Talk:Indo-Gangetic Plain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Population Table...

If the population table was taken out, the map of Indo Gangetic plain should be taken out too, cuz it covers the same area as the table. If you look at the table CAREFULLY, it covers vast areas totally encompassed in the map, and a section with ***PARTS OF*** Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, etc...I had added the "estimated" populations for tiny PARTS OF these states, NOT THEIR FULL POPULATIONS...Please don't delete this gives a good guide...if u believe a certain subnational area is not within the plain, then discuss it here!

I agree... it also provides a strong(er) basis for the population figure cited in the opening. Brutannica 07:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)s

Cultural influence & facts about the plain[edit]

Perhaps some comment could be made about the fertility and depth and type of the soils in these plains, seasonal cycles of agriculture and how they may have come to shape culture in these regions.

Trends in ecological conservancy[edit]

Widespread deforestation in the plains may have also caused major ecological changes over the last few centuries. Perhaps someone better informed could elaborate on that as well.

WP:COPYVIO from Britannica[edit]

Removed a very short paragraph taken verbatim from Encyclopaedia Britannica's article of the same name. Original here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


What is "chender"? Troglo (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why the move?[edit]

I notice that this article has recently been moved from Indo-Gangetic Plain, the widely recognized and commonly used term, to Indus-Gangetic Plain. Why? Q·L·1968 03:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back. "Indo-Gangetic" is not just a compound of two nouns; it's an adjective meaning "of the Indus and the Ganges" (i.e. Indic+Gangetic). In the interests of parallelism, we could say Indus-Ganges Plain, but (a) that's not the name in common use, and (b) the article already mentions the name "Indus-Ganga Plain" in the intro, which I think is adequate. Q·L·1968 18:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Cities It seems a bit belabored to list so many cities in the summary. I'm changing it with something more concise. There's already an entire section on cities, there's no reason to list so many in the introduction. If anyone disagrees we can discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talkcontribs) 07:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)