideline for section, and also be written in summary style. But even before going over that, please DO acknowledge first that, Wikipedia is NOT a travel brochure. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Hey Ragib u have a wonderful personality 71.106.93.44 (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Aryan, for your "endorsement of my personality". It will still be much better if you learn the wikipedia policies, norms, and guidelines first. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  Good pictures of India are always in demand. But don't put everything about India on India page. Only the 'best' should be put here. You can always have the relevant pictures on the relevant articles. There are so many other India-related articles that lack good pictures. Trust me, if you get the pictures on those poor articles you help everybody - the ones who write them and strive hard for their improvements + the ones who read them. Start your contributions there and it will get noticed (with a big thanks). --gppande «talk» 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Ya I understand but I was hoping to put more good pictures here on this article. I mean when people want to learn about India, I think it would be nice to have some pictures. Cant we just have some pictures on this article about places in India, even if they dont relate to the exact paragraph? I mean we can have this thing where we can have pictures while scrolling down the article just as random nice places in India. 71.106.93.44 (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And, by the way, you don't put pictures on an article, unless you intend to make a hard-copy of the article and place your pictures on it.  If such indeed is your intent, I doubt any one here is going to stop you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gppande makes a good point. The main India page has a lot of beautiful pictures. But because of Wikipedia:Main article fixation many other articles related to India are lacking in good images. List of basic India topics is a good starting place to see which articles could benefit from more images. GizzaDiscuss © 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Well why not just put them on both? Why not have pictures here on India and on the other articles too? I mean yes this article has some good pictures. But there are plenty plenty more. I mean i found some of these pics on other articles on wikipeida, and some of them i would think would be great for India. BUt if that bothers people, then how about having a section like "places in India" or "palaces of India"? 71.106.93.44 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about having a picture section? 

message: this article seriously needs some better pics of india --60.50.66.130 (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have wonderful pictures of places in India but i dont know how to put them up....if Someone wants the pictures ill give them to you, and you can put them up....or you can get them from my myspace page....go to myspace.com/India100, and you will have lots of very very nice pictures of India. Please use them! 71.105.82.152 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, upload them to Flickr, that's what most pics on Wikipedia are from. Tri400 (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you help me? My actual user name is Aryan818 but ive been blocked and banned from editing becuase some morons think im a white supremacist nazi or something. But my name is Aryan and i live in the 818 area code, so thats why i put Aryan818. I had other people on wikipedia put in my website that i should not be banned or blocked , and yet there are morons out there who still take advantage of their power and try to ban and block me, even though it clearly says in my page DO NOT BLOCK THIS USER because ARYAN IS HIS NAME, AND 818 IS HIS AREA CODE. So can someone help me? Can someone PLEASE UNBLOCK ME? My user name is Aryan818. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Is someone going to help me or what? I have tons of pictures I want to load for this website, but I want to load it as a user not as a LOGGED OUT USER....the problem is my user name is banned from editing because some moron thinks im a white nazi or something, even though my page says not to block me. The person who did this was the user Zoe.....Can somebody please lift this stupid ban so I can edit? I want to give nice pictures of India 71.105.82.152 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't you make a new username? That way you can upload pictures and you will be respected. It is a win-win situation. GizzaDiscuss © 07:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gizza, That would be block evasion. The new account will get blocked too. S/he will have to wait out the block or request for a unblock. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just FYI, related block incident and block log. The last block was an indef block on the name. I feel a unblock request has a good chance of success...since Aryan is a common name. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 07:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel a new user name is a good option to pursue. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry I didn't make myself clear. I was familiar with the incident before and knew it was an indef block based on a username, not on any sort of bad editing. GizzaDiscuss © 08:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok so is somebody gonna unblock me or what? My user name is Aryan818 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not an issue to discuss in *this* talk page. Please make your request at Admin's noticeboard. --Ragib (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok im unblocked! Whoo hoo! Ok ill put up pictures sometime soon hopefully ARYAN818 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way how many pictures can I put up? Becuase I have alot of really good ones! ARYAN818 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Upload the pictures to commons: and we can comment about it here. If it's seriously good, have a try at putting it up on WP:DP. 07:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Well which one should I give it to? Both? And what about just putting it up on this article? Or should I do it to all 3?71.105.82.152 (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: And people wonder why I sometimes type the way I type....This gets a freaking pass and can telll everyone that I was crapping about my alleged pictures to get unblocked. Well first of all if that were true so what? I should not have been unblocked. And secondly i have tons of pics...I left comments about them and got responses....And if you scroll up i was the last one to comment about this (pictures) and I dont people have replied (at least not here) so what do u want me to do force people to reply? I know i could just upload them. But I dont want to waste my time uploading them if people are just going take them out. And ive been told some things (scroll up) that I didnt understand, so I left a comment about it. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi, these two rock, esp. the 1st one:  ,  218.208.204.50 (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I strongly oppose the inclusion of PAD image. The image has undesirable disturbances, is not of that great quality and does not show the concerned missile entirely. --Emperor Genius (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  @ Chanakyathegreat, let's wait on this.  The absence of opposition does not indicate consensus.  We should wait a little longer to gauge the opinions of active and semi-active users before making such changes.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Can we do with less building images? PS The GoI image seems to have a suspect licence. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How can anyone support adding an image which is tilted? The missile is not even completely built, the image doesnt show the full missile and this image is not encyclopedic especially not for an FA. Nikkul (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  better pictures 

message: There should be Two section for Foreign relations and military. Even articles like Nigeria have two section when Nigeria hardly has an army as big as India's. Another thing pl. increase the size of this page it is much smaller than articles about much smaller countries like argentina etc., it is also smaller than the german version of the India article Enthusiast10talk18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You had previously opened the same discussion and based on the responses you got (0 responses) you should understand. This is not a place to voice your opinion about India's foreign policy or what you think of Indian PM.  --gppande «talk» 15:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pl. do not take it so personally, I did get a comment from Nikkul, if u see the history and Nikkul agreed that the section should be made longer. I'm just asking for permission to make it longer so if others agree I would do that. Enthusiast10 talk 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i think its a good idea Gsingh (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: This is a repeated question. Please see the FAQ. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be Two section for Foreign relations and military 

message: I think the Bush and Manmohan image in the foreign relations section should be removed. Why only US is chosen in foreign relations? Why not Putin? It is giving extra weight to the United States. May be the US at present is largest military, but that is not a reason to keep this image, it shows US-centric bias. In general it will be good to have no image showing India's relation with a particular country. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was included because it was a readily available public domain image.  If you have access to similar images of Indian premiers with other world leaders, feel free to build consensus on their applicability  and add them to the article.  Thanks AreJay (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush and Manmohan image 

message: The river in the south of India is Cauvery or Kaveri (not Kasveri) ; The river south of the river Godavari is Krishna and not Tapati  ; The river Beas is missing in the Indus river basin in the North West (not directly relevant) and other minor doubts that I have to verify!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.175.34 (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies in the Topographic map of India 

message: Hi Gentle Folk of India Wiki page,
The demographics sections is showing political jurisdictions by giving a list of cities, for want of administrative effectiveness certain corporations choose to delink their urban nodes as separate municipalities. As a direct result their city limits would be reduced hence a city based estimate of population does not give the actual floating polulation in an urban area neither does it explain the demographics ( urban/rural) of that area. At this outset dont you guys feel that a list of 'urban areas' would give the better projection to this section.
I was able to find an internal article on urban areas List_of_urban_areas_by_population 
Cheers,
--Mel Vilander (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per a request, a template for this purpose has been made and is located at  Adam McCormick (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure if another template was needed since this already exists.  In any case, I'm not sure how accurate the new template is – it seems to be missing Chennai.  AreJay (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics Section needs to Show Urban Areas 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "CIA" :
** 
** 
* "English-subsidiary" :
** 
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: reference to be made with fallow land,uncultivated lands,forest lands  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.225.76 (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  how  is the geographical land of south asia utilised 

message: Shouldnt the first line of this article be the first line of the Constitution ? India, that is Bharat, is a Union of States. That is the fundamental characteristic of India. A country in South Asia is just a geographical detail. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds so very legalese, and not very encyclopaedic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we say India is a Union of States in South Asia ? That covers both the federal political structure and the geographical location. Most countries do have a note about their sub-national structure in the intro, see Germany (a FA) for example which mentions it in the third para of its intro. Esp. since we say stuff like multi-lingual, pluralistic it would be good to indicate how some of these identities are accomodated. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed it, see if it works for you guys. I think it gives a lot more info abt India in a succint way. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted it for want of grammar and placement. ...federal Union of States.... For one, federal implies a centre-state relationship, so union of states is rendered redundant. Secondly, by replacing country with the above term, it creates an undesired noun stack which would make it a little more difficult to read by a casual observer. Let the word country remain in the beginning. Thirdly, Union of States should be in lower case. If the need be, the political structure can come lower in the lead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about, 'It is a parliamentary federal republic consisting of 28 states and 7 union territories.' as the second line ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems better, but where do you plan to add it? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

text: How about either the very second line of the intro (immediately after describing the geographical location) or the first line of the last para (which talks about contemporary India) ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First line