Talk:India

message: I've recently updated the first sentence of the demographics section to no longer say that India is the second-most populous country, as this is now false, as well as removed the note that speculated it would achieve the most population by 2023, as this of course has come to be true. However, I would like some input as whether or not to state both population figures in the first sentence, as right now it seems a little wordy. One possible choice would be to keep it how it was, saying that with the 2011 census figures India was the second-most populous country, and have a note saying that per estimates it is now the most populous. Another is how it is now, saying both the official census data and the estimates, and that with the estimates it is the most populous. Lastly would be a reversal of option 1, which would state only the estimates. Thus, there are three options:
*Option 1: "With 1,210,193,422 residents reported in the 2011 provisional census report, India was the world's second-most populous country." + note, "Estimated to be the most-populous country in 2023 according to the United Nations' World Population Prospects."
*Option 2: "With 1,210,193,422 residents reported in the 2011 provisional census report, and an estimated 1,428,627,663 residents in 2023 according to the United Nations' World Population Prospects, India is the world's most populous country." (current)
*Option 3: "With an estimated 1.4 billion residents in 2023 according to the United Nations' World Population Prospects, India is the world's most populous country."
The exact wording of course is not set in stone with this but I'd like input as to the general formatting of the first sentence. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Censuses and especially estimates are unlikely to be accurate about even the thousands, I would suggest 1.21 billion, 1.49 billion, etc. Or maybe 1,210 million, 1,429 million, whichever's more appropriate. As for the poll, I would like to see citations attached for proper evaluation. The current citation to the UN page does not verify the claim. I think it's widely accepted that India is the most populous country now, so we should not, in my opinion, be providing old data saying it was the second largest however many years ago, and we probably don't even need to attribute the claim to UN. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with not being overly specific, and with not needing to attribute to the UN inline. I would suggest further that the 2011 census is not needed in the opening sentence. It could however go into a later sentence, "The most recent census took place in 2011,...". CMD (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I will add the citations. While the 2011 census data is "old data", it is the most recent official data, and as this is a FA, I would think that would take precedence over the more recent estimates. With this in mind, both should be mentioned in the first or first two sentences, and just vaguely saying "The population is estimated to be..." can pose the question of who is making those estimates, in this case the UN's World Population Prospects, although the source for the estimates can be changed. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence of demographics section 

message: Kerala is the most literate state with 93.91% literacy to Kerala is the most literate state with 96.21% literacy The official kid (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2024 

message: Number of “States” is not mentioned in this topic “India” is quite unbelievable. 2A00:1851:8018:45D1:B45C:EB7D:351A:2820 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not very clear what you want done, but if you want the states listed, they already are in the  section. Please use the a "change X to Y" format and be more clear as to what exactly you would like changed. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please mention number of “States” India have. 

message: Is there any particular reason why the official name of India, written in Hindi in the Devanagari Script (भारत गणराज्य), is not shown in the infobox and instead only a romanization is included? It is common practice for articles about countries that don't use the Latin script to include the official name of the country in its native language, both in its native script and a Latin transliteration (see China, Saudi Arabia, Bulgaria, etc). I'm just posting it here on the talk page to make sure there's no particular reason against doing so before adding the official name of India in Hindi written in Devanagari in the infobox. Thanks! David Jiang (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:INDICSCRIPT. Abecedare (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official name of India in the Devanagari Script in Infobox 

message: The redirect INDIA has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Cremastra (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:INDIA]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: It should be Bhārata, not Bhārat. Bhārat would be भारत्. Pur 0 0 (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The suppression of the inherent vowel specifically at the end of words such as भारत is a fairly consistent phenomenon called "schwa deletion". Different transliteration standards deal with this in different ways. Some indicate all inherent vowels always, some don't indicate any inherent vowel that is omitted in pronunciation, and some don't indicate only certain omitted inherent vowels such as those that are subject to schwa deletion for example. Omission of an inherent vowel in the transliteration does not necessarily suggest the presence of an explixcit virama in the original script. 2A02:810D:8CC0:48C4:813E:CC10:B287:2E3 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correcting the ISO name 

message: Why is it not in any way indicated that "Bhārat Gaṇarājya" is a transliteration from Hindi? Even one of the cited sources specifies this (Routledge, p.108, "Official name: English: Republic of India; Hindi: Bharat Ganarajya"). In the current version of the first sentence of this article, it is unclear to the reader where the transliteration comes from and what it refers to. I would suggest to either remove the transliteration entirely or explicitly indicate that it is a transliteration from Hindi. 2A02:810D:8CC0:48C4:813E:CC10:B287:2E3 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing transliteration