Talk:Himalayas

Template:Old India COTW

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)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Himalayas → Himalaya — The term Himalaya is used throughout the article: "The Himalaya Range", "Lesser Himalaya", and "Greater Himalaya"; as well as on other pages Geology of the Himalaya.IceBlade710 (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The plural "Himalayas" is far more common in English. Just like the Alps, the Pyrenees, the Andes and the Rocky Mountains. I would suggest that aricles such as Geology of the Himalaya are moved in line with this article, rather than the other way round. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This has already been discussed twice. See past discussion. RedWolf (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note Sierra Nevada (U.S.) is given in the singular, even though many call it the "Sierra Nevadas", which is actually incorrect Spanish, but that's another story. There's some inconsistency here. But "Himalayas" is likely the common name in English, even though it's not technically correct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. As 84.92.117.93 notes, Plurals like the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the Andes are usually used for ranges. — AjaxSmack 03:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose it is commonly used with the "s". 70.29.208.247 (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

MOUNT EVEREST

HELLO Apuldram,the photo of mount everest seems to be unsuitable .We have to prefer the photo of south face of mount everest.Can we really not change the photo?Jojolpa (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

the current photo of Everest has been there for two years or more. It looks good to me. In what way do you consider it to be unsuitable? Who is 'we' in your sentence? If you provide here a link to the photo you mention of the south face, editors can decide whether there is a consensus for change. Apuldram (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

this image.you can find many images in net.long live NEPAL.Jojolpa (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

this image.you can find many images in net.long live NEPAL.Jojolpa (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That isn't a Wikipedia image. Copyright? Apuldram (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

replace request

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to change the current image. Apuldram (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

i request to replace the current photo of mount everest with this

Mount Everest as seen from Drukair.jpg

Mayoj (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: it's pretty, but somewhat flat, and I don't see that it's a big improvement over the one being used now. The one in use now shows some dirt and non-snow covered ground, and could be argued to give a better picture of the Himalayas arising from the plateau and providing water, etc, and not just a bunch of snow capped peaks for climbers. SBHarris 01:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking south over the Himalayas

• The article is about the Himalayas, not Everest, so the wider view may be more appropriate for the lede image. The current photo of Everest is rather super though. It was twice nominated as a featured image. It would be a shame to lose it. I would like to see a gallery section, with (inter alia) Everest, Kanchenjunga, Lhotse and Nanda Devi. Apuldram (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• I still like the current image, but if there is consensus for change, I prefer this photo. Apuldram (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep the current image. It's a relatively rare kind of image, showing variations in the geography and some of the highest peaks. Moreover, it is a featured picture.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I got confused and wrote confusingly in the above comment. Yes, my opinion is to keep the current image of Everest. Also, I liked File:Himalayas.jpg for its more informative value.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit war regarding etymology

Please would people stop the edit warring regarding etymology/naming and discuss the matter here. Repeatedly reverting each other with increasingly hot-tempered edit summaries is not going to resolve anything, nor is spreading the discussion across umpteen user talk pages. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

From @RegentsPark:'s talk page: RegentsPark: "I think that a case can be made for including the devanagri in this article since the English word is directly derived from the Sanskrit one." and that is the entire rationale for me wanting हिमालय, just as it is read in Sanskrit, to be here. We have already established that Indic script is to be left off the lead sentences and in biographies, but it isn't prohibited anywhere else and is commonly found in many Etymology sections all over English wiki - where it truly belongs, as the name 'Etymology' suggests. So my first point is that I'm not violating any policies, rules, or norms, and that I am acting within Wikipedia's framework. (see: Jungle.)

Secondly, I also feel that it has encyclopaedic value because for one, it can serve as an IPA of sorts for Indian speakers of English (many Indian-related articles are written in Indian English, anyway, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India, so they are already Indian-centric to begin with). I personally cannot read the IPA myself, but when I first chanced upon this article - back when हिमालय was added in the lead by some other user - it helped me with the pronunciation, as a native reader of Devanagari, and also as a speaker of Indian English. Also I'd like to add on to what RegentsPark said about the word directly being derived from the Sanskrit one - it is completely unaltered in its English form as opposed to 'Bandanna' (modified from Sanskrit badhnāti, "to tie") - so there's definitely a case for including it here because there's just one version of the word. Tiger7253 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

How about:
The name Himālaya is from Sanskrit: हिम hima (snow) + आलय ālaya (dwelling), and literally means "abode of snow".  ?
Apuldram (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Himālaya isn't from Sanskrit. It's a romanization of the Sanskrit itself. It's fine that we're sourced to the OED (all etymologies should be, where possible) but we should include the actual devanagri script and links to its Wiktionary entry for the curious.

Now, I'm sorry I was BOLD and did all that on my own. I wasn't aware there was any edit warring going on over the topic. Looking here, though, there's no argument for removing more information from the article and (per WP:READER) I can't really think of what a non-POV, FRINGE reason for removing it could be. What was the problem here? If it's only a question of some Indian/Pakistani/Nepali feuding, (a) none of that idiocy changes where the English word comes from which (b) has impeccable sourcing and (c) any concerns over undue focus on India can be addressed by including the modern Urdu and Nepali names along with the Hindi, Chinese, and Tibetan. The article should include all five, but I was only able to find three of them at Wiktionary. — LlywelynII 02:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Added the others from their interwiki links, although I'm certain the general term in China is actually -shan (not shanmai) so I can't speak to their accuracy. Should find some native speakers to clean it up, if possible. — LlywelynII 02:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

Per this edit, the default form of English on this page uses American spellings, pending a new consensus. I could understand an "Indian English" banner, but (a) from the discussion above it seems like some editors would have a problem with that and (b) not only do the Himalayas range outside India but the topic is so important that it's more likely American editors and readers will be visiting the page anyway. — LlywelynII 02:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It not true that the default English on this page uses American spellings. Before you changed them (center, meter) the article used British / Indian spellings. American editors and readers are not as likely to visit the page as editors and readers from the rest of the world. You should not have changed the English spelling variety without previously obtaining consensus. I have now changed it back. Apuldram (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I am the editor who wrote the lead a number of years ago. Every few years I have to do some cleaning up, as various editors, often with nationalistic impulses, nickel and dime the sentences incorrectly or redundantly. I have been observing this for ten years. The lead is again in poor shape, mainly as a result of a number of shabbily written sentences. The Himalayas, for example, are not in the Indian subcontinent. For another example, the illustration accompanying the lead, claiming to be a map of the Himalayas is anything but that, only a illustration of the elevation data. I am replacing that map with an older one, which while not the most sophisticated, shows more accurately where the Himalayas lie. For yet another example, someone has added the vernacular Devanagari script, which, by WP:INDICSCRIPT, is not encouraged. Also whether or not the term "Hindu Kush-Himalayas-Karakoram," let alone the abbreviation HKH, is widely used, it is employed more in the context of fresh water resources from snow- and glacier-melt in a larger region that includes Myanmar and Bangladesh. It does not belong to the lead of the article on the Himalayas. The Hindu Kush and the Karakoram are distinct mountain ranges and it doesn't help to lump them together with the Himalayas in the lead, and thereby create more confusion among readers who might be struggling to understand where precisely the Himalayas lie. See the Britannica article on the Himalayas. I will shortly clean up the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

New estimate of age

An article from Nature from 2003 says the Himalayas are actually 450 million years old while this Wikipedia article says the mountains are 50 million years old. I do not know how credible this data is. http://www.nature.com/news/1998/030929/full/news030929-6.html Ibnsina786 (talk) 03:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The Nature article does not make that statement so positively ("actually"). It is laced with "may" and may be" and states "the hypothesis fits the data and is certainly plausible, but is very difficult to test." IMO the Nature article is not supportive enough of Gehrels' primary source to qualify as a secondary source. Apuldram (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If they're raising the date in that way, most likely those writers are theorizing that there's an earlier orogeny "buried" under the current mountain range, but then there would have been massive new folding and uplift within the last 30 million years. It's obvious that no mountain range that's hundreds of million years old could be several km high today unless it's been "rejuvenated" in much more recent times. 83.251.164.50 (talk) 09:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)