Talk:India/Archive 5

message: The practice of Sati continues till this day..mostly due to religious sanction TerryJ-Ho 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You are a shame Mr.TerryJ-Ho. 

message: The problem here is that each side in the debate is trying to show that the westernerers or the Indians had more influence on the abolition of Sati. The easiest way to resolve the dispute is to just say that they both had influence, and don't say one way or the other whose influence was greatest. That is what I tried to do with my most recent edit. I'll even give you a citation to a scholarly source.HeBhagawan 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't see your message when I wrote mine.  How about the following: The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati as a result of the joint efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, and Raja Rammohun Roy."  (I don't know that Brahmo Samaj did much outside of what Raja Rammohun Roy did.)Fowler&fowler 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The problem here is. . .

message: The practice of Sati continues till this day..mostly due to religious sanction TerryJ-Ho 11:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You are a shame Mr.TerryJ-Ho. 

message: The problem here is that each side in the debate is trying to show that the westernerers or the Indians had more influence on the abolition of Sati. The easiest way to resolve the dispute is to just say that they both had influence, and don't say one way or the other whose influence was greatest. That is what I tried to do with my most recent edit. I'll even give you a citation to a scholarly source.HeBhagawan 14:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't see your message when I wrote mine.  How about the following: The British also began implementing social changes, such as the abolition of sati as a result of the joint efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Christian evangelists, and Raja Rammohun Roy."  (I don't know that Brahmo Samaj did much outside of what Raja Rammohun Roy did.)Fowler&fowler 16:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The problem here is. . .

message: This article is getting vandalized by anon ips every day by the dozens.Should I request sprotection?Hkelkar 00:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In almost every case, the vandalism was reverted within a minute or two, so I think there is no need for sprotection yet. --Ragib 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK.Hkelkar 00:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon vandalism 

message: The history of india (the country) doesn't start in the stone age, the earliest would probably 1930's.  Prior to 1948 it was just a collection of principalities. It would be just as absurd to talk about pakistan's history beginning in the stone age.  If this was an article on the indian subcontinent (a geographical area) then it would be appropriate to talk about ancient history.  The preceding was an unsigned comment left by an anonymous user from IP address: 24.36.18.146
::Actually it does. The history of India the republic begins at around the late 1800s actually, but India the "country" (country defined culturally rather than politically) begins millenia ago, same as articles on United States which discusses NAtive American tribes etc.Hkelkar 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HISTORY 

message: I see that Ganeshk has reverted the changes I made to the Geography section (I had added two pictures) with a comment that map should be enough.
I have used Wikipedia for quite some time now and it is my observation that India page has the least number of pictures about India compared to similar articles and makes it one of the tedious reads because of that.
Please take a look at articles on the United States, Japan, France, and Pakistan. They leave a better impression than the India page. They have what one may say "A country in pictures" - and India has what one might characterize as "A Country as one might describe in text" (and as one can see, it takes longer to say that too).
There needs to be more than an academic map (that makes hardly any impression - if at all). We need pictures that give some idea on what it is to be in India. India is one of the oldest human settlements, and it needs to have more than 10 pictures (3 of which are maps) to show for all those millenia.
Please do not revert the changes.
I intend to add more pictures to other sections as well.
PS -Does anybody have pictures of Akshardham? They should make an excellent addition. 
--Naresh 10:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi and welcome. I can understand your enthusiasm for adding more pictures. However India is a featured article, and it is preferred that any major change first be discussed on the talk page. And there have been long discussions regarding addition of images already which you may like to go through here. Also please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes -- Lost(talk) 09:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Images add to clutter and make the text difficult to read. The geography section is two paragraphs long. A single image is a perfect fit for it. The consensus on this talk page is a single picture per section is enough. Please discuss this further on this talk page and get a consensus. Please go through archive 14 that has similar discussions. -- Ganeshk (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. See What Wikipedia is not. Perhaps it would let you know more.  Shyam (T/C) 20:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are plenty pictures in the article for now.  Part of the problem with pictures is that everyone has their idea of what a good picture is and pretty much everyone can easily find and upload decent pictures.  As a result, pictures need to be added carefully and with consensus.  For example, I noticed that Naresh had added a picture of K2 to the Geography section (before it was removed).  The same picture is there on the Pakistan page and its inclusion in the India page would have been a recipe for controversy.  As I had suggested in the previous talk section on images (Archive 14), it may be a good idea to have a repository of India images either on the talk page itself (as created in Archive 14 by Ganeshk) or in Wikimedia Commons, and perhaps think about rotating images on the India page from the repository on a 2 or 3 month basis.  However, I agree with others above that adding too many images on the India page at any given time is not a good idea.  Fowler&fowler 22:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India page needs to have more pictures 

message: Basic details of the armed forces and the paramilitary. The ranking system. Second is the Platforms and weapon system used. Third Training, military spending future plans etc.Chanakyathegreat 08:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do agree with Chanakya. There should be a section about military and defence.  Shyam (T/C) 16:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military section need to be added.  

message: Shouldn't there be an entry to this page in Hindustan. That page is, instead, giving a link to indian subcontinent --seXie(t0lk) 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hindustan is actually a disamiguation link, so there is no concern to provide link for a disamiguate page.  Shyam (T/C) 21:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I'm talking about adding an entry to India at hindustan. Leave the other concern. Thats solved :) --seXie(t0lk) 08:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the Hindustan page, I've added parenthetically that India is identical to Republic of India.  Is that what you meant?  Adding a separate line for India in that disambiguation page (in addition to Republic of India) would create more confusion.  Fowler&fowler 13:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Misconception 

message: I noticed that in the Tricolour shown both on this page and the Flag of India page, the colour of the top horizontal band is really safety orange or blaze orange rather than saffron.  As such, it is much closer to true orange, for example in the Irish tricolour,  than it is to saffron.  A true saffron, white, and green tricolour should look something like: this].  This brings up a number of issues:
* What is the official Government of India version of the colour?  Well, the official website of the Indian flag says that the top band is coloured deep saffron.  Now, the adjective deep in reference to colour (and colour theory) means higher saturation and less brightness for the same hue.  For saffron whose (Hue, Saturation, Brightness) values are (45°, 80%, 96%), a deeper version would look like goldenrod with (H,S,B) = (43°, 85%, 85%) or dark goldenrod with (H,S,B) = (43°, 94%, 72%), but not the colour which is shown on the official website, which is a reddish orange closest to international orange with (H,S,B) = (19°, 100%, 100%) and a very different hue (H-value) than saffron or deep saffron.  What is the real (official) colour?  The Flag of India page doesn't give the (H,S,B) (same as HSV) values or even the RGB values.  Does some one have these values (i.e. the official version)?  (See update below.)
* What colour is actually used in the real (cloth) flags?  Does any one have recent first-hand information of this?  What are the official colours flown on government buildings? Are they true saffron, or deep saffron, or are they reddish-orange?
* Also, there seems to be too much similarity between the Irish tricolour and the Indian tricolour for it to be just coincidence.  The Irish tricolour was first flown by Irish nationalists in the mid-1850s.  There were of course links between the Indian home rule movement and the Irish Home Rule movement, with some figures like Annie Besant and Sister Nivedita with connections to both.  The web site says this about the Indian tricolour: "More unofficially, the flag was patterned on the other example of struggle against British imperialism, Ireland."  The Flag of India page mentions this casually a few times, but I wonder if there is more to the story.  Any information?  
Fowler&fowler 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be discussed on the Flag of India article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The colours of the Tricolour

message: As a result of user Chanakyathegreat's kindly making the statistics utility available, I compiled the statistics for the most popular country pages since August 2006.  India has shown a steady improvement both in terms of the average number of daily hits and in the relative ranking.  The format is:  (Country rank, Country, number of hits per day, overall rank).  Here are the statistics for the different months:
*August 2006 (India not in first 200): 
# United States.  34,677  (3)
# Morocco.  14,833 (25)
# Iran.  12,667  (42)
# Germany.  11,333  (61)
# Israel.  10,333  (75)
# Philippines.  8,333 (172)
# Switzerland.  8,333 (176)
# Colombia.  8,000  (195)
*September 2006:
# United States.  23,067 (8)
# Canada.  11,200 (28)
# Japan.  10,900 (32)
# Germany.  10,533 (34)
# Brazil.  10,167  (35)
# China.  9,100  (45)
# Australia.  9,067  (46)
# United Kingdom.  8,500  (54)
# Mexico.  8,400  (58)
# Israel.  8,000 (61)
# France.  7,867  (65)
# India.  7,733 (70)
*October 2006:
# United States.  23,742  (5)
# North Korea.  13,419  (21)
# Mexico.  12,258.  (26)
# Canada.  10, 968.  (33)
# India.  10,903  (35)
# United Kingdom.  10,710  (37)
# Germany.  9,355  (47)
# France.  8,935  (53)
# Australia.  7,613  (67)
# Israel.  6,677 (94)
*November 2006 (first 16 days):
# United States.  25,500  (8)
# India.  14,375  (25)
# Kazakhstan.  14,000  (27)
# United Kingdom.  13,125  (35)
# Australia.  12,750  (44)
# Canada.  11,625  (55)
# Germany.  9,750  (77)
# China.  8,875  (95)
# Netherlands.  8,750  (97)
# Italy.  8,625  (99)
One should be wary, though, for many reasons: (a) the utility is still being tested, so the statistics may be faulty, (b) there is a percentage error in these estimates that can vary between 10% to 30% or more, (c) sometimes the popularity of a certain page like Kazakhstan in November or North Korea in October may be a reflection of Hollywood movie releases or world politics ... or it may have to do with the dynamics of the academic year in schools and colleges.
Fowler&fowler 20:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Khazakastan has overtaken India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Darn it.  That Borat movie. :) Fowler&fowler 02:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about Borat, well he surely has made Kazakhstan popular! --Incman|वार्ता 20:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Latest ranking: 8) US ... 19) India, 20) Pornography, ... 29) United Kingdom Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steady increase in page [[India|India's]] popularity?

message: This article has deteriorated in quality since I last edited it. At 522 kb it is too bloated and needs to be pruned to about 35 kb which it originally was. I will begin shortly. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank god. Welcome back. Let us know if you want help. Saravask 07:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A copyedit and a refinement of the related topics would be helpful. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am assuming you meant 52.2 kb.  I did a search of other featured country pages.  Here are their sizes: Australia (49kb), Bangladesh (45kb), Belgium (43), Bhutan (42), Cambodia (40), Canada (78), Libya (54), Nepal (43), Pakistan (53), China (69), and South Africa (65).  Why does the India article have to be 35 kb?  Fowler&fowler 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The longer the article, the harder it is to read. Around 30 kb in raw page count is about the maximum that a casual reader can read in one sitting. Any longer, it becomes more tedious to read. I'm not saying that 35 kb be kept as an arbitary number. Having a lower count allows us to be more flexible when welcoming newer additions. If the size was set at 45 kb, it would very well have ballooned to 60 kb by now. Granted, most of the country articles are more than 35, but you've also accounted for infoboxes, references and other meta data. I also have worked on Bhutan and Nepal to FA status and at the time of it being promoted, both were 30 odd kb. It hasn't been maintained since then. As for other countries, I have commented about the same for SA and China in the past, even dragging China to FARC. Please note that at the time of promotion, a lot of these FAs were much lower in page size. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 02:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK.  That makes sense.  Thanks.  Fowler&fowler 03:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor quality 

message: We are very near to reach 10,000 revisions of the article. As last updated Mostrevisions on 03:33 UTC, 18 November 2006, India has 9,791 revisions. After that 157 revisions has been made as of 06:47 UTC, 20 November 2006. So India has 9,948 revisions as of now.  Shyam (T/C) 06:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaching 10,000 revisions 

message: What's the meaning and significance of the name "Bharat"?  Hindu/Indus was explained well, but what about Bharat?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.60.33 (talk • contribs) .
The land of Emperor Bharata. This land was ruled by Bharata
Also see Bharata (Ramayana)
Chanakyathegreat 15:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bharat

message: Please read the Successor state page and understand that concept. Pakistan seceeded from India on 14/Aug; its departure cannot transform India's own identity any more than the addition of Sikkim can generate for us a new identity. The secession of Bangladesh does not mean that the rump state did not remain Pakistan. Present-day India is recognized internationally as the successor state of the erstwhile empire: note that it retains the seat alloted to "India" in 1945 at the United Nations. This nuance of law was raised in discussions between the British, the Congress and the League in the run-up to partition and cannot be re-opened every other day. ImpuMozhi 02:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Successor state

message: Could someone help me out to fix the problem to fix infobox on the Hindi page. I have experimented it on sandbox. But it is very clumsy. Please do help. Regards,  Shyam (T/C) 10:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindi page 

message: The number of states is given as 29, which could be wrong depending
on whether one considers Delhi as a state. Excluding Delhi the number
of states is 28.
In any case, the map with states is wrong - the numbering of
states and the labels dont match for most states.
Somebody please correct this.
:Seems ok to me. Maybe you need to clear your cache (Purge India page). As for the labelling, are you using Linux? There was a known bug with Konqueror. Lastly, Delhi cannot be considered a state unless there is a Constitutional ammendment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the number of states and map