Talk:India/Archive 20

message: For the past few months I've only seen this page used to debate on the appropriateness of the pictures. This is never going to end and no consensus is ever going to be reached. The images on the page are sufficient for the moment. Those actively pushing for images to be changed could invest their time in sourcing images for articles that do not have images. =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture bickering 

message: I've semi-protected this article due to the repeat disruption by anon and new users over the last few days. —— Eagle101Need help? 17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect 

message: In the cultural column why that Toda hut of Tamil Nadu had been replaced by lotus temple of Delhi.More over I poste d the Pic of the The Big Temple Of Thanjavur.why was it deleted though it is master piece in Native indian art and declared as a world heritage sit  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arun1paladin (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  North indian biased page 

message: Taj mahal was built during moghal empire. 3 images 
# early history
# moghal empire
# british rule / freedom fight
These 3 images would portray history of India in a graphical way. If not Taj, some other moghal architecture image would suit for history section. Also im unable to fathom how Taj belongs to culture?? :( Vital brick 1 (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taj mahal should be in history section 

message: Awesome article.....I am impressed ...I just stopped by to congratulate the guys over this work.....nice ...really impressive...Keep up the good work
Yourdeadin (talk) 09:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awesome 

message: The national animal is Tiger.  It is not specifically the Royal Bengal Tiger, though the adjective "Royal Bengal" sounds good, its not correct to be talking of the Indian National Animal.  Please correct the National animal to "Tiger".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivasbt (talk • contribs) 07:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Animal 

message: User Otolemur crassicaudatus insists on adding an image of people living in absolute poverty. I think mentioning poverty in india in the text is enough and placing a link at the top of the economy section for "poverty in india" is enough and I certainly dont think that an image needs to be used. 
*This image shows absolute poverty, which does not represent all of india. Yes, India has a lot of poor, but they certainly dont live like this. This image is very misleading. 
*Also, there is poverty in every country. I see poverty everytime I walk in downtown Los Angeles. I see poverty when I walk in Manhattan, New York the world's financial capital. I live in what is considered the richest area in America [ Beverly Hills, Hollywood, Bel Air, Brentwood ], yet I can tell you first hand that there is some poverty here as well. It is nothing new and it is nothing unique to India. I hope the examples made my point clear. The text in the economy section and also the "See also" link to poverty in india at the top of the economy section is enough.
*Every country has poverty, but there is no specification that every country article on wiki must have an image of poverty, so why should just the India page? This is an attempt to deride india by a user who obviously does not have a liking for the country as can be judged by his edits: 
*Also, what happened to picture quality? User Fowler always taks about getting quality images on the page that are featured, so how can he explain his addition of this image, which is certainly not quality? 
*Image does not show economy, "the system of human activities related to the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other muffin."  
*If this image goes on the India page, I might be justified in putting an image of the Mukesh Ambani family sitting in their skyscraper under the caption "Shown here is the world's richest family in their skyscraper"
Nikkul (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed. it is important to mention issues like poverty, but if we began to illustrate country articles with images showing their least attractive sides, it isn't just the India article that would soon look radically different (one such suggestion was made here... :). Making a point by image choice is to be strongly discouraged. dab (𒁳) 20:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poverty Image 

message: *Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote against making the Taj image a part of the rotation template and letting it remain in its current position

message: *Nikkul 08:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Name a single architectural creation of India. Ask this question to as many people around the world as possible. Among those who will answer (Many may not be able to answer), I daresay the unanimious majority would be Taj Mahal. The Taj is a cultural icon of Indian architecture as well as Mughal architecture. Yes, despite such rich architectural heritage as Konark, Madurai, Ajanta, Kutub, Lal Killa, Vijaynagar (and so on), Taj remains the numero uno. Everything comes afterwards. Taj and Gandhi are the most knows names from India. That's why.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're saying.. coz not just ulikeit.. but manypeoplelikeit.  And secondly, why should I ask them about "architectural creation" specifically?  Sorry, doesnt cut it.  Sarvagnya 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one-liner then — the taj mahal is the number one cultural icon of India. (There may be others, but Taj is number one). Don't ask about "architectural' creations only, generalize it to culture broadly. This "wonder of the world" is the number one culture icon of India.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "the taj mahal is the number one cultural icon of India" - ILIKEIT-itis again?  The liner makes for a good slogan, yes.. but it is not remotely a verifiable fact.  Anything else?  btw, am also curious about that 'wonder of the world' thing.  sez who? Sarvagnya 06:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Taj is one of the seven wonders of the modern world and the most recognised and historically significant monument in the country. We are not here to deal with subjectivity. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: imo, the sarnath pillar or Ashoka's edicts can easily give the Taj a run for its money as the most historically significant monuments.  Sarvagnya 06:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, let's stress on "most recognised"—how's that?--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The debated New 7 wonders has concluded Taj as one of the wonders. Other "wonder-lists" such as this include Taj as one of the wonders. However, these lists are sometimes debated, and their validity questioned (the new 7 wonder was based on polls by sms etc). But, that Taj is the only entry from India in these lists goes on to show that wonder or not, it is India's most recognised cultural icon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That 7 new wonders is some enterprising businessman's POV.  Not encyclopedic.  Not fact.  For that matter, in a similar contest organised by the Times of India Gomateshwara was "Wonder No. 1"(by miles, actually) while Taj was a poor third.  *over*  Sarvagnya 20:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I already admitted that new wonder thing is much debated. Let's have a look at Wonders of the World. It has many lists. Some lists feature Taj mahal, some does not. However, the only entry from India is Taj Mahal, otherwise none from India. Whether becasue of writings of the travellers, or other forms of publicity, I don't know, but Taj is the number one cultural icon of India. There are a lot of other treasures of India comparably significant or aesthetically pleasant. But, taj has somehow become the number 1 icon. Now that it has become so, we cannot help that. It is not a matter of "I like it". Yes, it is a question of "Majority knows it, recognises it". --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV, regardless of how many people share it, is still POV.  Not fact.  Not even tangible.  For that matter, it is an equally(perhaps more) widely held POV that "Sachin is the greatest!!"  That doesnt mean we hardcode Sachin into an article even at the expense of stubbing out the likes of Vishy Anand, Milkha Singh, P T Usha, Prakash Padukone et al.  Does it?  Sarvagnya 21:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, the Taj isnt to India what the Statue of Liberty is to the US.  The Taj has little or no historical significance.  Beautiful for a cemetry, yes.  But not much else.  Sarvagnya 21:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: All those monuments except the Taj are associated with their native countries for very good and very tangible(non POV) reasons.  All of them are historically extremely significant to their home countries.  That apart, the Eiffel tower and the pyramids were engineering feats of their time of their country (biggest, tallest etc.,.).  In fact, they still are.  Nothing else in Egypt, for example, can compare either in sheer size or in terms of historical significance to its pyramids.  None of this is true in the case of the Taj.  Simply saying.. "aah!  its so beautiful.. it takes my breath away!" doesnt fly because wikipedia fortunately has a NPOV policy. Sarvagnya 21:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Chanakya! The video link you provided was extremely good, the lost temples of India. However, the initial sentences in the video (This is the face of India the whole world knows...Taj Mahal...) is precisely why the taj Mahal image should be there on the page. It may be wrong (in your words, the western way...) to consider Taj as the face/cultural icon of India. But, the fact is, it is considered so, at least at present, despite India having so many marvelous monuments/temples/structures.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of Chanakya's comments above, I am a bit confused. Is it that keeping the image gives prominence to Islamic architecture, or that it gives prominence only to one historical (sans religious) site while ignoring others? While the Taj is accepted one of the most beautiful examples of islamic architecture, that is not its only identity. As Dwaipayan points out, it is amongst the most beutiful architectures in the world. And Taj and India is a bit like you think Statue of Liberty for USA, or the Colloseum when you say Rome. And I must disagree with Sarvagnya, because the Taj itself is  (was) also an achievement for when it was built. And I dont see how it violates the NPOV policy, if a view is shared by a huge majority of people, that is a mainstream view, although I cant see what's nonneutral with thinking, the Taj is one of the most beuatiful buildings in India and in the world.Rueben lys (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote for making the Taj image a part of the rotation template and moving it from its current position

message: We have at present the text: -
Bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the west, and the Bay of Bengal on the east, India has a coastline of 7,517 kilometers (4,671 mi).[12] It borders... 
Can we rewrite it as: -
India's lower half, a triangular peninsula, is bounded by the Indian Ocean on the south, the Arabian Sea on the west, and the Bay of Bengal on the east, creating a coastline of 7,517 kilometers (4,671 mi).[12] Her vast, northern, upper half borders ...
I am rather new here and do not know how a protected article receives edits. Please look at the proposed emendation and incorporate it if acceptable. Thanks. Wiki dr mahmad 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your suggestions.  Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (lead section).  Geographical features are typically not mentioned in the lead (see also other country articles like United States, United Kingdom, Australia).    Please also see WP:SS.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The current sentence is fine.  Your proposed sentence is not an improvement.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit in the preamble of this article: A suggestion 

message: The Ganges River is the most important river in India. It is not only a cultural and religious landmark, but also a huge geographical structure that has made India, for it provides water, sanitation, and agriculture to millions of Indians. How can we not have an image of the Ganges? Nikkul (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the significance of the ganges image in Geography section with reference to a particular religion? This image can be opposed for various reasons:
*This image shows a scene of a river. Any river in India can be photographed like this. Ganges is an important river in India. But this particular image does not clarify the significance of Ganges.
*In geography section, it would be better to add maps or something like that. Hence a map showing rivers in India can be added.
*What is the significance to mention Hinduism? The significance of something to a particular religion should be mentioned in religion section, not in geography section. The Geography section is not the right place to talk about something with reference to religion.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would u liked the ganges to be photographed? 
*It is a river...with water. how else can u show a river. all rivers look similar. 
*there already is a map of rivers and geography
*if u dont like the mention of hinduism in the caption, u can change the caption. there is no need to remove the image entirely
Nikkul (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganges Image 

message: I have replaced the current illustrations (one too high-res with little annotation, the other anonymous with little information) in the Geography section with two maps from the Geography of India page.  These maps illustrate the text perfectly. I hope these edits will be acceptable.  Regards,  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point of having one map that shows rivers and mountains and having another map that shows just rivers? Thats pointless. What do u mean anonymous? The Ganges is a very very important river and having just maps for the page is bad. I have brought the ganges image back. please discuss having two images showing the same thing before adding it to the page. there is no opposition to the ganges image as long as it doesnt mention hinduism. Nikkul 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The maps illustrate the text perfectly.  The "rivers" map shows a reader where the rivers are in relation to each other, something that your Ganges image does not.  The Ganges image is anonymous because any river could look like that in a picture.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That is because Geography is about maps. (Compare the Wikipedia pages on Geography and History.  Where do you see the map?)  Here is the text from the India#Geography section about rivers:  It really is a nobrainer as to which of the two illustrations is more informative, especially when the "Ganges" image is about as unencylopedic as an image can get.  There is nothing in the image that gives us any information about the Ganges.  The body of water displayed could be a lake, or the ocean, or any other river like the Brahmaputra, Nile, Amazon, ... Please re-read Mikaul's comments on your  Qutub Minar FPC image.  The same applies here.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced rivers, as topo is essential, for who can understand pic. But currently there is no image showing something related to hinduism. Mind you India is motherland for hindus. Some hindu temple would be appropriate, dont say ajantha caves carvings.. Vital brick 1 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hinduism in the Geography section? Why is the topographical map essential?  (It is displayed on the right.) Especially, when it is too high-res to be useful? It doesn't have the names of the rivers, only cities.  Almost like someone was trying to turn a physical map into a political map.  On the other hand, you are right, it does give some visual and finer scaled information that the other map doesn't.  Let me suggest the following compromise.  Later in the day, I will add the names of the rivers to the  topographical map (shown on the right) and reduce it in size a little and then replace it with the current rivers map.  How does that sound?  Please don't revert until then.  Thanks.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked Nichalp to weigh in (since he made the two maps).  Why don't we hold off making further decisions until we've heard from him?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's another suggestion for a geography image, in place of one of the maps. I agree with others that the Ganges image 'says' nothing visually, whereas this (or another like it) visually 'says' Indian Himalaya. (no, I'm not back editing the article yet, just suggesting one possible solution to yet another image discussion.) ~ priyanath talk 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These days rivers are of least significance. Its climate, rain, soil, forest etc are what matters in geography. Topo map says it all clearly, and it is there in "every" other country's article. Vital brick 1 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? "Its climate, rain, soil, forest etc"  What are you talking about?  All that this topographic map has is altitude.  All countries don't have topographic maps.  To be sure, some like United States and Peru do, others like United Kingdom and Australia don't (they have climate maps); others still, like France and Canada have satellite images.  I tend to agree with a combination of Nikkul and Priyanath's suggestions: label the rivers in the first map (Nichalp's map with caption "Topographical features of India) and replace the second map with the Kinchenjunga image (which looks like a nice high-def image).  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, altitude determines climate, rain, forests etc etc and etc,(or those can be "guessed" by altitude data) if one can understand a topographic map. It is an encyclopedia which is supposed to be professional, not to teach a layman with text-labeled-images like textbooks. Vital brick 1 16:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[India#Geography|Geography]] section 

message: We know India is bigger than many countries of Western Europe put together. And so, expectedly, perceptions on monuments and cultures are so different in its four corners. Can we resolve the Taj issue by adding more pictures permanently, as follows?
1. If, in addition to Taj monument, we accommodate at appropriately chosen locations in the article more permanent pictures, e.g. of Minakshi temple, Madurai (with an additional photo of its great interior architecture)/ Konark temple, Khajuraho (and an example of its famous exterior iconography)/ Gomteshwara statue, Karnataka/ Golden temple, Amritsar and Ashoka’s pillar, Delhi (or one important stupa), we might overcome various objections put forth by other Users. 
2. Cultures may better be represented by show casing Durga puga/procession  (Bengal), Ganpati pendal/procession (Maharashtra), Diwali illumination (North India), Onam (or Ayyappam) celeberation (Kerala), Kumbh Mela scene etc. 
Please consider. Thanks.
Wiki dr mahmad 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you. Taj has nothing to do with "culture", it should be moved to some other section, preferable to history section. Also there is no image related hindus. Hindus are little over-secular that they feel it is shame to call themselves so. Vital brick 1 03:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taj debate: My two cents ! 

message: I don't really understand why there is no link to the caste system. It's one of the most distinguished key-terms, that is, it's significantly related to India and its people but is not indexed in this article. Is there any reason for this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.215.108 (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caste system 

message: Does anyone know why Archive 37, 38 and 39 don't show up in the display?  Also, why is Archive 28 displayed as Archive 18?  (I think these problems may have begun with the automated archiving, but I'm not sure.)  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see Template_talk:archive box.  The feature has been altered for performance reasons and a new solution has not been implemented yet.  (John User:Jwy talk) 08:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: This:
:Due to national pride and sensitivities, South Asian nations now insist that, use of the word "India" should be restricted to describe only the present "Republic of India" and should avoid including its other South Asian neighbours in it. Further, they argue that the Indus valley civilization was shared by present day Republic of India and Pakistan and this fact should always be explicitly stated. In order to be neutral, and in fareness to both sides, the International scholarship is now careful in the correct usage of these 'politically loaded' words.
was edited into the India (disambiguation) page by Wiki dr mahmad.  I think it inappropriate there as - well - its a disambiguation page for quick access to the various uses of the word and not for the discussion of the word.  I experienced first hand some of the difficulties of this topic when I attempted to standardize the dab page, so I know there is at least some truth to this statement.  I would suggest a some mention of this difficulty on this page - or a short mention and further details on a referenced page.
I don't have the citations to create such content and, frankly, am far enough removed from the issues that I prefer not to get in the middle of any discussion that might ensue - but I think it is clearly a topic that should be addressed  in Wikipedia.  (John User:Jwy talk) 09:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complications about use of the word "India" 

message: hello  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.63.28 (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, how are you? Welcome to Wikipedia. If you need some help, please ask us. Saravask (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hello 

message: Why was  
Hindustan (), which is the Persian word for “Land of the Hindus” and historically referred to northern India, is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India.
changed to
Hindustan (), is also occasionally used as a synonym for all of India
59.182.42.143 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Old version reinstated.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the "Hindustan" etymology shortened? 

message: According to the latest list released by IMF for 2007, India is now 3rd largest economy in PPP terms ahead of Japan. Please update. --74.140.120.11 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done Nikkul (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: user:nikkul, please don't keep inserting the PPP listing first.  PPP calculations, while aiming to be more comprehensive are also less accurate.  This is especially true in view of the IMF's determination last week that the PPP computations for China and India need to be reduced by 40% on account of the higher price levels in both countries.  (That also means that the PPP ranking that you changed above will soon have to be changed again in the opposite direction.)  The countries who do list their GDP standing, all list nominal GDP ranking first and then (only sometimes) the PPP ranking.  As I have explained in the edit summary, please see the People's Republic of China page, as well as United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan pages.  This page itself always had the nominal ranking listed first until you started fiddling with it.  Please desist.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can someone who can please put the GDP (PPP) and per capita rank here? I don't know why it is missing it. User:rotinajeht  —Preceding comment was added at 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Nominal GDP figure is also inaccurate. India's nominal GDP is now over one trillion dollars according to several news articles but if that is not a compelling enough source, the 2006 World Bank/IMF estimates still place it at 900 billion.99.238.137.107 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update economy size 

message: Someone please change the fact that BSE is India's oldest stock exchange. The Calcutta stock exchange is the oldest stock exchange in India (maybe in Asia too).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.77.169 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Requested 

message: user:Nikkul has stated above that the Wikipedia pages of the majority of the world's nations mention foreign (and/or military) relations in their leads.  On the basis of this statement, he has seen fit to add the sentence, "India is a founding member of the United Nations, Non-Aligned Movement and SAARC as well as an active member in the WTO, G8+5, and G20; India is also a nuclear power."  It turns out, however, that user:Nikkul's statistics are grossly inaccurate.  A majority of the country pages do not make any such mention in their leads.  In fact, 135 out of 184 country pages do not mention foreign relations, G-8, NATO, WTO, G20, UN, nuclear power etc. in their leads.  This list of these nations is given below.  (In it, a handful of European nations mention EU in the context of having no border controls (under the Schengen agreement) and a common currency; two CIS countries mention the UN in the context of their former soviet republic's history; a handful of ex-British colonies mention independence under the Commonwealth in describing their history.)  In any case, the total number of such countries in 11 and indicated in parentheses below.  Even without them, a substantial majority of the country pages do not have any mention of foreign relations.
Canada, Spain (mentions EU/Schengen), Brazil, India, Australia, Turkey, Sweden (hosts Red Cross and WTO), Taiwan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, South Africa, Ireland, Argentina, Thailand, Venezuala, United Arab Emirates, Chile, Israel, Colombia, Singapore, Philippines, Nigeria, Egypt, Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR founding member of UN in history), New Zealand, Kuwait, Peru, Kazhakstan, Vietnam, Qatar, Libya, Angola, Ecuador, Sudan, Belarus (Bylorussian SSR founding member of UN, in history), Oman, Syria,  Serbia, Dominican Republic, Tunisia, Guatemala, Lithuania (EU/Schengen), Sri Lanka, Kenya, Lebanon, Turkmenistan, Costa Rica, Latvia (EU/Schengen), Yemen, Uruguay, El Salvador, Cameroon, Cyprus (EU/Schengen; independence within Commonwealth), Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Benin, Niger, Laos, Barbados, Fiji, Malawi, Mongolia, Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Mauritania, Swaziland, Rwanda (independence within Commonwealth), Togo, Suriname, Lesotho, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Eritrea, Cape Verde, Antigua and Barbuda, Bhutan, Gabon, Paraguay, Uganda, Senegal, Honduras, Nepal, Equitorial Guinea, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Republic of Congo, Cambodia, Chad, Mauritius, The Bahamas, Mali, Burkina Faso, Papua New Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago (Port of Spain candidate for ...), Ivory Coast, Panama, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Jordan, Myanmar, Ghana, Tanzania, Brunei, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bolivia, Zambia, Botswana (independence within Commonwealth), Jamaica, Saint Lucia (independence within Commonwealth), Burundi, Maldives, Guyana, Seychelles, Djibuti, Liberia, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Vanuatu, East Timor, The Gambia, Solomon Islands, Guinea Bissau, Dominica, Tonga, São Tomé and Príncipe, Kiribati, Somalia, Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq.  
This list does not included small states in Europe (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Vatican City) and the Pacific (Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Tuvalu) or dependencies (Greenland, none of which mention foreign relations, etc. in their respective leads.  If those are included as well, then 146 out of 195 national pages do not mention foreign relations in their leads.  
Given such a overwhelming majority, and given the many previous consensuses on this page against any such mention, I am reverting user:Nikkul's edit.  I would urge him not to keep pushing these edits and needlessly waste everyone's time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: user:Nikkul, I don't know what game you are trying to play, but you can't copy and paste the same long post here from a different section above as you did in this edit and then change the date stamp on the post, as you did in this edit.  Please refrain from doing so.  If you persist, I will ask for admin help.  Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even I am of the opinion that foreign relations should not be mentioned in intro paras. Thanks. --Mellisa Anthony Jones (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Foreign relations" in the lead: the correct numbers 

message: Since user:Nikkul has persisted in making edits without first discussing them on the talk page (and has thus flagrantly disregarded the long-standing consensus on this page), and since he has chosen to ignore my warning in the section above, I have now asked for admin help.  For the record, user:Nikkul first tried to add sentences about foreign relations in the lead (without prior discussion).  As he was prevented from doing so, he has now attempted to remove, again without prior discussion, mention of poverty, illiteracy and malnutrition from the lead, a sentence that have been a part of the stable article for more than a year. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, excuse me. Both Indonesia and Cameroon discuss political problems in the introduction. Moreschi  If you've written a quality article... 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the countries that Nikkul claimed do not mention any problems in fact do. Chad (Chad remains plagued by political violence and recurrent attempted coups d'état, and is one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in Africa; most Chadians live in poverty as subsistence herders and farmers.), Libya (The country is led by Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, whose foreign policy has often brought him into conflict with the West and governments of other African countries.), Pakistan (political instability), South Africa (Racial strife between the white minority and the black majority has played a large part in South Africa's history and politics), Peru (poverty level around 50%), Israel (Israel has been in conflict with many of the neighboring Arab countries, resulting in several major wars and decades of violence.), Belgium (cultural conflicts are reflected in the political history) and Nauru (its environment severely degraded by mining) all mention problems of some sort in their lead. GizzaDiscuss © 05:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[user:Nikkul]]'s persistent undiscussed edits 

message: In the subsection 'History', no mention is made of the large Nanda Empire, which predates the Mauryan Empire. Nanda Dynasty could come as the second para of this subsection. Authorised editors of this protected article may please see what is needed to be done. Thanks Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanda Dynasty: Mention is needed? 

message: I suggest the first sentence in demographics be shortened. Repeating that India is the world's largest democracy three times in the article (once at the top, once in government, and once in demographics) is quite enough.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.97.146 (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Removed the redundant info from Demographics. KnowledgeHegemony 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: :contributor of so called 'arabic numerals'
:contribution of 'zero' to the number system
:ISRO and its achievements  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajithps (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  other topics needing mention 

message: - River Yamuna is misspelled as Yamunda
- River Mahanadi is misspelled as Manahadi
- River Godavari is misspelled as Godavara
- River Krishna (south of Godavari) is wrongly named as Tapati
- River Kaaveri is misspelled as Kasveri
- River Bramhaputra is misspelled as Bahramputra
These are just a few I could find in 2 minutes. Pleas replace this map with a better one, or remove it until we can find a better one.
Thanks
Balu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.145.54.15 (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topography map of India has multiple mistakes. 

message: Military image has been updated with the AAD missile image.--Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the image, but it is low resolution and it is doubtful that the uploader User:Roghov is the copyright-holder for this and other images he has uploaded - therefore it might not fall under GFDL. Hope we can find a better image than the current Agni-II image though ... Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 09:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I lime the site very much  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.176.51 (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I dont like the image cuz you cant really see the acutal missile and also cuz its in the dark and rather unclear. I am for the agni missile. Nikkul (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm sure nuclear missiles are cool for representing "military", but I am not so sure they are appropriate as epitomizing "foreign relations". It is strange to combine the two topics in a single section anyway. E.g. the Germany article treats these topics as two separate h3 sections. dab (𒁳) 16:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I too think the INS Tarangini image is a good choice for the section as it relates to both the (incongruous) subjects of 'Military' and 'Foreign Relations'. Comments ? Abecedare (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ship image would be misrepresenting the military since this ship is not used for military reasons. I feel that we should keep the agni image since it shows India's military development. Nikkul (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The pic is hard to see. I have to tilt my head to get a good view. I will try finding other images. I think the T90 image is perfect for the section Nikkul (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military section image 

message: It is quite old. Can someone with clear English pronunciation read the article and create a new spoken version?198.62.10.11 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow the instructions stated below:-
#Record
#:(optionally, see reading guidelines (under construction) for help on how to read an article when recording)
#Upload
#Add to article
#Add to Spoken articles list
KnowledgeHegemony 15:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Indian accent or American accent? Nikkul (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indian off course. Isn't this obvious? Desione (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken version 

message: right|thumb|This image is of better resolution.
THe image is on Sukhoi Su-30MKI and NOT Sukhoi Su-30. PLease make the correction. --74.140.120.11 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sukhoi image 

message: We can add in Geography section one more picture of most important river of India i.e Ganaga/Ganges representing its strong relations with culture of millions of people in India. We can add Kumbh mela picture organized around this river which also represents largest religious/non-religious gathering anywhere on the face of humanity. Such a picture will speak 1000 words at once, which ofcourse we need in this article that represents huge nation like India. This will also show strong relation between geography and culture of masses of this nation. 
Waiting for what others think! Thank You -  Holy Ganga  talk  14:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added and I support adding a pic of the ganges..its the most important river in India. And also the most important geographical element in the country Nikkul (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic for Geography section 

message: should I propose here to add this picture to the "culture" chapter? Is it Ok? what do you think? HornK (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture of people praying in [[varanasi]] 

message: The Vedic period is the Aryan period of India which isn't mentioned in the history but it's an important part of the history of India and should be noticed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.173.29 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vedic period in history of India 

message: Why  is Ayurveda mentioned under the sports section? I believe it should be moved to a more appropriate section. Rajamouly (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ayurveda under sports section 

message: Lot of sections deleted since I visited the last time!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.104.1 (talk) 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The India page seems to be very volatile just like Indian share market. Sections have been cut down, merged separated, deleted ....what not. Everyday there is a new image replacing an existing one. One day I visited the flora & fauna section it had a tiger image, next time, I noticed a giant Indian squirrel and today its a peacock. This page is far from what wikipedia calls stable. --gppande «talk» 08:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to Languages, Religions sections? 

message: The article has become too large to qualify under WP:SUMMARY style and also WP:FACr. Since the last time I looked at it, it has grown at least 30%. If this trend continues (i.e. addition of material here rather than topic specific pages), soon we will have to nominate it for WP:FAR. Right now, it fails several FA criteria badly. --Ragib (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the WP:OWNers of the article don't want anyone to touch it, contrary to Wiki's Be Bold policy. It may mean FAR is the only plausible solution. GizzaDiscuss © 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The same is happening on Mumbai, where I raised the issue in vain on the talk page, as did Nichalp (related to images) on the India portal.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size explosion 

message: The Article is mainly written in Indian Standard English, but there is some use of American Standard English. Since the page is about India, it is evident to use Indian Standard English, very similar to British Standard English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.152.147 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American English 

message: F&f, "Home to the Indus Valley Civilization and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent..." isn't outright false, but it is positively pathetic just in terms of tone. It shouldn't grace a FA for a day, let alone two years(!?). That's just style ("home to"? "vast"?). In terms of WP:DUE, how is it defensible to name a prehistoric culture in para 2 of the lead to India, but subsume historical items of tremendous notability (Maurya, Gupta, Mughal empires) under a cheesy "vast"? I'm sorry. This isn't the worst bit of prose on Wikipedia, of course, but what is it doing in the lead to a Featured Article? This should be a no-brainer, fix and move on. dab (𒁳) 13:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ) I only just noticed this.  Let me think about it.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: There have been long discussion on this before and the current wording was arrived at after much back and forth.  Please read talk archives from Jan-March 2007.  I understand you point, but this is an extremely (nay, impossibly) abbreviated history (in a lead).  However, the links are provided and a reader can easily read up the details there.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: My edit was reverted last time but I really think its a needed constructive edit. As things stood before it leaned towards a rather simplistic and erroneous view of history that the British 'owned' India for 200 years. That it was a part of the UK but denied the vote and all that. Of course it didn't directly say that but that's the way it read to me. It wasn't the main focus of my edits thoughThat would be that I really think it needs mentioning that there were at least two different periods in European domination of India- first was all the informal stuff with the EIC dominating at the end and second was the actual British empire. Quite different periods of history and 1858 is a pretty significant year in Indian history which needs mentioning just as much as 1947 does. It was afterall when 'India' was founded. --Him and a dog 11:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been long discussion on this before and the current wording was arrived at after much back and forth.  Please read talk archives from Jan-March 2007.  I understand you point, but this is an extremely (nay, impossibly) abbreviated history (in a lead).  However, the links are provided and a reader can easily read up the details there.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Empire,East India Company, etc...

message: Hi. Please revert this user's actions. If I remember correctly, India is in Asia, and has been for the past 5 million years. The last time it was in South Africa was 100 million years ago. I have already reverted this user twice, reverting twice more will result in 3RR, so please revert this edit. It has stated it is in south Asia for a long time. Seriously, if someone moved India to Africa, the global climate will be in big trouble. Please help. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is simple vandalism. Simply revert the edit and warn the editor. If he/she persists, they will be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even 200 Ma ago, India wasn't part of Africa as such, but of Gondwana, a supercontinent that included Africa, India, South America, Australia and a few other small land masses in modern times. GizzaDiscuss © 23:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{user|Agekm}} insisting India is in Africa 

message: Just like to point out that India's GDP(PPP) per capita information has changed on the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita page. IMF estimated data published in April 2008, ranks India differently. The information on the India page should be updated to reflect new data.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.138.200 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating GDP(PPP) per capita information 

message: Surely India declared independence from the United Kingdom? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, AFAIK, Republic of India didn't "declare" independence. The independence was granted by the Indian Independence Act 1947 of the British Parliament. --Ragib (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: British colonial rule is fine I guess or is British Raj the correct term?  KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  British Raj --gppande «talk» 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what part of the text is this confusion about?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British colonial rule 

message: Can more editors please watchlist the Template:Indian image rotation, which for the past three months has seen (AFAIK) unilatreral and undiscussed changes by User:Nikkul, many of which I think were inappropriate (list of changes). For example:
* :Image:Ophrysia superciliosa hm.jpg was replaced by :Image:MumbaiClimate.jpg, the latter being a silhouette image of two palms, which while artistic, has minuscule encyclopdic value since the reader cannot even see the objects of central interest.
* The selected picture :Image:Panthera_tigris_tigris.jpg was replaced by :Image:India_tiger.jpg (click on the images to see why I think this was a bad idea)
* The high-resolution :Image:Sakyamuni_Buddha.jpg image was replaced by the low-resolution, and highly colour saturated, :Image:BuddhaTwang.jpg. 
* Besides that, several of the captions added or modified by Nikkul are in my opinion sub-standard, especially for an FA article; example 
** Today's version of the page contains the image :Image:Shiva_Statue.png with the caption "Lord Shiva is one of the principal deities of Hinduism", without any mention of what is actually pictured. (The image itself is iffy for the page, but I'll leave that aside for the moment)
** Today, Nikkul, modified the caption on the :Image:SU-30MKI-g4sp.jpg image from "The Sukhoi Su-30MKI is part of the Indian Air Force" to "The Indian Air Force is the world's second largest air force" sourced to . Again the new caption failed to say what was pictured; additionally it was POV and misleading since a reader is not expected to know that by "second largest" one means that IAF has the second largest number of personnel.
** Nikkul changed the caption on :Image:India tiger.jpg from "The Bengal tiger, threatened by poachers and smugglers, faces declining population levels and possible extinction." to "The Royal Bengal tiger is India's national animal." Normally I would assume good faith and disregard this, but its hard not to interpret it as POV pushing given the consistent pattern of behaviour.
So what can we do ? I don't wish to go back to the days when each image change on the India page, required mega-bytes of heated discussion; but I think there should be some minimal attempt to invite input before adding/replacing content (perhaps following the WP:DYK/WP:PINSPC model of inviting comments rather than trying to build wide consensus in each case).
Secondly, I see that several editors have raised concern about Nikkul's adding/removing pictures from India, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore etc: for instance Nichalp, Dwaipayanc,  Gppande,  thunderboltz,  Arejay and now, me. I wonder if we can have a consolidated discussion about this issue (perhaps at WT:INB), instead of dealing with it piecemeal. Note that I am not seeking any sanctions/probation against Nikkul, who I think does some exemplary work in getting images onto wikipedia from flickr; however it would be useful to reach some general consensus on the number and quality of images that is thought appropriate on India and India city pages. 
Comments and suggestions are invited!. Abecedare (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the link to Image Rotation Discussion, where some users did arguably express support for some of the changes Nikkul made. Please note that I am not aiming to start a discussion on the individual decisions here, but rather the process and judgment that we should use in the future. Abecedare (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello there Abecedare, I understand your concerns, and the way you clearly mentioned that you are not aiming to start a discussion on the individual decisions here, but rather the process and judgment that we should use in the future.    
But still as a fellow Wikipedian and a friend, who is also associated with WP:IND I would like to request Nikkul to abstain from 'glorifying' (not the apt word I guess) India on Wikipedia, which we as nation loving Indians tend to do, at times unintentionally, influenced by the "India shining" wave sweeping the world media. I have noticed that you have tried removing the 'negative' aspects of India from the lead related to poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition etc. However these are facts, which can't and should'nt be hidden. 
Like Abecedare, I too admire your efforts in getting quality pictures from flickr to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Thanks, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I've rv'd all the unilateral and deceitful edits to the India rotation template made by user:Nikkul.  He's been doing this for ages, and needs to be dealt with boldly.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he is making unilateral edits again. I though adding a phrase like 'fellow Wikipedian and a friend' would get him involved in this discussion. But now I guess the only solution is to appoint someone as the 'admin' for this particular page. He/She shall have the authority to decide whether consensus is for or against (on the basis of discussions on the talk page). Something like the WP:PROD or WP:FAC or even WP:FP... Or else this template is going to be a failure. The person should be someone who has not uploaded any of the nominated pictures. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, user:Nikkul never tires of prevaricating.  What was this vote?  Would he like to personally query all the 18 people who voted to keep the Toda image, in contrast to the 17 who didn't, whether they had all suddenly changed their minds?  Enough with the lies.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

text: By the time the "most recent vote" was held, most people had tired of your antics.  Indeed, I myself, didn't vote "for" the Toda image, only said that the vote was already over.  So, perhaps, you can delude yourself that the Toda image was voted out 9 to 0.  Of course, convincing others to share in your delusion, is an entirely different matter.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh now you've started making excuses as to why you were the only vote. Wikipedia relies on consensus and we had clear consensus against the Toda hut image. Nikkul (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As Nikkul's count above clearly shows, the Toda pic was voted out.  Not just voted out... it was also argued by many that it was UNDUE.  A user:Fowler&fowler deluding himself that he only abstained from the vote is irrelevant to the consensus that the Toda pic has no place in this article. Sarvagnya 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain, Mr. Sarvgnya, in your usual unsurpassed gracefulness, how 18-17 is the same as 0-9?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can YOU, Mr. Fowler, explain why it was 1-9? It was not like anyone was physically banned from voting for the toda image. Why were you the only one to vote? The 17-18 and the 1-9 vote shows that the Toda image should not be included. There was never consensus or significant majority to keep the toda image, while there was consensus to remove it from the rotation. Stop wasting everyones time, Fowler Nikkul (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images (again ... sorry) 

message: It's time to change the Su-30MKI image with a new one. What about this image. Since the missiles and Air force section is covered, let the selection be from the IN section.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military image 

message: "Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam arrived in the first millennium CE".  From what I know, Christianity arrived (by St Thomas) 20 years after Jesus' death. --RaviC (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity in India 

message: population of Navi Mumbai is currently 2mil  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.41.134 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navi Mumbai more populated than thane 

message: I have wonderful pictures of India (really nice) and I dont know how to put upload them or if i have permission to do so....can someoen tell me simply how to put them up and if i have permission to do so?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.82.152 (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have wonderful pictures of India 

message: I think we need to have a science and technology section (or a paragraph in the economy section) to show India's achievements in the field because they are important to the country. 
apan]], a featured article, has such a section. Germany, a featured article, also has a science section. Beligium and Israel are also featured article with this section. South Korea has a Science and Technology section, as does China, UK, USA, Brazil, Argentina, Greece, Finland, Portugal, Bulgaria, Poland, Austria, and many other countries which I do not have time to look up. Other countries, like Chad, may not have this section because they are much smaller and do not have the money and resources to launch satellites (like ISRO does) or have nuclear technology like India does. Hence, science and technology is not a big part of their country. Still, Science and Technology in India is a vital part of the country's Electronics, Space, Defence, Nuclear, Biomolecular, Medical, Environmental, Agricultural, etc. needs and this page needs to address this just like the countries listed above.
I know there was a straw poll before, but if there is consensus to add a science and technology section now, we can add it now. Let's discuss this here. Cheers Nikkul (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, and would suggest that you develop the article Science and Technology in India first before starting yet another straw poll. --Ragib (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, per Ragib.  AreJay (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, per Ragib and AreJay.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto We can add a summarised version of the sub-article once it has progressed to a certain extent. That would be a better option than drafting the section on an FA. GizzaDiscuss © 23:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science and Technology 

message: here are the true facts ->
    * India won icc cricket t20 championship,South africa,2007
    * India runners up in cricket in worldcup 2003
    * india won world cup in 1983
The Indian Squad that won the 1983 World Cup comprised:
   * Mohinder Amarnath
   * Kirti Azad
   * Roger Binny
   * Kapil Dev (captain)
   * Sunil Gavaskar
   * Syed Kirmani (wicketkeeper)
   * Madan Lal
   * Sandeep Patil
   * Balwinder Sandhu
   * Yashpal Sharma
   * Ravi Shastri
   * Kris Srikkanth
   * Sunil Valson
   * Dilip Vengsarkar
Raunakroy --Raunakroy (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This page isn't fully protected so there's no need for administrator intervention. As soon as your account is autoconfirmed (4 days old with at least 10 edits) you can add this yourself. However, if there is not consensus for the addition it may be reverted (and at a quick glance, this information doesn't look appropriate for the main India article). Trebor (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Cricket sport section