Talk:Indian Plate

message: is the india plate oceanic or continental?
:Both. It includes most of the subcontinent of India, as well as adjacent (and quite wide) portions of the Indian Ocean. Geologyguy 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've seen quite a few animations of continental drift that show the Indian plate moving at an incredible rate from the southern hemisphere to plow into the Eurasian continent (such as this one). Is its speed of movement as remarkable as it seems? Why did "India" appear to move so much more quickly than other proto-landmasses? Is this discussed anywhere on Wikipedia? (I can't seem to find any information talking about it extensively.) RobertM525 21:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the speed of movement was remarkable and is well documented. Why? As far as I know, there is no good explanation.  This article  has some general information about plate tectonic "speeds", but I personally have never seen much in the way of explanation for the speed.  If anyone else has good refs, please speak up!  Cheers Geologyguy 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The explanation is its thickness.  I added a cite to a 2007 study out of Potsdam. Tmangray 20:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed of movement 

message: Article states India began colliding with Asia between 50 and 55 million years ago yet map shows India thousands of miles south at that time. Tiddy (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The illustration is indeed inaccurate. The position of Sri Lanka and Madagascar are also incorrect. It seems to have been a quick illustration made using the copy and paste feature of SVG editors. A better illustration of one hypothesis can be found in http://app.pan.pl/archive/published/app48/app48-661.pdf Shyamal (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing data on speed of movement

message: I've changed the article to reflect that it is in fact one of the 13 major plates, not one of the 39 minor plates. Robbiemuffin (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the article states this was historically a seperate plate but is now fused with the Australian plate. Why does the map of plates show it as a separate plate? 203.38.62.211 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-Australian Plate confusion 

message: *2012 Sumatra earthquake triggered temblors worldwide for nearly a week, research shows
*Unique features of 2012 Sumatran earthquake
*An Earthquake in a Maze: Highest-Resolution Observations Yet of the Complex 2012 Sumatra Earthquake
* Sumatran Earthquakes Building of Global Fault Line Pressures
* Sumatran quakes in April were part of tectonic plate breakup
--Pawyilee (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2012 Sumatran earthquake 

message: I'm unclear as to why this section exists. What is it trying to say about the Indian Plate, which would be the only purpose for its existence? I'm in favour of removing it as irrelevant to the article. Mikenorton (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm also questioning whether it's necessary. The articles should stay focused. There are several other list articles where these events are mentioned and I don't think we to duplicate that list style here. Examples in articles too often dominate the presentation and often lack sources. Dawnseeker2000  06:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent events section 

message: Plate tectonics is not my area---I'll leave it to an expert to evaluate this articleDating the India–Eurasia collision through arc magmatic records Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 366, 15 March 2013, Pages 163-175 Pierre Bouilhol, Oliver Jagoutz, John M. Hanchar, Francis O. Dudas and if appropriate incorporate it here.  It gives a somewhat different account of ref [14]'s soft collision: instead of a piece breaking off Northern Indian and travelling ahead, India collided with a string of islands, driving them into the Eurasian plate.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paper on dating the collision(s) 

message: Can someone knowledgeable update the current thoughts on the Indo-Australian plate? On this (Indian Plate) page the sentence "Once fused with the adjacent Australia to form a single Indo-Australian Plate" may give the wrong impression that the Indian and Australian plates stuck together from the get go and just recently broke up. Instead, the Indo-Australian Plate gives a date of a fusion some 43 million years ago, with a link to a non-scientific website. The video on this LifeScience page from a 2013 research paper suggests the Indian and Australian plates broke apart around 140 million years ago, near-simultaneously with their break from Antarctica. The possible later fusion is not discussed it seems. Thanks!  Afasmit (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Fusion with Australian plate

message: Great inconsistency throughout the article as to whether to treat this as a compound proper noun or not.  Can we agree one or the other and apply it consistently?  Kevin McE (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency - the two instances of "Indian plate" are now fixed. Mikenorton (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Plate or Indian plate 

message: Plate types in it's main part of continental of indian plate 161.49.97.247 (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science