Jump to content

Talk:Himalayas/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Himalayas vs Himalaya

{{editsemiprotected}} The plural of Himalaya is Himalaya (just like sheep is the plural of sheep) so is it possible to change references to "the Himalayas" to "the Himalaya"? The reason people say Himalayas is because they don't know any better and so revert to the English pattern of adding an "s" to pluralise a noun. Since this is a reference source we should be correcting the problem, not exacerbating it.

See: [1] [2] [3]

MacNab499 (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

 Not done This is not an edit - it's a controversial move (you can't edit a page name). For such items one must use requested move and thus allow 7 days for a consensus to be reached.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only is Himalaya already plural without the 's', but it should correctly be pronounced 'Himaalya' (hima snows, alya home of). (I'd agree with changing the page name.)

I think the devanagari for Himalya is also wrong – I believe it should be िहमालया. Correct me if I'm wrong. Ian Joyner (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Oh, I have added an explanation of the pronunciation on my web pages (which is why I was reading this in the first place):

http://web.me.com/ianjoyner/Ian_Joyner/Pronunciation.html Ian Joyner (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Hindi, Nepali and Sanskrit Wikipedias all use हिमालय​ Himālaya. AFAIK the inherent अ s aren't ignored, but stress is on the आ. However in the West I usually hear it (mis)pronounced हिमलाय​ Himalāya. LADave (talk) 08:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Complete restructuring of the article: separate Himalaya and Karakoram

Karakoram is definitely a distinct mountain range, and should not be included in an article on Himalaya(s).

The list "Notable peaks of the Himalayan system (includes outlying ranges)", even though specifying that outlying ranges are included, should rather concentrate on Himalayan peaks and K2, Gasherbrum I, Broad Peak, Gasherbrum II and other peaks located in the Karakoram should rather be removed from the list.

From a geological, geographical and mountaineering point of view, the four 8000ers located in the Karakoram are not considered as part of the Himalaya, which counts "only" 10 of the 14 8000ers. Is it OK to proceed to some edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudois (talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Himalaya/Himalayas - I'm alarmed that I see so many denied edit requests to change factually incorrect 'common usage' spellings, to the factually correct content, are contested. Wiki is here to deliver knowledge, not ignorance! Evey time a change like this isn't made, the guardianship of the English language is wrested from peer-reviewed English academics and succumbs to mob-rule. In this case the article title should clearly be Himalaya - with an note that 'Himalayas' is a commonly incorrectly used as a collective noun while Himal is actually the singular of Himalaya. THATS WHAT ENCYCLOPEADIAS ARE FOR!!! If/When the Oxford English Dictionary recognises that Himalaya has fallen out of use to the point they need to alter THIER entry, Wiki should follow suit - otherwise Wiki is working against the principles it is there for - we don't need a wiki that tells people things they already know - we want to lean things we don;t know - or in this case, learn things we thought we knew were incorrect. The Himalaya/Himalayas fact is exactly the kind of easy to swallow "starter for ten" that would get a kid reading the article - something they could go tell Mum afterward. Foir god's sake - have a policy where the technically correct term is used to tile articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.153.83 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 92.11.153.83 although I would also point out that if there are thousands of languages there must be even more ways to form plurals; the six or seven languages I happen to know invariably have several ways apiece. It is quite a burden to expand English enough to accomodate all of these, so I think we could be excused for taking the easy way out and adding "s". Nevertheless English has a history of adapting to correct usage in other languages once there is a critical mass of people taking exception. For example I am increasingly seeing Russian surnames for women with feminine endings -a, -skaya etc. where previously these names were almost always transliterated with masculine endings. LADave (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Names in other languages

What are the Tibetan and Nepalese names and how do you pronounce them.

I can't answer for Tibetan, but if specifically mean the Nepali language, pronunciation hardly differs from Sanskrit, Hindi or other Indic languages. The same script -- devenagari -- is used, and each "letter" is pronounced the same. Nevertheless Hindi adds extensions for sounds like "F" or "Z" introduced by foreign invaders, which aren't defined in the simpler devanagari that prevails in Nepal.
You should also be aware that Nepali is but one of roughly 100 languages spoken in the country. The ~99 other languages are going to have their own names for local mountains, and their own pronunciations. These names are often borrowed into Nepali with imperfect transliteration and pronunciation -- just as much as English transliterations of Nepali names can be distorted. LADave (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you call a discreet section of the Himalaya?

I think "Himalaya" applies to the entire visible expanse as well as greater expanse from Indus to Brahmaputra. For example all the snowy ranges you might see from high point along the crest of the Mahabharats (Lesser Himalaya) or other unobstructed viewpoint.

What if you are talking about a smaller subsection like the Dhaulagiris or Annapurnas? Could that be "Himal"? Could "Dhaulagiri Himal" or "Annapurna Himal" refer to the entire massifs rather than just Dhaulagiri I or Annapurna I?

The names of individual peaks often make it clear that they are peaks or mountains. For example Dhaulagiri means "white mountain". The suffix "chuli" (Hiun-chuli, Himal-chuli) apparently means snow peak. Then you have "Gaurishankar" (cow's horn). "Macchapuchre" (fish tail). Adding "Himal" seems redundant when peak-ness or mountain-ness is already built into the name.

There is another useful bit of Sanskrit श्रृंखला shrinkhalā is a range (mountains or hills, not necessarily snowy). Should we be using this?

It would be good if we could reach consensus on terms to use for a single peak, a sub-range or massif, and the whole range or the entire visible extent from a good vantage point. LADave (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I have several maps of the Himalayas in Nepal. My Annapurna map shows "Annapurna Himal" in several spots covering Annapurna I, II, III, IV and Ganggapurna. However, the "Annapurna Himal" label is not shown near Annapurna South. The Nilgiri Himal is shown for the 3 peaks of Nilgiri. Looking at other "Himals" I have concluded in the past that it refers to a grouping of mountains/peaks or mountain range and not to a single mountain. There are also many groups of mountains that do not have any "Himal" label near them. RedWolf (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Himal might not work so well outside the part of the Himalaya where Indic names prevail. Tibetans probably have another word for it. If we're lucky, some classic literary Tibetan term is acceptable to all ethnic Tibetans despite the many local dialects. That won't satisfy the Chinese however. How things will finally settle out in the Republic of Nepal -- now that Sanskrit has been depreciated -- remains to be seen. Then on Pakistan's end of the range and even in India-controlled Kashmir there probably is yet another word derived from Arabic or some classic form of Persian. Perhaps we'd just be better off with a neutral English word, even running the risk of sounding a bit anachronistic or imperialistic. LADave (talk) 06:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

K-2

In Notes, about K-2 has been mentioned that the K2 Situated On border between Xinjiang, PRC and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Which is Wrong The Correct Is That K2 Situated Near Skardu City of Gilgit-Baltistan


INDIAN MAINLAND..... K2 or GODWIN AUSTEN is d highest peak within Indian Mainland and not the Nanda Devi........Similarly it must be noted that Kanchenjunga is in Sikkim which is an integral part of India.This makes Kanchenjunga the 2nd highest peak in India after K2 and before Nanda Devi..............It must be noted that there is nothing like PAK ADMINISTERED KASHMIR instead the right term is PAK OCCUPIED KASHMIR or POK.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.180.130.182 (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for Appalachian Mountain Height Reference

"However the Alleghenian mountains, formed during the formation of Pangaea, likely rivalled or exceeded the Himalayas in height.[4]"

This is a stretch- the article quoted suggests the Appalachians (Alleghenian) reached to "lofty Himalayan-type heights." It hardly suggests they were likely higher in elevation. This article from the AAAS suggests the Appalachians once reached the heights of the Alps- certainly much more Himalaya-esque then their current standing, though approximately half the size. The claim the Applachians were "likely taller" is probably dubious.

I would also further suggest the height of the Appalachians or other historical high-elevation mountain ranges is irrelevant to the current status of the Himalayas, particularly given the incredible scale of time since any mountain range has even come close to the Himalayas in elevation. It is particularly irrelevant given the intense difficulty in determining the actual height of mountain ranges millions of years in the past.

AAAS Source: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/11/03-02.html?etoc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.100.250 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 April 2012

Highest peak of Karakorum range.

should read

Highest peak of Karakoram range.

Ragfield (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Indeed the mountains are Karakoram, while the city is Karakorum. SBHarris 02:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed table!

Interested to learn why you are using collapsed table in article body which is discouraged in MOS? Was there any consensus on this?--Tito Dutta ✉ 21:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The tables are quite bulky, and would interfere with normal. reading. I moved them to their own list article. —hike395 (talk) 06:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Himalayan Plateau" should redirect to "Tibetan Plateau"

The search term "Himalayan Plateau" redirects to this article, which is incorrect because "Himalayas" refers to the mountain range. The search term "Himalayan Plateau" should redirect to the "Tibetan Plateau" article because that is the Plateau being referred to. Please change this as soon as possible to prevent any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Totalenlightenment (talk • contribs) 08:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

done Apuldram (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

newly-created account reverted edits without explanation

First, some background. On 14 January 2013, User:Tigona, added material to Himalaya with 17 citations to a single author, M. Kuhle. The same editor added material to Karakoram with 18 citations to M. Kuhle. Since August 2011, Tigona has made 15 edits to Matthias Kuhle.

I found the added material problematic for two reasons. First, 17 or 18 citations to one author, with several citations per sentence, seems excessive. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to inform our readers, not promote the career of a single academic. Given the editing history of User:Tigona, it seems likely that there is a conflict of interest here.

Second, I found the material added to both articles to be extremely detailed and overly technical, referring to many glaciers without providing context or explanation. The material has idiosyncratic punctuation and grammar mistakes.

To improve the articles, I sat down and condensed the material, rewriting it to be more approachable and correct, and keeping just a few of the citations.

On 30 January, a newly-created account an account with only one prior edit, User:Adraen, reverted my edits, and restored the poorly-written material with the excessive citations. I suspect that User:Adraen may be a sock puppet of User:Tigona, which is strictly not allowed under Wikipedia rules.

I don't engage in edit wars. I am happy to engage in discussion with User:Tigona and all other editors to improve the article. If we can explain the paleoglaciation of the Himalaya by referring to more than one source, and without excessive jargon, I would be very happy. Figuring out the best Kuhle references would be good, too.

But, I want any sockpuppetry to stop now, and I think it would be best to declare explicitly any conflicts of interest around Matthias Kuhle. —hike395 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've undone the unexplained revert and asked the user to explain their concerns here. Please take any sockpuppetry accusations to the proper forum. Vsmith (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to suggest the same at Karakoram, where I accedentally reverted earlier. See now that you got it. Btw Hike395, Adrean only other edit was October 2012, not 2011. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 15:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and sorry for the last deletion! I thought the former articles about Karakoram and Himalaya have had a better structure within more informations about the past climate and glaciation during the Ice Age (Paleoclimate). Therefore I asked you to create a new rubric (title), dealing with the past glaciation. Adraen (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Adraen. By new title, do you mean a new section? Or a completely new article?
We can certainly add more material on former glaciation of the Himalaya. Right now, the article is not very detailed. If we add a lot of detail about former glaciation, then the article would become unbalanced. We can possibly create a new article out of the new material.
It is important that new material be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially if a new article is created. Relying on a single source has a very real risk of violating the Neutral point of view rule --- we need to make sure that the material about paleoglaciation reflects scientific consensus, and gives due weight to minority views and reports on controversy.
Concretely, I summarized the previous material, only removing the long list of ancient glaciers, and the excessive citations to Matthias Kuhle. I removed the long list, because the out-of-context list was not helpful to our readers. See the guideline about indiscriminate information. I removed the excessive citations to Kuhle, because Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and the addition of 17 references by User:Tigona seemed like a conflict of interest.
Please feel free to expand on the current article, understanding the guidelines that I used to remove and summarize the old material. I would suggest not simply reverting, but adding material that offers insight to our readers. —hike395 (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Temperature contention error

In the "Geology" section, the last sentence reads, "Thus, the climate was at least 7.0 to 8.3 °C (45 to 47 °F) colder than it is today."

The two Celsius temperatures correspond to the two Fahrenheit temperatures. However, if something is 7 degrees Celsius colder, it is not 45 degrees Fahrenheit colder. The Fahrenheit temperatures stated are the temperature equivalents to the stated Celsius temperatures, not the corresponding amounts of Fahrenheit degrees. Seven Celsius degrees is equal to ~12.6 Fahrenheit degrees. Correspondingly, 8.3 Celsius degrees is equal to ~15 Fahrenheit degrees. Therefore, the numbers enclosed within parentheses should be "(12.6 to 15 °F)".

 Done The keeper of this page should correct the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.137.198 (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

NEW PICTURE

i think the picture that shows the location of the Himalayas needs to be modified, there are more accurate and specific pictures available. Nursingxmajor (talk) 03:25, 19 July 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)

Trans-Himalaya

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)

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".

Misspellings such as this only serve to lower the reputation of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.250.143 (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

"invisible" vandalism?

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?

Thanks for any info on this... Silverhill (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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....

Silverhill (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

The Greenland ice sheet is in the Arctic. Apuldram (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How a mountain range 'runs'

I apologise if this is the wrong place for this question, but why say that the range 'runs, west-northwest to east-southeast' rather than ESE to WNW? Plarstic (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

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)
Documents are normally read from top to bottom, left to right. So in the map provided, which has north at the top, that becomes north to south, west to east. Apuldram (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Plarstic (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Just noticed this discussion. I would have assumed it was just the personal preferences of the editors and source authors. The left-to-right, top-to-bottom rule-of-thumb would fail to help with a range running NE to SW / SW to NE. In the article Appalachian Mountains the range is described as "...running from the island of Newfoundland 1,500 mi (2,400 km) southwestward to Central Alabama in the United States" (NE to SW). That's top-to-bottom but also right-to-left. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 14:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it would also be the preference/bias of the editor. Since I live in the Western half of North America, I tend to prefer saying west to east because of my geographical perspective but also as above, left to right. For those on the Eastern half, they may prefer east to west but that's only conjecture of my part. I don't believe there's any Wikipedia standard/guidelines that dictates the "correct" order but I could be wrong. RedWolf (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hindu Kush and Karakoram

This article says that the Himalayas are adjacent to the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram ranges. But the Hindu Kush and Karakoram articles both say that those respective ranges are subranges of the Himalayas. Consistently with that, Geography of Afghanistan has the Hindu Kush, as part of the Himalayas, extending into Afghanistan, but this article excludes Afghanistan from the list of countries covered by the Himalayas. Any thoughts on rectifying these inconsistencies? —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the Himalayas, Karakorum and Hindu Kush as separate "The Himalayas are bordered to the northwest by the mountain ranges of the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram". I suggest that the subranges phrase in Hindu Kush and Karakoram should be modified. I'm uneasy about their use of "is considerd to be". Apuldram (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Himalayas/Archive_3&oldid=1164981957"