Talk:India

Image voting

Image rotation for Indian military

Newer inclusions

• 
  Jointly developed by Sukhoi and Hindustan Aeronautics, the Sukhoi-30 MKI "Flanker-H" is the Indian Air Force's prime air superiority fighter.
• 
  HAL Dhruv of the Indian Air Force Sarang helicopter display team.
• 
  The first test launch of the Advanced Air Defence missile in 2007. India is one of the only few countries to have successfully carried out missile interception test.
• 
  The Indian Army's Arjun main battle tank developed by DRDO and manufactured at Heavy Vehicles Factory.
• 
  The Shivalik class frigate stealth frigate of the Indian Navy
• 
  The Indian Army operates about 700 T-90 Bhishma main battle tanks and Heavy Vehicles Factory aims to manufacture 1,000 more for the Army by 2020.

Comments

1. It makes sense to have the various branches of the military represented in the section, rather than just the air force. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Good EV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Agree but certain changes is required. Instead of the Su-30 MKI image which is of poor quality, File:Indian air force dhruv helicopter j4042 arp.jpg image of the HAL Dhruv will be better. Also, the stealth ship, INS Shivalik image can be added.Bcs09 (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Those not in favor

• Terrible quality images. Not worthy on a Featured Article like India. Poor image quality and subject coverage. Nikkul (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Images should be shot in India

Newer inclusions:

• 
  Regarded as the "queen of Indian flowers", the Lotus is the national flower of India and is considered sacred by Hindus and Buddhists.<ref>{{cite book
• 
  Regarded as the "queen of Indian flowers", the Lotus is the national flower of India and is considered sacred by Hindus and Buddhists.<ref>{{cite book
• 
  The Indian marsh crocodile is one of the three crocodilia species found in India, the other being the gharial and the saltwater crocodile.<ref>{{cite book
• 
  The Bengal tiger is the national animal of India.<ref>{{cite book
• 
  The common kingfisher is found throughout the plains of India.<ref>{{cite book
• 
  The blackbuck is common in portions of northwestern, central and peninsular India<ref>{{cite book
• 
  The blackbuck is common in portions of northwestern, central and peninsular India<ref>{{cite book
• Found mainly in the forests of India, the Great Indian Hornbill is the largest member of the hornbill family.<ref>{{cite book
  Found mainly in the forests of India, the Great Indian Hornbill is the largest member of the hornbill family.<ref>{{cite book
• 
  The Olive Ridley is the most common type of sea turtles found in Indian waters. Their habitat mainly includes the shallow coastal waters of India on the eastern seaboard. Of the eight species of sea turtles found worldwide, five occur in Indian coastal waters.<ref>{{cite book

Comments

1. There are several species which are not endemic to India and these include the Bengal tiger, Nelumbo nucifera, etc. I cannot understand how someone can agree to have images of these species shot in some other country included in the India article. For example, the only thing in common between that Bengal tiger in a Florida zoo and India is that some distant relative of the tiger happens to roam in one of India's tiger reserves. Lack of concern by other Wikipedians towards this issue just showcases complete disregard for the credibility of this article. The Flora and fauna section must only include those images which depict Indian living organisms in Indian natural environment. And point is, when we have high quality images of these creatures shot in the natural Indian environment, then why borrow an image which was shot in a Florida or Munich zoo? Beats common-sense. --Nosedown (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
2. I agree, images shot in India are more representative of India. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
2. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Those not in favor

• I would rather have Featured Images of Indian animals (original rotation) than have bad quality images (above) of animals in India Nikkul (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Many of the images above don't even show the full animal! Nikkul (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Konark image

Comments

1. There has already been a discussion on this - Template talk:Indian image rotation#Shabby additions. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Mysore Palace image

Comments

1. What a bad image. Does not give the full view of the structure and there are too many distractions including grass and a notice board. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those not in favor

• Nikkul (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Please wait for consensus before removing these images!

Addition of Meenakshi temple image

• One of the fourteen gopurams of the Meenakshi Temple complex in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. Dedicated to Hindu God Shiva and his consort Meenakshi, the temple is considered to be the foremost religious and cultural center of Tamil people<ref>{{cite book
  One of the fourteen gopurams of the Meenakshi Temple complex in Madurai, Tamil Nadu. Dedicated to Hindu God Shiva and his consort Meenakshi, the temple is considered to be the foremost religious and cultural center of Tamil people<ref>{{cite book

Comments

1. The caption says it all -- perhaps one of the most important structures in southern India. And a beautiful image too. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
2. -- There should be at least one PERMANENT Hindu temple image in this section. Hindu temples revolve around lives of Indian masses and any article on India is incomplete without Hindu temple Picture. Holy Ganga ^talk 16:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Those not in favor

• Nikkul (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) There are already 3 temple images!

Addition of Oddisi image

• 
  A dancer performing Odissi, one of the eight principal Indian classical dance styles. Odissi was developed in the state of Orissa in 2nd century BC<ref>{{cite book

Comments

1. Again, the caption says it all and another beautiful image. There is not even a single image in the template on Indian dance. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nikkul (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of Lotus temple image

Replacement:

• 
  Designed in the pattern of a lotus flower, the Bahá'í House of Worship in Delhi is noted as one of the "most outstanding structures of the twentieth century" and attracts millions of visitors every year.<ref>{{cite book

Old version:

• 
  The Lotus Temple, the Bahá'í house of worship in Delhi

Comments

1. The older one has too much contrast and is of inferior quality. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those not in favor

• Nikkul (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Replacement of Akshardham image

Replacement:

• 
  The Swaminarayan movement is closely associated with the culture and the linguistic traditions of the Gujarati people.<ref>{{cite book

Old version:

• 
  The Akshardham Temple is a Hindu temple in New Delhi

Comments

1. The proposed image is of the front view and hence better IMO. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those in favor

1. --Nosedown (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
2. --Nikkul (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Other views

• If you're going to rotate images on a regular basis, please do the associated discussing on some dedicated sub-page, not on Talk:India. Imho, rotation of images is an exceptionally bad idea because it ties down lots of man-hours desperately needed elsewhere. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Image voting results

It has been more than two months since the voting was posted and no one has opposed the suggestions apart from Nikkul. I believe there is a clear consensus to incorporate the suggestions posted above. --Nosedown (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to have CLEAR WP:Consensus. No one voted FOR most of your image changes either. You need clear consensus to change images on Wikipedia. This is wiki policy Nikkul (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 data

Why do people use 2010 data for GDP instead of 2009? We are not even half way through 2010, and every country's using 2009 data, stop this childish and ridiculous behaviour. This information is not about "look better".

Edit request from Iamswapniljadhav, 20 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} in the paragraph which descibes that poverty, corruption, healthcare, and malnutrition are issues in india(or india is lagging in these aspects), please add caste system and oppression of SC/ST's in rural areas, as this is the single biggest reason in Indian masses social and economic backwardness.

Iamswapniljadhav (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

According to whom? Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.

 Not done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs)

please sign your posts. Iamswapniljadhav is making a reasonable proposal, but you should ask them to provide an actual suggestion of text to be inserted. "SC/ST" refers to Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe. The reason they are "scheduled" in the first place is that they are (or were) disadvantaged. This is positive discrimination, and ironically, castes are now clamouring to be considered "backward" because they want to benefit from the positive discrimination.

The main articles for this are Healthcare in India and Poverty in India. Iamswapniljadhav, these are not semiprotected, and you are welcome to work on them. Once you have produced a clean account in these articles, you can ask for inclusion of a summary here. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC) India is suffering by terrorist activities so far.......but India is a very peaceful country.This is held by some neighbouring countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.169.63 (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Intro needs reworking

I believe the introduction needs reworking. There are lots of links but none of them are to the religions. There is recentism in that the only ruler mentioned is the British East India Company and the economic reforms of the nineties are mentioned as significant when they are nothing compared to the whole scale of history. And the negative aspects, here such as corruption and poverty are not normally put in the intro of country of articles. You don't see United States leading with "It has a high wealth disparity and a high homicide rate, do you? Munci (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Specifically I propose removing the part "however, it still suffers from poverty, illiteracy, corruption, disease, and malnutrition." and adding in wikilinks to Hinduism in India, Jainism in India etc. I'm not entirely sure how to balance the history more about pre-18th century history though. The other bits is enough for now. Any objections? Munci (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I also propose adding a sentence about membership of international organisations like so: India is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, G15, G20, Asia Cooperation Dialogue, the Colombo Plan, Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation and the Non-aligned movement. What do others think? Munci (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing Nano with Reva

The Nano image need to be rotated with images of other automobiles from India like the Reve electric car.Bcs09 (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Reva is the world's largest electric car maker, and has significant sales in Europe. Anyone oppose rotating the Tata Nano image with Reva NXR image? Nikkul (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• 
  The REVA Electric Car Company is the world's largest manufacturer of electric cars. Shown here is the Reva NXR

Did you seek consensus before making the change Nikkul? Tell me, how many people in India drive Reva? In what way is this particular vehicle even remotely significant to the Indian economy section? --Nosedown (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

consider changing pic military section randomly

Like in flora section consider changing su-30mki,Hal tejas,Arjun tank,ins viraat,ins shivina,T-90,Akash SAM,Nag missile,Agni missile series etc at regular interval.--59.94.131.202 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We need to have top quality pics before we place them on the main page. Right now we don't have such great pics Nikkul (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You might take a look at these pics:=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agni-II_missile_%28Republic_Day_Parade_2004%29.jpeg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IA_Dhruv_Berlin-08.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brahmos_imds.jpg

And i could post more pics which are top quality and so consider them for rotation.--59.94.135.209 (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction needs a serious overhaul. That India is being considered a potential superpower by many analysts, that we are active members of groups like BASIC, BRIC, United Nations G20, G8+4 need to be stated. And why should things like poverty, and malnutrition be mentioned in the introduction? China too is suffering from more or less the same problems as India but I don't see anything being mentioned in the introduction of China.

Also, a mention should be made of the recent UN report in the 'economy' section which praises India for taking giant strides in terms of slum development.

Someone make these necessary changes as soon as possible. Otherwise questions would arise about the credibility of a Wikipedia article which ironically has been termed as one of wikipedia's bests despite containing so many discrepancies as stated above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.184.93 (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See the section above "Intro needs reworking". Munci (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about potential superpower since all other potential superpowers have this states on their page (China, Russia, etc.). Nikkul (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Taj Image

New Taj Mahal Image

I would like to switch the existing Taj Mahal image with this better image. What do you guys think? Nikkul (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the proposed new image is better than the existing one in any way - it is a low-resolution image, of poor quality (unclear), with an excessive blue tint. In contrast, the existing image is a clear, high-resolution featured picture, which means that it has been rated as one of the best pics available on Wikipedia (and on Commons as well). Therefore, I see no reason for substituting the existing image with the proposed replacement. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, the existing one looks beter. --BwB (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem about Federation

In general "Federation" means a country formed by separate states that have given certain powers to a central government while keeping control over local matters and "Constitution" means the system of beliefs and laws by which a country, state, or organization is governed. Previously you said that both are same while its not true. Therefore I thought its worth mentioning it.

2ndly you removed a vital point that is (It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law) it must be mentioned what kind of democracy does India follows there two type of democracy one direct democracy and other representative democracy, & India maintains a representative democracy and in what way.

3rd In (Indian federalist system) the term should be mentioned why because commonly there are two type of gov one is "Unitary sate" other run as "federal structure". It should be clear that in Indian federalism the preamble of the constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. Generally Unitary states are like UK, Canada or Japan whereas federalist gov are like Brazil or USA etc.--Kkm010^as© 06:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The constitution says India is a "Union of States". So we can safely say it is "federalist" in nature. (We already have a Federalism in India article)--Sodabottle (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In regard to this edit by User:Kkm010-

"The Constitution of India, the longest and the most exhaustive federation of any independent nation in the world, ..." . What does that mean?

"In Indian federalist system, the preamble of the constitution defines India as a ....." . The federal system in India is a product of the constitution. In that sense, this sentence is misleading. Arjun^codename024 08:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have copy edited the first point to makes its meaning clear. the second one too needs work to make it clear.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now copy edited the second point as well to address Arjun's concerns. It now merely states "indian state is federalist in nature".--Sodabottle (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you guys think that Indian federalist system won't fit then you can write as (In Indian federalism) but it must be mentioned because any body can say that the county is run as unitary state which is not. So there should be flamboyant idea in what way and how the system is run.

Another thing I didn't get why Sodabottle removed the term federation instead of constitution pls make it clear. I explained earlier whats the difference where Arjun was stating both are same.--Kkm010^as© 10:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

KKM, it is a grammatically wrong to say "the constitution of india is a federation". a country can be a federation, while a constitution can only be federalist. It is a purely grammatical correction.

Actually i accept the india is a federation as the constitution says we are a "union of states". I only differ from you in how to phrase it.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Constitution is "federalist" and and the state/system is "federal". Just to point out; Kkm has to look out for grammatical errors- one big reason i went for this revert. Arjun^codename024 13:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my error I'm happy that you guys have written it correctly with all the important points mentioning. But one thing i would kindly draw your attention that is (It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law) you have not mentioned the India as "constitutional republic" rather mentioning it only as a representative democracy! Why?--Kkm010^as© 15:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Global Peace Index

wonder how much credibility Institute for Economics and Peace have and if this is an information worth adding. --CarTick 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Global Peace Index already has an article but it would undue weight to mention anything about it here. try adding mention of that The Hindu article in Global Peace Index instead. Munci (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

what kind of weird response is this? --CarTick 19:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What's weird about it? The index might be notable enough that it has an article but it is not notable enough that you make it one of the first things you say about a country. Munci (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

when did i say "one of the first things"? and why would be important to add India has x ranking in Global Peace Index article --CarTick 19:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I may misinterpreted your intention. I thought you had wanted add information about the index to this article. Munci (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

i dont advocate its inclusion just because it is out there. i find it interesting, but, like i said, i am skeptical about the credibility of the organisation and the aptness and accuracy of the methodology used. I am also not sure if their data is adjusted for regional variation. --CarTick 00:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.8.202.26, 11 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Where it says that India is in the vicinity of Sri Lanka and Maldives in the Indian ocean, please add ", and its Andaman and Nicobar Islands are also in the vicinity of the Indonesian island of Sumatra in the Andaman Sea."

92.8.202.26 (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)  Not done

I'm sorry, but requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.

I suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve articles. Chzz  ►  00:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a suitable reference . I have also added it to the sentance I would like added. About creating an account here, I unfortunately have too many passwords to remember, so for now I think that I will continue editing with my IP address. Many Thanks. --92.8.202.26 (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; done, thanks. Chzz  ►  06:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Unprotection

This article, while highly visible and important to Wikipedia, has been indef-semi-protected since Nov. 2007. Quite a long time... I believe it may be safe to unprotect the article, at least on a trial basis. I had asked on WP:RFPP, and was advised to ask for public opinion here. I think it's a good idea to give casual editors a chance to contribute. :) Thoughts, comments? ^Avicenna_sis @ 05:41, 30 Sivan 5770 / 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• i does not support this as this article is a hotspot for vandalism and it should be remain protected [Rahulchoudhary 09:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulchoudhary003 (talk • contribs)

Language Categories

Is it not unbalanced to have the English category without the one for Hindi? As long as we stick to only the union languages rather than the regional ones, it won't make too many categories. The Eighth Schedule languages would instead fit on the various states. As for it being named Hindustani rather than Hindi, I'm sure it's so that both Hindi and Urdu are included. Would the title 'Category:Hindi and Urdu speaking countries and territories' be better? Also, I'm not entirely sure what "somewhere between 25 and 30 on the priority list of categories based on languages". Could this please be explained? Do you mean there are 25-30 languages more important for which to have such a category? Munci (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hindi and English are not union languages - they are just official languages of the union. The cat says "countries speaking language x". so by extension, if Hindi is included, then similar categories for the other 30 odd major regional languages will have to be added - thus "category overkill". IMO even the English cat to should be removed.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm if there were 'union languages' what would this be like then and how would this differ from 'official languages of the union'? I am sure the purpose in the language categories is to mean official languages though, especially considering Cameroon, Puntland and Papua New Guinea are currently part of the English-speaking countries category. Perhaps renaming is in order to make this clear? Removing both categories could be fine though. Munci (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

well, i assume the category is all about categorising a group of countries speaking a certain leanguage. i dont see any problem in adding the category. I would also recommend adding Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories. --CarTick 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Like it says at Category:Countries by language (which should be renamed Category:Countries by official language), "To categorize countries per official language. When a country does not have an official language (e.g. the United States), a de facto categorization is used.". And at Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories: "This category includes countries and territories where Tamil language is official.". Munci (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

well, categories are made by wikipedia users and they are neither policies nor guidelines. Tamil is official language of Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu is part of India last time when I checked. It is also one of the constitutionally recognised languages spoken by over 60 million people. --CarTick 15:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I know this but Tamil is an official language of one state (and one union territory), not of the union. Munci (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

so what, State is part of the Union. but it doesnt matter. the point is India is also a Tamil speaking country. I would include Category:Konkani speaking countries if there is a rational to make one and exists. --CarTick 16:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My two cents: First, there exists an inconsistency between the criteria for including articles in Category:English-speaking countries and territories and Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories — the latter (as also Category:Hindustani-speaking countries and territories) has an official language requirement, the former does not. So, the criteria for including articles in equivalent categories need to be made uniform (I don't see why there should be any requirment for the lanuage to be official if the category includes territories where the language is spoken - these are two different things and the former, in my opinion, imposes an unnecessarily high standard). Second, the Union Territories are administered by the Union Government (even though Puducherry, the UT in question, has a legislature) and technically, Tamil could be considered the official language of a federally-administered territory. In any case, all the 8th Schedule languages are Constitutionally recognised and I see no reason why one or more of them should be preferred over the other(s). Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The inconsistency between the different categories is not necessarily there because of the link at the start of Anglosphere (to List of countries where English is an official language). Due to the category having been moved, it is impossible to tell who was the creator. Otherwise, they could asked what definition they meant. Either way, they should be consistent. Would having two categories side-by-side one for spoken, one for official work? Munci (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

it sounds silly to include only the official languages. it would also be silly to include, for example, Category:Gujarathi speaking countries to USA article. Just because somebody created these categories with a "off the cuff" description doesnt mean it is not debatable and changeable. --CarTick 17:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it sounds silly to only include the official languages? Not that I'm firmly set on the idea, but to know. I agree that adding Guajarati speaking countries to USA would be silly and I agree that the descriptions are debatable and changeable. With that comment about inconsistency, I was trying to describe the way things are already done. Munci (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

cause in some countries like in India, it does not reflect the actual demography. --CarTick 18:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's true. Then there are other countries where the official languages reflects the spoken language even less like Mauritius, where the only official language is English despite Mauritian Creole and other languages being more widely spoken, and Equatorial Guinea, where the official languages are French, Spanish and Portuguese even though more than half the population speaks Fang, and Indonesia, where the only official language is Indonesian despite Javanese being spoken by roughly 2/3 of the population. Munci (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

that is interesting. apparently, it all depends on who writes the constitution. like the guy who created the Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories. I also would like to remind ourselves that we create a category only when a number of items can be categorised into it. for example, we could have created Category:Mauritian Creole speaking countries if a few other countries spoke that language. --CarTick 18:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the only thing I'm really opposed to is current situation where English is included but no other language. I had tried to add the Hindi category but was reverted. Munci (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say, we add any such category which exists for any Indian language. i would bet it is not too many. --CarTick 18:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what SpacemanSpiff says. Munci (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be all or nothing - Either remove English or add all the 100 odd language cats. I prefer the former.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

these categories are useful. dont think, we will end up with 100. many languages are spoken only in India we wouldnt ever have to create categories. --CarTick 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I missed this when I logged in earlier, but there are a couple of reasons (as we discussed on this talk page earlier, before Regents removed the cat) -- first, if we are looking at the "official" languages of the union, the category should be Hindi and not Hindustani, standard Hindi (Khariboli) is not the same as Hindustani, as is spoken in Pakistan or Fiji. If we are looking at any language that is spoken, then the problem is that you are looking at incongruent representation of categories, do we include the two official languages, the 20 or so Eighth schedule languages, do we include any language that has more than x million speakers? (when we had the earlier category discussion, I had opined against Tamil Nadu being included in the Tamil speaking cats also -- what level of geographic entities should be categorized). As for English being added, I believe this is the English Wikipedia and it serves the reader well to see which countries are linked by the English language. Adding a Hindi category doesn't serve much purpose as it will be a single entry category. I was inclined to take these cats (Hindustani and Tamil) to CfD a while back, but then other things came up and I forgot about this. Besides Munci, I think this kinda links to the earlier discussion on Tamil in Reunion that we had on the Tamil People (?) article too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

All cats of the form Category:<Indian language> speaking countries and territories must be added to this article, but just count how many are there. Since adding all of them isn't pragmatic, adding none is ideal. BTW, if we had a cat "Category:Countries having Hindi as official language", we could have .... !! <grin> Arjun^codename024 05:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, let us do this, let us try to assemble all existing categories and see how many it can get before we make a decision. Let us say that we would have to have more than two countries with a sizeable population speaking a certain language in order for a category to be created. Indian states while useful to be in the category, should not be included in the "criteria count". --CarTick 11:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

list

1. Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories, India, Sri Lanka, Singapore and may be Malaysia
2. Category:Hindustani-speaking countries and territories will have to rename it to Hindi, India and Fiji
3. Category:Urdu-speaking countries and territories, India and Pakistan
4. Category:Bengali-speaking countries and territories, India and Bangladesh

As you can see at the sourced introduction of Hindustani language, or by reading Hindi by Yamuna Kachru, Hindi and Urdu are two registers of the same language, Hindustani. Hindi, Urdu and Hindustani are all from the Khariboli dialect. Fiji Hindi is the sole outlier in being from Awadhi instead. There is also a broader meaning of Hindi, which would include all three though. "As for English being added, I believe this is the English Wikipedia and it serves the reader well to see which countries are linked by the English language." - I do not see this a good argument at all. Things should categorised according to how well they fit, not by an assumption that people will be only interested in things to do with their things. I don't see the connection between this and the discussion of Tamil in Reunion, except for it being about Indian languages. The way I see it, there are 3 (possibly even 4) options:

• No language categories
• Including only the categories for official languages of the union
• Including any categories that exist for all the Eighth Schedule languages.
• (Including any categories that exist for any languages spoken in India.)

The current situation of including English and no other language is unacceptable. By the way, I fixed the link for you Cartick even if still doesn't lead anywhere. Munci (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont know what the "Tamil in Reunion" discussion is all about. can someone pls point me where I can find it. if i were to rank the categories, i will place Category:Tamil-speaking countries and territories on the top considering it has more number of countries in it. I think that is the main reason why English is there, dont see anything wrong in it. --CarTick 18:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

here. basically how Tamils in Reunion are ethnically Tamil but dont speak Tamil--Sodabottle (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Once the above cats are included in the article; editors can create presently non-existing cats of languages in the above format, and can add to the article page. Then, no editor will have the moral right to make any selective removal of them. And then the page gets flooded with them. The above listing is of no use. As for the English language, editors will feel it as a "neutral" language and wouldn't care to flood with Indian languages as i said. Arjun^codename024 20:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We can decide already at what point it does stop; it's not an inevitable slippery slope. Most of the possible languages will never have categories created for them anyway because they are only spoken in India. It certainly couldn't get more flooded than the categories for English language, which aren't opposed there. Munci (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Indian page watchers

interesting observation, nothing to improve the article, but still related to this page. according to my theory, of the 2000 odd watchers, atleast 100 people are "actively watching" this page. The peak in page view of this recently created article by me on 15, 16 and 17 after I participated in a conversation starting 15 on this page. I am assuming each page view corresponds to an independent user and each user clicked the page only once. --CarTick 21:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What does watching a page let you do? Nikkul (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nano or REVA

I notice an edit war going on between Nikkul and some other users. I am not sure if we need to have images of any of these cars. --CarTick 20:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

By sales, both models are somewhere at the bottom of the market (nano would beat reva though). If we want to showcase them as "accomplishments of indian engineering" why dont we rotate them.--Sodabottle (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I havent followed up on this much. apart from the cheap prize, Is it really a big accomplishment? --CarTick 00:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before, I've opposed the addition of the Nano image as it is in no way representative of the Indian economy, the Reva image less so. (There should be two discussions on the Nano image in the archives from the last eight months. The auto industry itself is not representative of India, and even if we need an image from that, Maruti Suzuki is India's largest manufacturer (and until it was folded under the Suzuki brand, was individually a Top 10 manufacturer world wide). As for the edit war by Nikkul, this is across many articles, if there's a picture he uploads, no consensus is required, if someone else adds a picture, he quotes all sorts of policy asking to get consensus. —SpacemanSpiff 04:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Fact remains that Nikkul will revert edits by others claiming that no consensus was reached but at the same time, will add images without seeking consensus. In my opinion, it is about time the some of the established editors take up the issue of his disruptive edits. Coming back to the Nano image, I'm of the opinion that an image on the Indian automobile industry is very much relevant to the concerned section. And I also agree with the fact that an image should be added which is representative of the industry. I initially felt that Nano was apt as it showcased the dominant small car industry in India. However, it would be more better if an image of a more popular car, such as Tata Indica or Hyundai i10 (both of which are also manufactured exclusively in India), is used. --Nosedown (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Nano is the cheapest car in the world and i my opinion it is more important to Indian economy then reva and its also showcase the indian small car industry RahulChoudhary 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The pic of REVA was NOT added by me. And it was added only AFTER discussion on this page and consensus about rotation. So DO NOT TELL ME THAT I'M MAKING DISRUPTIVE EDITS!

Reva is one of the best selling Indian exports, especially in Europe. India's auto industry is rapidly expanding. Nikkul (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nikkul, tell me how many Reva cars have been manufactured till date? Forget about the so called "best selling Indian exports", the total number of Reva cars manufactured till date would be less than the number of Maruti-Suzuki Zens exported from India. Regarding Nano, it actually represents the auto-mobile industry of India better, because - a) Its the cheapest car in the world, b) Its an Indian brand, unlike a Suzuki or Hyundai. Shovon (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What discussion? BCS09 proposed something. 6 days later you seconded it and changed the picture. That is not consensus. TWO editors agreed to it. Now you have Cartick, me, Spiff, Shovon, Rahulchoudhary003 have all comeout against the move. So where is the consensus. Now that the discussion has started don't revert until everyone agree on it. You say Reva is "one" of the best selling auto exports. By numbers it doesnt even figure in the cars exported list.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) I've got nothing against showing the Nano. It is identifiably Indian and is notable as the epitome of the 'cheap car'. Not sure about the Reva (relatively unknown).--RegentsPark (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nikkul, your edits are disruptive because you never take other editors into confidence before making changes such as this and then, instead of trying to build a consensus, you will engage in an edit war ([1] and [2]) and claim "consensus was established". Who were a part of that consensus Nikkul? --Nosedown (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think nano is more important to Indian economy than reva.Because it is totally an Indian brand, It is the cheapest car in the world and The car is expected to boost the Indian economy, create entrepreneurial-opportunities across India, as well as expand the Indian car market by 65%. BINOY ^Talk 06:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The next Generation of Reva, Reva NXG.

I think Reva NXR will be better. But if someone is having objections why not have the Reva NXG.Bcs09 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Mr.Binoy, Reva is also an Indian brand. Now purchased by Mahindra & Mahindra Limited. I would like a rotation of both images. Both Nano as well as Reva NXR/Reva NXG. That would be nice.Bcs09 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think REVA has manufactured more cars in India than Tata Nano. Also, I think the significance of Reva is greater to India's economy because REVA sells a LOT of cars to Europe. I think we should rotate these 2 images. Nikkul (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, both Forbes and The Hindu puts the number of Reva sold till date at 3,500. Compare that to the number of Nano delivered till date. The figure is 35,000. Shovon (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If we go on pure statistics basis, then the place may be taken up by some other car. So I do feel that the best thing to do is to go for the rotation of Nano and Reva images. Both are beautiful and both have their own No.1 Rankings. Binoy also don't have objections to a rotation policy. So lets rotate Nano and Reva.Bcs09 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we just create a Mosaic then? Vedant (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Rather than that a rotation policy will be better. Even if needed Tata Indica indlucing the Vista variant and Mahindra scorpio etc can also be included. And the rotation need to be frequent may be a week. If all the people can entrust that job to me. I can do that job perfectly. Ever week the image will get rotated to something new.Bcs09 (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with that too. This just seems like such a trivial and pointless technicality to argue about when easy solutions exist. Vedant (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I also support rotation but it should be regular and include some more Indian cars like Mahindra Logan , Tata Indica Etc RahulChoudhary 05:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I too support rotation. Thanks to Bcs09 for volunteering. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, since there is a consensus, I am starting this with the Reva NXR. Tata Indica, Mahindra logan, Tata Nano Europa all can be added as part of the rotation policy. The Reva image will stand for a week. If there is a consensus on changes that is more frequent than a week, like a change every three days, I'm okay with such an idea as well.Bcs09 (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's better to be rotate the images using Parser Functions. BINOY ^Talk 14:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you write the code for the same. Using case, it can be a daily rotation, It seems weekly rotation is going to be difficult.Bcs09 (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I also think that Daily rotation would be better then weekly rotation RahulChoudhary 07:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus here. Several of my concerns with the REVA image remain un-addressed. Firstly, I need a more credible source than digital-journal.com which says that REVA is the most selling electric car. Secondly, it still hasn't been established how this particular image is representative of the Indian automobile industry where 99.99% of cars either run on petrol or diesel; not electricity. Address these concerns and you'll get your consensus. --Nosedown (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

PS - Two more points - Just because someone hasn't objected for two days doesn't mean a consensus has been established. Secondly, rotation is done through making changes to India rotation template, not manually changing the images everyday. --Nosedown (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Zebu, a consensus has been reached on rotation of the images. It seems only you are objecting to it. You reverting the image was uncalled for. Must have checked the discussion page before making such a move.Bcs09 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the users agreed the rotation of the two Images and then started the rotation. There is also a proposal to rotate the images using Parser Functions. I think it is better to rotate the images each hour. BINOY ^Talk 09:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Here are some useful links about REVA

• Mahindra buys 55% stake in electric car co Reva. (The Hindu Business Line news)
• (Bussnessgreen). Mahindra buys out venture firms to form electric vehicle giant
• Reva scouts for partners to make electric cars in US, Europe. -(The Hindu News)
• Reva to electrify market with new-look version. (From Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications)
• Tata Motors, M&M, Reva eye electric compact truck segment (The Hindu Business Line news)
  

-- BINOY ^Talk 11:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Image rotation using Parser Functions.
  

The Tata Nano, the world's cheapest car. India's annual small-car exports have surged fivefold in the past five years.

The images will change each hour. Can make changes and can add to the article if there is no objection. --BINOY ^Talk 11:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Binoy, my concerns are still not addressed. Give me a credible source claiming REVA is the "world's largest manufacturer of electric cars". Secondly, explain how REVA is even remotely representative of the Indian automobile industry. Address these issues and you can have your rotation. --Nosedown (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Zebu, its more like "fully designed/manufactured in India" rationale. Since we are doing an hourly rotation we can rotate images of a lot of models not just Reva/Nano. --Sodabottle (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Zebu,[3] Reva is the largest selling electric car in the world. Reva is not only sold in India but worldwide. [4] The new target is to produce 30,000/year from the current 6,000/year of these Reva's and market it to 50 countries (from the present 24) worldwide by 2012.[5].Bcs09 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mahindra Scorpio

Binoy, I agree to the proposal to rotate images using parser function. It's a brilliant move. Along with the two images I also propose the image of Mahindra Scorpio, which I had downloaded for the same purpose from Flickr. So add it Binoy. I like this brilliant idea. If needed this can be replicated in other sections as well.Bcs09 (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• i think we can also rotate the image of military section by the parser function as well RahulChoudhary 14:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I support such an initiative. Bcs09 (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• The Mahindra Scorpio image is added to the rotation images.

• Here is a reference link that says Reva has sold about 3500 electric cars, which is a small amout but more than any other company. It also says that there will be 1.5 million electric vehicles sold by 2020.

Here is another link that says The Reva-made G-Wiz (REVAi) is the best-selling electric car in the UK. BINOY ^Talk 17:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this has not been added to the Main, page. I still see only the Nano in the main page.Bcs09 (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The rotation is not added to the main page yet. Because Zebu has some objections. BINOY ^Talk 05:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced about how the REVA, an electric car, is representative of the Indian automobile industry. I have mentioned it twice before that compact diesel and petrol cars are representative of the Indian automobile industry, not electric cars. And it for this reason that I oppose the addition of the image. But if other Wikipedians do not have any objection to this, go ahead and add REVA to the rotation and degrade the credibility of this featured article. I will not oppose this anymore. --Nosedown (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And just a note to all those claiming that Reva is the "largest selling electric car in the world", let me be more specific — the original REVAi (or G-Wiz) is the best selling electric car in the world, not REVA NXR. The car shown in the proposed image has not even entered production yet. This is the height of nonsense but that seems to be irrelevant here. --Nosedown (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a point but i'm still not understanding what do you want No rotation or rotation without Reva RahulChoudhary 12:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I just oppose the addition of the REVA image. I'm not against rotation of images. So in other words, I propose rotation without REVA image. --Nosedown (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)