Talk:India/Archive 11

message: I have found a couple of grammar mistakes in this article, including the following :
1. According to http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_comma.html , commas should be used "to separate three or more words." Most of the times in this article, commas have been used to separate the first from the second, the second from the third, etc. but not the last from the second last. Examples include the following (places where commas should be put are in bold print):
"Four major world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated here, while Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism arrived..."(second paragraph of introduction) "led by the Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Indo-Parthians and Kushans..."(second paragraph of history section) "such as the Chalukyas, Cholas, Pallavas and Pandyas..." (second paragraph of history section) "including Portugal, Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom..." (third paragraph of history section) "including INC, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Communist Party of India (CPI) and various regional parties." (first paragraph of politics section) "including bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi and yakshagana" (second paragraphs of culture section) "as ingredients, spices and cooking methods"(third paragraphs of culture section) "coastal states of West Bengal, Goa and Kerala..."(fifth paragraph of culture section) "...to the ancient martial arts, kalarippayattu and Varma Kalai"(fifth paragraph of culture section) "
2. Various other grammar mistakes include the following (bold areas indicate where changes should be made): "...although Cricket is the..."(capitalization mistake: fifth paragraph of culture section) "India is home to two major linguistic families: Indo-Aryan..." (second paragraph of demographics section: perhaps it should be changed to "India is home to the following two major linguistic families:") "India has three archipelagos — Lakshadweep, which lies off the southwestern coast; the volcanic Andaman and Nicobar Islands island chain to the southeast, and the Sunderbans in the Ganges Delta of West Bengal."(why is there a semicolon between the first and second clauses but only a comma between the second and third clauses?); Whenever statistics relating to money are given in USA, the symbol put before the number is US$, which, according to me, should be changed to either USD or plain $, not a combination of both. Johnsmithcba 17:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, You don't know the first thing about grammar.  The Serial comma, which you seem to be advocating, is standard for American English, but not for British English (or Indian English).  The other stuff is minor and mostly incorrect.   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is very clear on this (see here), "Proponents of the serial comma, such as The Elements of Style, cite its disambiguating function and consistency as reasons for its use. Opponents consider it extraneous in situations where it does not explicitly resolve ambiguity. Many non-journalistic style guides recommend its use, while many newspaper style guides discourage its use; Wikipedia, by having no consensus, allows either style and therefore enables the avoidance of ambiguity."  No ambiguity exists in any of the examples you quote above.  If you are saying that the serial comma is de rigueur on Wikipedia, please take it up on the talk page of the WP:MOS, not here.  OK? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, "the following" is a redundant word. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert in commas, but my understanding is that it is redundant to have a comma and and, as both are meant to mark a separation. And that's what I have learnt in schools.AJ-India 07:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar Mistakes 

message: In the intro section, the page lists the names of important cities. Hre  "Pune" must be included, as it is one of the most importan cities (7th largest city, IT capital, and "Oxford" of East) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaydeep.godbole (talk • contribs) 08:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Pune 

message: Does not anyone think that there should be a new picture of the Indian parliament replacing the one given now in the Politics section, one which would picture it in the daytime and would give it a bit more closeup of it? Universe=atom 16:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For whatever its worth, I uploaded a derivative of that picture on commons. A little closer up.. What do u guys think? Sarvagnya 11:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Univers=atom - that pic on the iloveindia site is most probably copyrighted by the site or by somebody else.  we cant use that on wikipedia.  Sarvagnya 18:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliament Picture 

message: Why does etymology section does not discuss etymology of word Bharat? Can somebody have a look at it? 
And the sentense "The Constitution of India and common usage in Hindi also recognise Bharat ......" should be 
"The Constitution of India and common usage in Indian languages also recognise Bharat ......"
Bharat is the name used by most of the Indian languages(in GUjrathi, Marathi, Tamil, Bengali, Telugu, Malayalam, Tulu, Konkani,Kannada and Hindi).
We should also include the etymology of Bharat. It is wrong to say India is the common name used but it is only used by Enlish speaking Urban Indians. Do not forget that 70% of Indians live in rural areas.
~rAGU
there is a full discussion at Etymology_of_the_names_of_India#Bharat. dab (𒁳) 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology of Bharat

message: Should not there be added additional links to main articles in the government section? For example, the following: 
Government of India
    Main Article: Government of India
         Sub Articles:
         -Politics_of_India#Central_and_State_Governments#Legislative_branch
         -Politics_of_India#Central_and_State_Governments#Judicial_branch
I am suggesting this because in the "Government of India" section, it talks about all of the three branches. Should not there be links to sub-main-articles for each of the three branches, leading into a more detailed account of each branch. Universe=atom 19:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional main-sub-articles 

message: Why is it so that in the External Links section, the second link in the "Government" sub-section overlaps the audio file template? Universe=atom 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links Section 

message: I feel the introduction of India is not very effective. It is only in the second paragraph that Indus Valley civilization is mentioned whereas the first paragraph talks about India being the seventh largest country in size and that it shares international boundaries with many other countries. I believe that introduction should be the "first things first" way and it is a fact (one of which all Indians are truly proud of) that India is the cradle to one of the 4 (or 5 if we count Greece) ancient civilizations.
When I was not satisfied with the "India" introduction, just out of curiosity, I checked the article on China (one of the other great ancient civilizations) and found it so strong that am reproducing the stronger bits here:
"... (China) is a cultural region, ancient civilization, and nation in East Asia. It is one of the world's oldest civilizations, consisting of states and cultures dating back more than six millennia..."
"China is one of the world's oldest continuous civilizations. It has the world's longest continuously used..."
The first extract is from the 1st paragraph. Even the 2nd para starts with emphasis on China being an ancient civilization (the second extract).
We should highlight Indus Valley right in the first para instead of relegating it to the second paragraph. Thanks Kunjite 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear ,  India is a featured article and the "flagship" of the India-related articles on Wikipedia.  It has been stabilized over many years and incorporates the work of many people.  Since you are a new comer to Wikipedia—the above post is your first edit—why don't you familiarize yourself with how country pages are written and read WikiProject Countries.  Since you seem to have many ideas on how to improve articles, why don't you sign up on the WikiProject India page and help with some articles that really need help?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph of the article says what is India (a country in South Asia), its significant ranks (population, size etc) and the geographic location and boundaries—this is needed in order to give the reader an impression of the country. Next paragraph deals with history (including Indus Valley Civilization)—after the reader gets an idea of the location, (s)he gets to know about sgnificant history. This structure maintains the flow. So, it'd not needed to change the lead.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: There has been a lot of activity since the 'protected' template was removed which has resulted in some undesirous changes and also vandalism.
--59.182.20.146 13:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; perhaps the semi-protection should be put back. Universe=atom 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hallelujah! It's put back! Universe=atom 10:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please revert India To its best version! 

message: Instead of the current picture of the Toda hut in the culture section, and the picture of the peacock in the Flora and Fauna section, how would the following pictures look, each respectively replacing their counterparts mentioned above:?
Image:PICT0633s.jpg|Some traditional cuisine of India
Image:Panthera tigris.jpg|the Bengal tiger, a traditional animal of India
Image:India average annual temperature map en.svg|Average temperatures in India; this picture would probably be added, not replace another picture
Please give your feedback. Universe=atom 15:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with the Peacock picture? It is the national bird of India and it is also considered sacred in Hinduism.  Toda hut image in the culture section IS starting to seem bit out of place though the more I think about it.  --Blacksun 09:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see anything wrong with the Toda hut. It look rather beautiful. Include some more ;pictures if you wish but dont remove that one. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I too am in favour of retaining the Toda Hut and Peacock pictures (note that both of them are Featured Images). Also please read the extensive discussion on the images included in the article in Archive 22 and Archive 23 (see in particular these discussions on  Toda Hut and  Peackock images). While reading the comments, keep in mind that users Indianhilbilly, XavierIcI, huniebunie, Coollemonade and Bangalorevenkat were all later found to be socks of Nikkul. Abecedare 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  The Toda Hut image is great, and we've already been through an enervating debate over it. 
Since the topic has been broached again below, I am reducing the last three posts below  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Universe=atom, Your "cuisine image" (which, BTW, is incorrectly labeled: it is not South Indian food and the bread is not dosa, but rather a piece of Naan) was also nominated by user:Nikkul here (see the link provided in "Proposal 2"), and has already been discussed.  BTW, I apologize in advance for what I'm about to say, but I hope you are not the same person as user:Johnsmithcba.  The reason why I ask is that I noticed that your edits are very similar to his edits, and because this page had a bad experience with sockpuppeteering by user:Nikkul in early March, and we are all wary of seeing it repeated again.  Having two accounts is not necessarily a bad thing, but I noticed that both you and Johnsmithcba had voted on the same side for the "Indian collaboration of the week" here.  If you and Johnsmithcba are not the same person, please accept my sincere apologies; if you are the same person, I would urge you to use only one identity.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the geography section can't take two maps (not enough room).  The question of replacing the existing map with yours needs to be discussed first.  As for the tiger image above, it is not clear that it is a Bengal tiger.  How do we know it is not a Siberian tiger or a Sumatran tiger?  I know it is displayed on the Bengal Tiger page, but they make the same mistake as well.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pictures 

message: It will be worthy to add these two, keeping in mind the 'cricket loving' and 'film crazy' countrymen. India without mention of Cricket and the film industry is incomplete.
How it can be 'sub-topic'ed can be seen in the article- Germany (also a featured article).
One can also take a tip of how climate is written under Geography. Just a suggestion...
At least some mention of Cricket and Bollywood or the South Indian film industry. 
Even the World Book mentions them.
--59.182.49.116 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it gives enough information about sports in   its paragraph in the "Culture" section. If not, perhaps some more can be added there (keep in mind, though, the summary style). And remember that if more information is added in the sports paragraph, probably more information should be added to other paragraphs as well, in order to balance paragraph length in the section. Adding information in all of the paragraphs, however, would increase the already border-line-length "Culture" section. So, the decision is yours. Universe=atom 14:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtopics - Sports and Entertainment under Culture 

message: In the second opening paragraph it is rightly stated: "Four major world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism originated here".
But without a source it looks "incomplete".
--59.182.33.156 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: Please correct the follwoing mistake : 
New Delhi is a state and not a union territory in India —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gr rathi (talk • contribs) 19:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Delhi is a state and not a union territory 

message: Ok, the image has been bothering me quite a bit recently, in an otherwise almost perfect article.  I think I might have voted for keeping it in the past but it seems to make less and less sense the more I think about it.  The tribal woman's image in demographics makes sense and their is good reasoning for it but the Toda hut, despite being a nice picture, seems very out of place in the culture section.  The biggest argument in favor of keeping the image, I believe, has been that it is FA image.  However, I think it fails miserably in representing any significant culture.  I mean, if you want to show tribal culture, their must be better images that can be found to depict that.  I believe that of all the potential images that can be picked in the culture section, this would be somewhere at the bottom of the list.  It just does not fit in the space it has been put into, imho. Not to mention, I do not think the image is supported by any kind of text in the culture section.  How about an image of a popular classical musician or bollywood - things that are actually mentioned in the culture section. --Blacksun 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thought that there is not text on the Toda Hut is exactly what caused me to write the New Pictures comment. I am in favour of removing the Toda Hut (even though it is a nice picture) and replacing it with something else. For example, the cuisine image would look good; please look in the comment "New Pictures" for the discussion on it and the Toda Hut and reply. Universe=atom 14:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see anything wrong with the Toda hut. It look rather beautiful. Include some more ;pictures if you wish but dont remove that one. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I too am in favour of retaining the Toda Hut and Peacock pictures (note that both of them are Featured Images). Also please read the extensive discussion on the images included in the article in Archive 22 and Archive 23 (see in particular these discussions on  Toda Hut and  Peackock images). While reading the comments, keep in mind that users Indianhilbilly, XavierIcI, huniebunie, Coollemonade and Bangalorevenkat were all later found to be socks of Nikkul. Abecedare 11:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  The Toda Hut image is great, and we've already been through an enervating debate over it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No it is not great.  Their is no text supporting it.  In the past that has definitely been used as a criteria for removing some of the other images in the article.  It makes no sense for a random Toda hut image to be there and do not even try to propose adding text for it in the article as their are far more significant things that have been turned down for the sake of space.  Furthermore, the fact that people keep bringing it up should IMPLY that MAYBE their is a NEED to CHANGE it.  It is not something critically significant to the article.  In fact, given its lack of significance to the overall article, it is an entirely a subjective choice.  I would imagine that a subjective choice that keeps causing problems should be given a long and hard look at instead of attempting to dismiss it as "yet another enervating debate." --Blacksun 08:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: However, no matter how good a picture may be, it does not fit in the article if there is no text on it. Does anybody see any text in the "Culture" section about Toda Huts, or even Indian homes in general, or do I need better glasses? Universe=atom 17:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an easy fix.  I have changed the caption.  The hut image is not about homes, but rather about (traditional) art and design—a topic discussed in the first paragraph.  Speaking of captions, some other images too could use more informative captions (without going overboard, of course).  Compare Australia, for example.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is quite a stretch, dont you think?  Furthermore, we already have an image of Taj for that architecture part of the culture section.  I would think that it would be far better use of space to represent something else like dance or sports (for instance) than put another "building." Compare Australia culture section. If you really want murals their are plenty of famous temples, some even world heritage sites, with murals.  --Blacksun 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: PS.  I would in fact ask the question, why is the Taj Mahal image there?  Taj Mahal is on every Indian website and is an instantly recognisable (and somewhat cliched) symbol world-wide.  That image doesn't add to a reader's knowledge of India, whereas the Toda hut image does.  Why not replace the Taj Mahal image with the "Sari fabric" image shown on the right?  The Sari image is a Wikipedia featured image, and the brocade shown is a syncretic art form with links to Mughal art etc.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike both of them.  Taj image for what you stated and Toda image because I do not find it relevant to the section.  Not to mention that tribal images are over-represented in the page currently.  However, in regards to Taj image, the fact that it is ubiquitous gives it relevance that is hard to ignore.  Encyclopedia has to be relevant - it is not our job (nor do we have the ability) to decide what is and what is not interesting.  To me the issue is clear - their are images far more directly relevant to the text and we already have another architectural image in the culture section + a tribal image in demographics. --Blacksun 13:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What is wrong with the Taj Mahal image? I think it fits in the article because, other than giving the reader an idea of why so many tourists visit India each year, it also gives the reader an idea of Mughal architecture at the time; by the way, it is also in perfect place in the text, where it talks about architecture and also mentions the Taj Mahal in particular. The Toda Hut image, though, seems to make some sense now, since the caption changed, but still, nothing in the entire "Culture" section mentions anything about it, though (it is between the festivals, sports, and clothes of India paragraphs; above the clothes paragraph is the one about the cuisines, above which is the literature one, above which is the music, above which is the one where it talks about the Mughal architecture and the Taj Mahal). As it can be seen, the picture is still a "solitary island" in the text where it is put. BTW, perhaps the caption should  also mention something about the tiny door, as it does in the image page. Regards, Universe=atom 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had already once in the past whined that the Taj pic was an eyesore.  Really.  It is an eyesore seeing it popup anywhere and everywhere from hotel menus to tourism brochures to wikipedia.  Now I realise that the 'eyesore' part has more to do with the front elevation that we get to see in 999 out of 1000 Taj photos.  Couple of years back my desktop had an awesome Taj wallpaper where it was pictured from atop and at an angle.  I've been searching for that but have never been able to find it.  I'd be grateful if somebody can find a good picture of the Taj in a different 'pose' and upload it on GFDL.  Sarvagnya 09:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are two pictures on flicker.com that I like.  Both pictures were taken by a gentleman called Captain Suresh, who seems to be a good photographer.  The first one has a group of boys playing cricket on the sandy river bank with the Taj Mahal as a backdrop (see here).  (It has the advantage that it combines sport and architecture, both of relevance to the culture section.) The other, my personal favorite, has some women and girls resting and seeking shelter from the mid-day sun, again with the Taj gleaming the background (see here).  The second picture too combines architecture with apparel (sari and salwar kameez), both themes of the culture section.) If there is enthusiasm for either of these pictures, we could try and get the gentleman's permission and then nominate the chosen picture for Featured Picture consideration.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there is a logical way to solve this problem of the Apatamis and the Toda Hut. First, we have to ask ourselves about where the image will be going. Well, the answer (the Toda Hut) is the "Culture" section. Now, what does the word culture mean. Well, it means way of life. So, a picture in that section should be about the way of life of most Indians. Now, since no one image of people, houses, etc. can represent India (reminder: population: one billion), there should be an image of traditional Indian items that everyone (or most people, for that matter) use, like, for example, the image in the cuisine section of the culture section in United States. (That, BTW, shows traditional items of the US, all in one image.) About the Apatami image, perhaps something like here would be better. Regards. Universe=atom 09:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The Indian population chart in the "Demographics" section is a great idea; however, does one like that exist? If the answer is no, perhaps the chart in the beginning of the "Demographics" section of United States could be used as a guide to make one. Universe=atom 14:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * Support: I think the population density map suits well in the "Demographics" section because it shows a great illustration of the main topic of the section. Perhaps it can even be nominated for FA status. Universe=atom 10:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err This is regarding Toda hut image in the culture section.  I think we should stick to that instead of debating about multiple images. --Blacksun 12:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Toda hut debate (yet again!)

message: The Ajanta caves image is barely distinguisable and is a very poor representation of Indian history.Nikkul 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Do you think that sharpening the image contrast would help? Or is a totally different image required? Saravask 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the Ajanta Caves image is fine. Universe=atom 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive tried looking at the image from several computers, and it takes a few seconds to make out wut the image is showing. It's very unclear/ indistingishable (spelled horribly wrong). Nikkul 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps ancient paintings were supposed to be in those indistinguishable brownish colours. Universe=atom 08:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikkul, I apologize in advance and I don't want you to take it the wrong way, but I'd like to warn you that a number of people are very suspicious that you and Universe=atom (and Johnsmithcba) are the same people.  I hope you are not trying to set up a "fake" exchange here to prove otherwise.  Be aware that Wikipedia has some sophisticated means to root out sockpuppeteers.  Again, you are very welcome to contribute, but please don't repeat what has not worked in the past.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fowler, I encourage you to do a checkuser on my account and universe=atom and johnsmith. Infact, I will even be a contact if you'd like. Please go ahead. I encourage it very much because I know how wrong your assumption is and I'd very much like to prove it. But until you do a checkuser and until you are found correct, please refrain from blaming. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • Nikkul 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, please stop blaming others of being sock accounts just because you have reasons of your own. Instead, use official means, such as checkuser, and check me nikkul with and johnmitcba, johnsmitcba with me and nikkul, and nikkul with johnsmitcba and me, and whoever else you think is sock of other account, because I know that I am innocent and am not a sock of any other account. Also, just because I agree or disagree with another person does not mean that you can go around accusing people of being socks, with absolutely no evidence behind your claims. Instead, I am again asking you to do a checkuser and give me an opportunity to make others stop picking on me as a sock. Universe=atom 08:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got this great image from flickr- I think this should replace the ajanta caves one since they both come from the same time period relatively.
 Nikkul 13:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ajanta Caves 

message: The Bank Note image is not free, and is copyrighted. Fair use claims are not applicable to trivial mentions of the note, as done via the caption in this page. I have removed the image, as it is not necessary for this article.
--Ragib 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Impropriety apart, I see no copyright statement on any Indian Rupee note.AJ-India 03:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted bank note image  

message: Please note that the president & the prime minister of India are both Doctorate. They need to be called Dr.A. P. J. Abdul Kalam & Dr.Manmohan Singh, respectively.
61.17.98.39 09:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The President of India 

message: Recently it was added tht India is also called Aryavart. Whereas the article on Aryavart says it is wrong to call the whole of India Aryavart. 
They condradict ?
--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I checked Etymology of the names of India as well. I have removed the statement from the article. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  India = Aryavart?? Condradiction! 

message: In the "Navigation" section that I recently merged out of the "External Links" section, the first template is the International Ties of India one, which lists all the international organizations of which India is part of. Then comes the Countries of Asia template; then, the Countries of South Asia template; then, the G15 template; then, the BRIC template. I was wondering if the templates of major organizations of which India is part of (e.g.: ASEEAN, WTO, SAARC, UN, ect.) should also be separately put (like the G15 and the BRIC, both of which are currently separately put). Regards. Universe=atom 18:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine. But it isn't looking very good, there's a lot of white space. But maybe it will look fine if more info is added....just for aesthetic sense can something be done to it...Ignore this if I m asking too much.
--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 07:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[India#Navigation|Navigation]] section 

message: A third name, Hindustan (Urdu/Hindustani:هندوستان/हिंदुस्तान, Hindi: हिंदुस्तां),  () (Persian: Land of the Hindus), has been in use since the twelfth century. It is commonly used to refer to India in Urdu/Hindustani. In Hindi, its usage is mainly for poetic effect.
Personally, I find Hindi-Urdu-Persian-Hindustani thing very confusing...
:Moreover, non- Indians may also find it so.. I guess. Any suggestions?
--59.182.6.215 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me explain . The typical Urdu (and Hindustani) name is HindustAn(iAS) but Hindi speakers normally use it as HinDustAM. Hindi speakers dont say "Khan"( the Muslim title) they say "KhaM"(IAST), nasalizing the last "n" .We can remove the brackets and form a proper sentence. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructuring:Etymology bits 

message: In the "Military and foreign relations" section, the first two paragraphs are about foreign relations of India, while the subsequent paragraph talks about the military. This is in direct contradiction of the name of the section, which, at first sight, would suggest that the information about the military would come before the information about the foreign relations of India. Of the following tasks, which one should be executed: Change the name of the section to "Foreign relations and the military" (as it is in Australia [FA]), OR change the text and make the paragraph about the military come before the two paragraphs about the foreign relations? Regards. Universe=atom 18:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Military and Foreign Relations" section 

message: the  tag is being added and removed repeatedly. Lets discus peacefully ?
 	
*I support its inclusion because not all readers will have configured their sytems to support indic scripts . i myself had the same problem when I first started reading Wikipedia and it was thanks to this tag that I came to konw how to configure it. If placing it at the top of the infobox is a problem , cant we put it below the infobox?--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  indic text tag 

message: I support having the Indic tag, but not at the top. It drags the whole info box down and makes the article much harder to read. Even tho most would like the tag in the article, I dont think most people would like it at the top. Lets discuss other options of placement. Nikkul 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it wouldnt hurt to place it below the infobox! Any disagreements? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it should be over the infobox. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 13:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indic Tag Placement 

message: Referring to 3rd template on top of this Talk page
When one clicks on [show] this is what it shows:-
→This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.              [hide]
*Additional information: 
** FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. 
** ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. 
** This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. 
** This article is a vital article.
 
:I am confused!?! --~KnowledgeHegemony~ 12:10, 10 May 2007
:: I have filled in the missing field. Abecedare 14:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale! 

message: Recently, I have moved the images in the "Politics," "Geography," and "Economy" sections to the left, in order to give a better balance between the two sides in terms of images. This edit, though, has been reverted by F&f, saying that it was "undiscussed". (BTW, I do not have to discuss every single edit, that I make, in the talk page.) So, does anybody else support this decision? If sufficient support is provided, I shall again put the images to the left. Regards. Universe=atom 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what some self styled watchdogs might thing, you dont have to ask for permission every time you want to so much as sneeze.  Go ahead and edit in good faith.  Be bold.  But always make use of the "preview" button before you "save".  Sarvagnya 19:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the imperative to be bold. However with heavily edited articles such as this one , from a large number of users , there should be some discretion: Go ahead and make an edit by al means. If is reverted once (which signifies that there is a disagreemnent) , and you feel it should be put back it is better to discuss on the talk page than to start an edit war. In my own case for heavily edited articles, or contested content I prefer putting a message on the talk page first and waitng for a response before I make a change. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont condone edit wars either.  But many times, it may be easier to show people what you propose to do it and then discuss it, than spend hours just explaining to a revolving audience what you even intend to do.  Like I said, edit in good faith... meaning you're not going to add nonsense.  If it is resisted(read reverted), then, you can always take it up on the talk page.  The problem arises only when some people decide resist it just beacause you got some esoteric grammar wrong or some such trivial issue(which can easily be fixed by them without having to resort to stonewalling on the talk page). Sarvagnya 06:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, they do not. I have reverted your edit (of the images) because it creates a better and more appealing balance between the two sides (left and right) in terms of images. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not exactly, and I have reverted. The Manual of style recommends a R-L combination, starting with a right-aligned image. The balance, which is optional btw, only applies if there are more than one image in a section. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I guess. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Some Images to the Left Side... 

message: I changed the  size to normal from small on the *this* talk page. As I felt that it was important to 'highlight' the fact that India is a featured article and that it is a previous 'Today's featured article' too.
But if you feel that the previous version was better please revert it, without any hesitation.
--~KnowledgeHegemony~ 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article History:India 

message: What the hell:?
India has always led in the educstion because THEY ARE SMART.
We lead in "educstion" because we are smart!!!!! --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehe~KnowledgeHegemony~ 06:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the lighter side :-) 

message: I sincerely feel the need to add info on India's space research developments and satellites launched by it. But where should I?
--KnowledgeHegemony 17:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill, being Indians we all want to improve this article. Don't be disheartened! But do keep in mind being a 'featured' article nobody wants to risk messing it up. That's why we need to slow down edits as 'haste makes waste'. Good suggestions will always be supported. Even I think your suggestion on quality of images is quite valid.
--KnowledgeHegemony 08:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not think that a section of that sort is required. After all, India has not made that many major contributions in that field, or has it? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For example? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Facts like India is one of the few nations which has launched its own satellites. It has its own launching station at Sri Harikota. Very few nations have achieved such feats. See:Indian Space Research Organisation
KnowledgeHegemony 09:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I am in favour of it now. However, in which section will you put it? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 13:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the problem.--KnowledgeHegemony 14:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One would generally think that the best solution would be to put it in the "Military and Foreign Relations" section, in the military part. Personally, though, I feel that the "Culture" section would suit better. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a point. The article should be balanced in terms of POV. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space Technology 

message: While the article claims to have a spoken version, all I can hear is the Indian national anthem playing. Did somebody replace the original recording?--Seraphiel 10:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, is there something I am missing? Did I play the wrong file?--Seraphiel 06:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's anything wrong. Did you play the right file? :Image:India.ogg? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I followed this link from the article itself. And it seems to be playing the same file that you just linked to. I tried again, and all I can hear is a rendering of the Indian national anthem with some extra stuff added. No voice recording at all.--Seraphiel 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the spoken article link from the article now.--Seraphiel 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess  you are playing the wrong file. I can hear a spoken article. --(Sumanth|Talk) 10:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can that be? Did you try the link I pasted above?--Seraphiel 10:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I downloaded the file  and played it in Windows media player (you need install a plugin for that).--(Sumanth|Talk) 10:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What difference does it make if I stream the file (using Wikipedia's built-in Java based player) or download and play it? It should give the same output, right? Why is it that I hear the national anthem playing?--Seraphiel 10:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Streaming doesn't seem to work for me. It shows some error and doesn't play the file at all. Someone else needs to check this--(Sumanth|Talk) 10:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken article? 

message: From the vote taken a few weeks ago , here are the results:
Those Who Favor Replacement [11]:
The Behnam, Sarvagnya, Abecedare, Nikkul, Effer, Sumanth, Haphar, Blacksun, Indianstar, Naresh, Ambuj Saxena
Those Who Favor Retainment [7]:  
Fowler&fowler, Ragib,  Ekantik,  Gizza, Saravask,  Nichalp, Madhu
It's certainly not as black and white as you put it. Please read the comments carefully before assuming that people voted in entiretly for removing/keeping. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Nikkul was closer.  Though, it certainly wasnt as black and white Fowler had counted it last time around. Sarvagnya 09:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Chanakyathegreat has just voted in favour of replacing the pic.  I have updated the scores.  Sarvagnya 09:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not too keen on the map of India.  It seems, well, sterile.  I'd rather, as I said in the last debate, have two contrasting pictures of Indian people. BovineBeast 13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, even my views match Bovine's. That's why I voted for Keep but add another pic too. --KnowledgeHegemony 14:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nichalp will argue that this will disturb the regional diversity...but there is none unless a hut represents the culture of AP, TN, Kerala, and Karnataka. Also, if we want regional balance, we can change another image in another section and make it an image from the north east. There is no condition that only the demographics image must be from the north east to preserve any sort of regional balance that apparently exists.Nikkul 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally support the addition of the Population Density map and the replacement of the Apatani image with it. Nikkul 14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the population density map is a good replacement because it shows the demographics of all of India, instead of just a small corner. Also, the votes show that most people are in favor of replacing it. So, the times are just right to do so. BTW, does anybody think that it is good enough to be nominated for Featured status? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KH - I am afraid, adding an extra pic is not an option here.  Grave concerns have been expressed over article size and 'unnecessary bloat' and it is feared that adding any more content/pics to the article will take it past the tipping point and the article may self destruct.  Sorry.  If you want an extra pic, start a new discussion about it and in my humble opinion, such a discussion may take the good part of the next six months to bear fruit.  There are far too many filibusters around here.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 18:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Some people just think that they own this page and that this page is their property. So, according to me, such a discussion will never get anywhere. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I am about to replace the Apatani image with the population density map due to the recent vote. If you have any objections, speak now or hold your peace forever. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 18:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ) Sarvagnya 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hallelujah! I never knew if this would happen.  Thanks all.  The Behnam 18:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics Vote Results 

message: I took a closer look at the previous vote and here is what I found.
The results of the previous vote were as follows -
Remove: Users The Behnam, Sarvagyna, Ekantik, Nikkul, Effer, Sumanth, Indianstar, Naresh, Incman, and Khazadum. + Chanakyathegreat. universe=atom, Total votes: 12.
Conditional keep(ie., "remove if replaced by a graph") - Users Ragib, Abecedare, Ambuj.Saxena, Blacksun, dab.  Total: 5
Keep: Haphar, Gizza, Nichalp, Saravask, Madhu, Fowler&fowler, Chanakyathegreat, Maquahuitl, BovineBeast, and user:129.125.7.218. Total votes: 9
Now since we have a very good replacement in :Image:India_population_density_map_en.svg, it is fair to count the "conditional keep"s as remove.
That would bring the tally to,
* Remove - 15 17
* Keep - 10 9
Unless there are any objections in the next few days, I will replace the existing Apatani pic with the pic above.   Sarvagnya 08:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chanakyathegreat has just voted in favour of replacing the pic.  I have updated the scores.  Sarvagnya 09:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not too keen on the map of India.  It seems, well, sterile.  I'd rather, as I said in the last debate, have two contrasting pictures of Indian people. BovineBeast 13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, even my views match Bovine's. That's why I voted for Keep but add another pic too. --KnowledgeHegemony 14:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nichalp will argue that this will disturb the regional diversity...but there is none unless a hut represents the culture of AP, TN, Kerala, and Karnataka. Also, if we want regional balance, we can change another image in another section and make it an image from the north east. There is no condition that only the demographics image must be from the north east to preserve any sort of regional balance that apparently exists.Nikkul 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally support the addition of the Population Density map and the replacement of the Apatani image with it. Nikkul 14:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the population density map is a good replacement because it shows the demographics of all of India, instead of just a small corner. Also, the votes show that most people are in favor of replacing it. So, the times are just right to do so. BTW, does anybody think that it is good enough to be nominated for Featured status? Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KH - I am afraid, adding an extra pic is not an option here.  Grave concerns have been expressed over article size and 'unnecessary bloat' and it is feared that adding any more content/pics to the article will take it past the tipping point and the article may self destruct.  Sorry.  If you want an extra pic, start a new discussion about it and in my humble opinion, such a discussion may take the good part of the next six months to bear fruit.  There are far too many filibusters around here.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 18:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Some people just think that they own this page and that this page is their property. So, according to me, such a discussion will never get anywhere. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 18:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I am about to replace the Apatani image with the population density map due to the recent vote. If you have any objections, speak now or hold your peace forever. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 18:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: ) Sarvagnya 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hallelujah! I never knew if this would happen.  Thanks all.  The Behnam 18:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Counting again

message: Has anyone thought of getting pictures from NE India featured? I'm sure our resident scout Nikkul can get some good ones. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why only the NE??KnowledgeHegemony 06:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What's the harm in gunning for featured status? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nikkul, BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange) is in Western India.--KnowledgeHegemony 06:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Following are some beautiful pictures from North-east India (even though some are from near-Northeast India and they do not relate to history):
Image:ZemathangGlacierView.jpg|The Himalayas in Sikkim
Image:Vaishno.jpg |The Vaishno Devi shrine in Jammu, India
Image:gdm.jpg|Gurudogmar, India, a high Himalayan lake at an altitude of 5,148 meters
Image:Himalayan mountains from air 001.jpg|This is a glacier between Delhi and Ladack. It is in Western India, though.
I know that all these images relate to the Himalayas, but that is what Northeast India is famous for. Also, please add more images relating to NE India if you find more good ones. Thank you. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 15:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: None of the above images are from NE India, geographically speaking. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics from the NE 

message: Moved to Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics#Indian Copyright Law =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Copyright Law

message: thumb|right|200px|The Taj Mahal from the river.  Samuel Bourne, 1865.  The river today does not flow as close to the Taj.
I have added the classic picture of the Taj by Samuel Bourne for Featured picture consideration at WP:FPC  Please vote your support or oppostion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nikkul. Who says it has to be? The photo will serve to maintain a historical context... Vishnuchakra 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historic Image of Taj

message: This particular image is titled Toda Temple. It looks exactly like the Toda hut image we have! KnowledgeHegemony 14:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Toda temples are constructed in a circular pit lined with stones and are quite similar in appearance and construction to Toda huts from Toda_people#Religion. The picture of a temple is also given. But interestingly, The Hindu calls an entirely different structure as a Toda temple. See here.--Seraphiel 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toda hut or a temple? 

message: While we are fighting over relatively less important topics here in this talk page, several India-related articles are in need of attention. Two India-related Featured articles are Featured article removal candidate now —  Rail transport in India and Geography of India. the FARCs are here and here. Please help improve the articles so that the FA status can be retained. 
This talk page is probably not the correct place to inform about the FARCs. However, this being one of the most-watched India-related talk pages, I'm advertising here. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally..a Wikipedian with some sense. I'm pretty new here and was coming to think that all people do on Wikipedia, is fight over images.--Seraphiel 11:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To add to the list, economy of India (another featured article) has a message requesting it to be updated.--Seraphiel 11:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Economy of India was FARCed in August 2006. It was greatly improved and provided with citations then. It may need statistical updates though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles in [[WP:FARC|FARC]]

message: Unless you are nominating a famous picture, or are absolutely sure about the quality of a photograph, it is a good idea to get your picture reviewed first at WP:PPR before nominating it to WP:FPC.  That way, you get some feedback from the Wikipedia photo editors, and don't create a backlog at FPC. If your photograph is worthy, they will themselves promote it to the FPC process.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Get Peer Review for Picture First at [[WP:PPR]]

message: The article History of India is a candidate for Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive (shortened to WP:ACID). However, just a day or two ago, it became overdue. However, we can still save it by voting for it ASAP. Please excuse my posting of this non-India-article-related comment. However, I knew that this talk page was the one most watched by a group of Indians who might want to get India-related articles featured. If you don't want the article to be cut from the list due to being overdue, please go to the page (WP:ACID) and vote ASAP. Thank you very much. Universe=atom•Talk•Contributions• 14:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: History of India is also the India collaboration of the week for the week that started on 10 June 2007. Please help improve it. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article [[History of India]] 

message: We are representing TODA with few thousands huts as India culture. Taj is excellent...why Mysore Palace? Mughal contribution is not the only contribution. Life of the masses in India revolves around temples. There are many South Indian and North Indian temples, we now need picture of temple to represent ancient and modern culture of millions of masses. Secularism on this article is welcomed, But pseudo-secularism is bad! This article should remain secular but definately not pseudo-secular. Holy Ganga  talk  22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. More than 80 percent of Indians are Hindu, yet there is no image of hinduism. Instead we have images of tribes who number 1400. That is why I support an image of Diwali or something similar under culture. Nikkul 14:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its not a justice if this article remains without any temple pic. 

message: The Taj Mahal isn't one of the seven "wonder of the world" as is claimed in the caption of the pic. It didn't even exist when this list was made. It is however one of the "touristic wonders".
:I have changed it. Thanks for pointing that out. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 19:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, from net and cell phone too :) sorry to comment here, I know this not forum. sorry again :)Kittu 07:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wonders of the world 

message: Please help improve article Tourism in India. We can make that article a featured article in wikipedia. cheers. Lara bran 07:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism in india 

message: I am thinking about adding the following links to the "Government" subsection of the "External Links" section. Please give your feedback.
* The official site of the Parliament of India. 
* The official site of the President of India
* The official site of the Prime Minister of India
* The official site of the Vice President of India
Please add more to this proposed list if you can find more. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? We already link to Official entry portal of the Government of India and Official directory of Indian Government websites, both of which link to all the sites you have listed above and many, many more. If anything one could argue that the second link (i.e. http://www.nic.in which, redirects to http://indiaimage.nic.in/) is redundant, since it provides no additional information not in the first. So perhaps we should remove the second link instead of adding more links. Abecedare 16:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would second Abcedare's suggestion - the links mentioned above would be more appropriate in the relevant articles on the Parliament, President, Prime Minister and Vice President, based on the Wikipedia guidelines at Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files and particularly Wikipedia:External_links#Important_points_to_remember which states that "a lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links". Green Giant 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new links to the "External Links" section 

message: Doesnt the Indus Valley Civilization denote an ancient area that now currently resides in Pakistan along the Indus river from which it derives its name from.  Apart from a few scant areas located over the border near the Pakistani province of Sindh, the bulk of the Indus Valley is inherently tied to the country of Pakistan. Why has has it been written that India is the home of the Indus Valley Civilization?  Can someone please remove this erroneous entry. kind regards 130.63.161.200
:This debate has been going on for a long time. On both sides there will inevitably biased individuals seeking to promote their particular idea. However, I think a simple analogy would suffice in settling this issue. The example I use is the Roman empire, which extended over an extensive area beyond Italy. One of the areas which the Romans ruled was part of my home island of Great Britain (in the form of the province of Britannia). Now even though the most obvious inheritors of the Roman legacy would be Italy, and the Romans obviously did not originate in Britain (they were from Rome in case you were wondering :P ), it would be impossible to narrate a history of Britain without some mention of the Romans. Indeed, there is an entire article on Roman Britain and I would challenge anyone to prove that there is absolutely no evidence of any Roman influence in Britain. In the same manner, the Indus/Sindhu/Sarasvati civilisation existed across an area that falls partly in India and partly in Pakistan, with some evidence indicating it's influence extended as far west as the Mesopotamian region. That means both India and Pakistan should be able to lay claim to some of the heritage of that civilisation and therefore both should have a good mention in their respective articles. So let's quit this partisan approach and let both articles discuss the Indus valley civilisation. Green Giant 18:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Green Giant's point are all vaild; in addition you'll note that the article only claims that the Indian subcontinent (not India) was the home of the IVC, which is clearly indisputable. Abecedare 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indus Valley Civilization 

message: Can anybody come up with a solution to decrease the number of brackets.--KnowledgeHegemony 06:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a stab at making it more readable. I also added language templates, which are useful for auto-readers and mentioned the languages Hindi and Urdu explicitly so that a reader who does not know the scripts can understand what those "glyphs" in the brackets stand for. If someone feels stringly about the issue they can change the descriptors to the relevant script Devanagari and Nasta`liq script/ Urdu alphabet instead of the particular languages.  Abecedare 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work.--KnowledgeHegemony 07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many brackets in etymology 

message: It says India's economy is 4042 trillion in the fact box.  --Blacksun 09:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I saw the period as comma. --Blacksun 09:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If India's economy had been 4042 Trillion i.e. per capita GDP of ~$4M, we could have used the technical term bazillion-gazillion instead :-) Abecedare 09:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Correction required
 

message: As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Holidays, this article should have a table that lists the holidays of India. Also, as it says on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Article_Classification#Featured_articles, this is one the country FA's in Wikipedia that does not have a holidays' table. Is there one on Wikipedia to put in this article? If not, the format in the first link should be used to make one. Also, where should it be put? Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 15:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holidays Table Needed