|Himalayas has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|Himalayas was the Indian collaboration of the week for the week starting on February 7, 2005.
For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital|
Archive of past discussions on page naming
Several discussions have previously taken place regarding the name of this page. Please review the archive for finding out why the current name is being used. RedWolf (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Himalayas versus Himalaya
Even though I noticed that this issue has already been discussed in several opportunities, with a consensus to keep the name "Himalayas", this really sounds as an aberration to stick to this naming. Currently most scientific publications in English use the term "Himalaya" without "s", which does also correspond to the naming in other languages.
I would strongly recommend to change the name to "Himalaya", and I guess it will just be a question of time until the most conservative voices will change their mind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudois (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Himalaya is a single entity just as Karakoram or Europe or Africa are. Does anyone go to Europes or the Karakorams? They don't go to the "Himalayas" either. If the plural "Himalayas" exists, can anyone point out several instances of an individual Himalaya? Of course not. The correct term is logically & obviously "Himalaya".
The word Himalaya breaks down into Hi-ma: Snow and A-la-ya: Abode. When combined it becomes "Abode of the snow". Now, if you were to write a word to indicate several abodes of snow, the rules of sanskrit dictate that the word Himalaya remain as it is. "Himalaya" being a sanskrit word is not subject to the rules of English language. Hence, the correct form is indeed "Himalaya". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxndrdegrt (talk • contribs) 07:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The current section about Trans-Himalaya#Trans-Himalaya currently says: The watershed between rivers flowing south into the Ganges or Indus and rivers flowing north into the Brahmaputra or mainstem Indus that flow around the ends of the entire range often follows somewhat lower, less rugged mountains tens of kilometers north of the highest ranges. South-flowing rivers form valleys in this region, often semi-arid due to rainshadow effects. These valleys hold some of the highest permanent villages on earth.
This does not correspond to what is (I assume) the generally accepted definition of the Transhimalaya, which is the range north of Yarlung Tsango (Brahamaputra) and not at the watershed between Ganges and Brahmaputra (which would imply south of Yarlung Tsangpo). The German WP has a good article about it. If there is no objection, I would propose to change the paragraph about Trans-Himalaya.--Pseudois (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
- Concur. Transhimalaya may be a poor choice of wording. Himalayan outliers do extend some distance north into Tibet. Reserving "Transhimalaya" for the region north of the Yarlung Tsangpo is certainly cleaner.
- However the western (Indus) half of the Himalaya may be problematic. Intuitively, Kailash seems transhimalayan but sources of the Indus are north of it. Perhaps the structural valley extending northwest from Lake Mahasarovar -- which the Indus eventually joins -- is a better dividing line. LADave (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- You don't say why you think the location image needs modification. Please list references to the "more accurate and specific pictures" you mean, so that other editors can judge whether or not one of them would be an improvement. Apuldram (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Neutral point of view
I have restored a neutral point of view in the first line of the article, which should not be used to further a particular opinion. Both spellings, Himalayas and Himalaya, have been used by various respected authors in the titles and texts of numerous scholarly works. It is tendentious to suggest that one form is correct and the other incorrect. Apuldram (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Something is strange about one of the sections of the article on the Himalayas.
In the Ecology section ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas#Ecology ), a vandal has inserted "SUCH WOW MANY WORDS" in one of the sentences: "This diversity of altitude, SUCH WOW MANY WORDS rainfall and soil conditions combined with the very high snow line supports a variety of distinct plant and animal communities."
However, when I try to edit either that section or the main article, the intrusive words do not appear in the Edit text-box. How is it that vandalism can be visible, yet invisible to an Edit session?
- I tried rolling it back, then refreshed, and, on my computer at least, it's gone now.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- OK, it now looks proper for me too. Curious, it is....
Third largest deposit of ice and snow in the world?
From the Hydrology section: "The Himalayas have the third largest deposit of ice and snow in the world, after Antarctica and the Arctic." yet the number given is more than 200 times smaller than the one given on Greenland ice sheet. Khrister (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
How a mountain range 'runs'
- I don't know if this is the original reason. It may have been for consistency within the lead section of the article. The other references to compass points aren't abbreviated and to replace them all with single letters would (imo) look odd. Apuldram (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I must have confused you a bit. My question would be better phrased: why not east-southeast to west-northwest rather than the (opposite) order given in the article? I thought maybe it was something to do with altitude, but I don't actually know. :)Plarstic (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)