Talk:India

Culture section restore

I want to restore (mostly partially) the section back to how it was in 2011 post-FAR. Compare the two: Now and Then

Rationales include there have been some additions to it which weren't discussed and checked since then, we can't vouch for their sourcing etc; giving more weight (in the form of subsections) for relatively lesser aspects like Clothing, Cuisine etc (which are prone to good-faith additions) lowers our agreed-on level of detail for summarising, thereby possibly implying other frequently rejected sections (Defense, Tourism etc) can be put as well; and finally, MOS, it simply doesn't reflect a good structure to have so many (eight, most of them stubby) subsections under one main, unless there's a good reason for it.

I recall there were improvements to it as well since then and I'll try to preserve those while trying to restore. I'm mostly concerned about the structure and bare new additions. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Single paragraph sections are not in line with MOS, and indicate a lack of summarystyle. CMD (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

List of metropolises

In an edit in September 2016, a list of metropolises was added to the first paragraph of the lead, without any discussion on the talk page. Some FAs such as Germany and Canada do have a list of largest metropolises. But they are countries in which more than 75% of the population is urban. In India, it is 30%. It doesn't make much sense to give such privileged mention to the urban 30%, when the 70% rural population garners none at all anywhere in the lead. Besides, a list of metropolises seems incongruous immediately after a of India's neighbors in the Indian ocean. I have temporarily removed that sentence, but I'd like to hear from others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This was something I was about to raise as well. There's more, in the Demo section, someone also changed mentioning of cities to urban agglomerations: According to the 2011 census, there are 53 million-plus urban agglomerations in India; among them Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad, in decreasing order by population. As such, that's a really lesser understood term than just cities which is used throughout the article. Besides just restoring it, what do we do of the "list-like" nature of this statement in general? What's the best way to present this other than impose an arbitrary but reasonable limit of a mention of just five cities? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Treating it by magnitude could work. eg: ...there are 53 cities with over a million people in India, with Mumbai and Delhi supporting over 10 million each. I feel this conveys the impact better than a simple list of cities >1 million. I wouldn't put anything in the lead at the moment as it reflects the bodies lack of space given to demographics. However, if the body is changed, the lead could follow. CMD (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Very well spoken, CMD. As it stands, the three-paragraph Demographics Section has just one sentence about urban conglomerations. It is not lead-worthy yet. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

National Bird- Peacock not Peafowl

Indian national bird is Peacock, not Peafowl. Peafowl would imply that both Peacock as well as Peahen are collectively national birds, which is not the fact. In Indian languages it's the Mayur that's the national bird, not the female Mayuri.

Only the male bird due to its iridescence and tail canopy. Also, the Govt of India website that has been cited has a broken link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.217 (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I've changed "peafowl" to "peacock", the resulting links (one in a caption of a randomized photo) are now redirected to "Indian peafowl", which is perhaps the cause of the confusion. I didn't do anything to improve the referencing, which is a bit of a mess. The good Indian portal link is used by one reference, the dead sfn link cited at the symbols table by another. The two might be combined, or an archived snapshot of the dead link obtained (I'm not entirely sure it's not dead because it wasn't set up properly). Dhtwiki (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in Talk:India/Archive_38#Indian_peafowl. If you want to change anything, please establish new consensus here in light of the arguments advanced in that archive thread, which are fairly comprehensive. @Dhtwiki: It is not a good idea to change anything on this FA (per WP:OWN#Featured_articles, until new consensus has been established. I will therefore be reverting "peacock" back to "peafowl." Again please read the archive carefully. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the archived discussion some time ago, but I haven't gotten around to giving a detailed response. The upshot of what I found was that some people use "peacock" to refer to the species and that correctly should be "peafowl", but in the case of Indian symbolism, it is definitely only the male that is meant, since the female lacks the distinctive plumage. At Peafowl#Cultural_significance, which should be relied upon to properly make the distinction, "peacock" is used almost exclusively when discussing the bird's symbolic role. As far as consensus having developed around the use of "peafowl" instead, I saw no active seconding of your analysis and I count now three editors who have problems with the usage. Dhtwiki (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This shouldn't be hard. Presumably there is some official pronouncement on the national bird of India. If it says "peafowl", then peafowl. If it says "peacock", then peacock. --regentspark (comment) 21:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This government site https://india.gov.in/india-glance/national-symbols has "The Indian peacock, Pavo cristatus, the National Bird of India, .." MilborneOne (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make it any easier, they seem to be using the term peacock for the species and not as a gender specific term as per this statement from there: "The male of the species is more colourful than the female, with a glistening blue breast and neck and a spectacular bronze-green tail of around 200 elongated feathers. The female is brownish, slightly smaller than the male and lacks the tail." —SpacemanSpiff 23:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

They make it somewhat unclear by that wording: to use "peacock", with the scientific name in parenthesis. How likely do they mean "the male of the species Pavo cristatus", which is my interpretation, and how likely are they confusing "peacock" with "peafowl"? Dhtwiki (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

"Peacock" is not infrequently used to refer to peafowl of either sex. Strictly speaking, this may be "incorrect", but there's not much use getting all prescriptive with word usage. (It's roughly analogous to "cow", which is widely used to refer to cattle, males included.) Webster's New World Dictionary's entry for "peacock" says:

a. any male peafowl, esp., one of a species (Pavo cristatus) with a crest of plumules and long, brightly colored upper tail coverts that can be spread like a fan and have rainbow-colored, eyelike spots. b. (loosely) any peafowl.

American Heritage Dictionary and Random House have similar entries. Chambers specifically lists it as a synonym of "peafowl". Based on the above, I think it would be safe to change it to "peacock" in the article. And adding the Latin species name, as well, wouldn't hurt. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150825155850/http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/C-01/DDW00C-01%20MDDS.XLS to http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/C-01/DDW00C-01%20MDDS.XLS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141001005409/http://www.rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=Mzc%3D to http://rajbhasha.nic.in/UI/pagecontent.aspx?pc=Mzc%3D

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of a new section.

There is no mention of India's stride in the field of science and technology.There should be a seperate head where India's achievement in the field of science and technology is highlighted. Proud Indian 4 (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2017

Madhav Subramaniyam (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's unclear what changes you want to make. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 22:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728164230/http://www.bostonanalytics.com/india_watch/Healthcare%20in%20India%20Executive%20Summary.pdf to http://bostonanalytics.com/india_watch/Healthcare%20in%20India%20Executive%20Summary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2017

The Indian Flag present in the below URL(that is the page on which i'm requesting to edit)isn't proper:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India

It should be like the picture available in one of the other wikipedia URL given below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_India

Kindly Process the same as soon as possible. 203.143.188.11 (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done Both articles contain the same flag image. --regentspark (comment) 14:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Addition of image of Elephanta Cave

Hi, I wanted to add this image of Elephanta Caves, declared World Heritage Site by UNESCO, to the article, I think that it could improve the section of art and architecture. What do you think? Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

For reference, the prior discussion (at the time of the last FARC) is at Talk:India/Archive 36#Arts image section rotation. I think the Elephanta image was rejected because we have the other set of caves -- Ajantha included, no point in repeating caves with so little real estate. —SpacemanSpiff 23:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks SpacemanSpiff. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Social stratification, based on caste, emerged in the first millennium BCE"

Is there a citation for this? There is disagreements as to how caste came about and when. Bajirao1007 (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)