Talk:India/Archive 53

Region


These two refs have been cited regarding Bharat.

Narayan states and I quote

while Singh says and I quote

Refs nowhere mentions Gangetic plains. LearnIndology (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * True. That probably means we need better sources.  A Wetzel perhaps, ie. a Sanskrit scholar, not historians reading secondary sources.  I will try to find more precise sources.  The general definition (if definition it can be called, given the mythological sources which mention it) is something like this.  In the late Vedic age (during which the deforestation of the Gangetic plain took place and thereafter settlement by the Indo-Aryans and the consolidation of the Caste system) Bharatavarsha was the region east of the Sutlej, west of Benares, (perhaps only west of Allahabad, according to some) south of the Himalayas, and north of the Vindhyas.  In other words, it was predominantly the upper- and middle Gangetic plain.  (Magadha, being in the lower GP, was not included in Bharatavarsha.)


 * Northern India is too expansive a geographical extent. The Indo-Aryans of the Later Vedic Age (1000–600 BCE) never managed to confront the hill tribes of the lower Himalayas let alone climb any high mountains. They may have had some distant views. Deforesting the upper and middle Ganges plain alone would have been a mammoth enterprise.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. But for now we should change "Gangetic plains" to "northern India" as per sources until we find precise refs. LearnIndology (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Rendering Notes in full width
Consider moving the last photo of "girls playing hopscotch" one (or two?) paragraph above, so that the India-Asia portal in See also would not spill into Notes and that the Notes would be rendered in full width. -- DaxServer (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Slumdogland" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Slumdogland. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 17:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 July 2021
India lies to the north of the equator between 8° 4' and 37° 6′ north latitude. This information is correct and is given in NCERT Book. Nishānt Omm (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

What's not clear now? Nishānt Omm (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * In case someone wondering, the OP has changed the coordinates in the original request. See Special:Diff/1034521562 -- DaxServer (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Is my information confirmed? Please reply. Nishānt Omm (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Latitudinal extent of India in geography section.
India is a vast country. Lying entirely in the Northern hemisphere the main land extends between latitudes 8°4'N and 37°6'N. Source: ncert.nic.in Nishānt Omm (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A quick look in Google Maps for the Indira Point in Andaman & Nicobar Islands gives something around 6 degrees. -- DaxServer (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This information is also available in 'Geography of India' Wikipedia page. Nishānt Omm (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that NCERT Book is wrong. If it's wrong, correct the Wikipedia page of 'Geography of India'. Nishānt Omm (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Another thing Indira point (Southernmost point of Indian Union) is submerged under sea water in 2004 during Tsunami 🌊. Nishānt Omm (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2021
116.204.148.56 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC) India's national animal is only Tiger species. Bengal Tigers are sub species of Tiger. www.india.gov.in has the Indian national symbols' list. Also the given reference says that only Tiger is India's national animal.
 * Please proved a WP:RS (a specific source rather than a generic website link). --RegentsPark (comment) 14:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Image over-use
I've removed a lot of images from the page. I'm not familiar with the subject matter, so if I have removed something that is crucial for contextualising content, restore it, but something else will have to go. I visited this page on a mobile view and it borders on completely broken—unreadable, with images overlapping text, extending beyond acceptable boundaries. As a featured article, strict MOS adherence is required: it violates MOS:SANDWICH quite egregiously, in some of the worst states I've ever seen. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for trying .....but accessibility is ignored here.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 21:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The change has been reverted. If the overuse of images was obviously breaking the mobile view, I would have re-reverted; but on both iOS and Android and both web and mobile-app the article looks fine with all the images.  What platform are you seeing display issues on? User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 21:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * and : I've had a look. For me the page is fine on mobile Chrome (Android), but rendering very poorly on the default browser on my Samsung phone (not Chrome—Samsung's own browser). Even if it’s functional elsewhere, it looks hideous and violates the MOS. None of these images are so necessary that the article should look like this. We can talk about it, but what it comes down to is, are these images so necessary that we should make the article hideous, and the text more difficult to read, to keep them? I think the answer is straightforward no, and the question should turn to which images are necessary for context and which are not. I'm happy to make a list. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We use this format as an example of what not to do.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not too worried about image over-use; I would expect China, India, and United States to be the three articles with the most images of any article on the project. There does seem to be some SANDWICH going on with the "India under British East India Company rule" image section for my web view; perhaps the nine historical-political maps should be moved to a gallery at the end of the History section? User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 22:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I keep wondering about the same . I've certainly checked on my iPhone, in both Wikipedia the mobile view and desktop view.  Nothing seems to be the matter.  The images are more focused than on my actual desktop.  It is the same people who now and then decide to snipe here, their arguments amounting to nothing more than I Don't Like It.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never edited this page before today, so surely it is not me you are talking to. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * BS..comes up all the time by many different editors.....moreWP:ICANTHEARYOU. This is the only major country article that does not follow the basics at Wp:gallery MOS:SANDWICH MOS:IMAGESIZE MOS:ACCIM WP:UNDUE. Keeps comming up....fix it so the article is readable by all. Keeps comming up....FA review ?-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't agree that the image use here is appropriate. There are plenty of other articles the images can be spread across, and there are plenty of superior resources users can use to find specific images. Images should support text but not supersede it; the images are overwhelming compared to the text and makes the page look so bloated. This came up when the article was given notice by FAR last November, almost all of which has gone unaddressed. Think it’s probably time to open FAR for the article., given that you gave notice, would you agree with me commencing those proceedings (8 months later)? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If Fowler&fowler continues to act as page owner and is unwilling to fix the image WP:SANDWICH issue, there is no choice other than a FA review. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 22:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there were was an ownership issue with this page—that is sad. But the sandwich issue isn't even one of the primary extant issues raised by the notice given, so FAR is the next port of call. If there are ownership issues, that doesn't complicate things. Obviously the absolute goal for FAR is to retain articles' status—there is no rush. But if there's a refusal to meet what is decided by consensus as the right steps then it will make the review quick, and the vote likewise. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

And how will the Keystone Kops with no knowledge of India be proceeding? As for images, that is an easy fix. It can be changed to the gallery format as in my last FAR Political history of Mysore and Coorg etc Art FAs are chock full of galleries. Someone has already changed a few on this page to galleries. All can be so converted. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take a subject-specific savant to get an article to the FA criteria, so I'm not going to overstate the significance of any one editor. The problems here aren't content—it’s volume and presentation. Delisting is a natural event for many articles—if this one meets that fate, I will be sad, but I'm confident others will step up to the plate. Failing that, it'll be delisted. That's pretty much it. As for galleries, it could work. I personally think the volume of images is too much, but I could be wrong, so I'd like someone from FAC to give some input on that. Maybe ? They are really prolific FAC image reviewers. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the article has too many images. Besides the above mentioned issues with sandwiching, MOS and accessibility for all readers, too many images also displace text and inflate the size of the article. Galleries do avoid the sandwiching problem, but they also have a cost: they break up the text and may be used to shoehorn in images of limited encyclopedic relevance. It needs careful thinking how many images actually improve a broad article like this one versus how many would be better off placed on articles with a narrower scope. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:COUNTRY "Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Rwanda.)" Overall we avoid random galleries in these articles as per Summary style because of WP:UNDUE "Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article ".....that said if accessible its better then before and not an FA concern. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see the issue here. Apparently, the article renders fine on most browsers, the samsung one being an exception. We can't tailor the article to every browser and, for a country with India's rich diversity, I'd rather see an image filled page rather than a bland mostly text only version. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Purpose ="Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a  widely accessible and free encyclopedia; -- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! Nobody's advocating to remove every single image; there are lots of really great images here, and it'll be hard to narrow down which ones have immediate relevancy and which ones can go elsewhere. Just bring some of their sizes down and keep the focus on the text (all 11,000 words of it, which needs to come down). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Really, Imagines Tiger, it doesn't? Why don't you try and allow me to pick apart your every sentence?  I guarantee, every sentence it will be.  In the process, I will also take down Canada, Japan, and what have you that have copied from this, WP's oldest country FA, soon to be 17.   I mean it is getting to be ridiculous.  You guys know nothing about India, but hold yourself up guardians of images.  Where were you during the second TFA of October 2, 2019, when parts of the article were rewritten and these images were added over the preceding two months watched by dozens of seasoned editors and admins, and finally copy edited by Two Fingered Typist, the dean of WP Guild of Copy Editors? In hypnagogic hallucinations, deep sleep, or hypnopompic hallunications?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking of FAC regulars and FA authors, the Visual art subsection of the Culture section was written by Johnbod a few months ago. It has six images, including five in one horizontal gallery. Perhaps the snipers should take those out and start an argument with him.  He has a much longer fuse than mine.  All the best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I've no idea what you're responding to above; I'm addressing issues raised during the FAR notice, and do not intend to "pick apart [your] every sentence". Work being required on this article isn't a personal attack, although you may interpret them that way because of the frequency with which you hurl them at other editors. Please by all means go to some of my work on Wikipedia and rewrite sentences, if you think it improves them. That is what Wikipedia is about. I'm not going to indulge the dramatic tantrums. Wikipedia does not offer extra permissions for years of service. Along those lines, "where were you during the second TFA of October 2, 2019"—F&f, it wasn't a war; the beaches of Mainspace were not stormed. The dramatics, and your "style" of speaking to other editors, is inappropriate, unnecessary, and not collegial. It’s sad that you think it’s okay to talk to people like this, especially coming from an academic and an experienced editor... it’s so disappointing. For now, I'm going to disengage with you, because you don't seem capable of being calm, collegial, or civil.
 * I'll wait to see what Femke feels about beginning the FAR. I don't think any of the issues are insurmountable, but there's an URFA backlog to clear, and it’s been months since there was any movement. Happy to lay them out as I see them for her, and other interested URFA participants. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 01:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just from a point-of-view from a professional programmer (not commenting on which images should be considered), wouldn't it be a problem with rendering of Wikipedia on the Samsung browser? Could there be a styling (CSS/JS) issues that might only come up on Samsung browsers when the images are laid out exactly what it is right now in this article? -- DaxServer (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been talking about an FAR longer than anyone else. The last FAR was proposed by me. I am certainly not asking that you disengage, only that you disengage in fruitless pursuits. There are many sections that need work. I've been asking editors for the last six months to help out, but mostly to little avail. When editors do respond constructively, such as EMSmiles has on climate change, I respond with uniform encouragement. Writing about India is not for the faint-hearted, and any sincere attempt should be encouraged. There are several sections, that are in great need for improvement. One such is India section; another is India. How would you like to improve them? But what is the good of waving rules and regulations at seasoned India-hands such as RegentsPark or I? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant the above sincerely, not as a taunt. Other sections that desperately need improvement are: India, India, India.  Would any of you,, ,  and  like to help out.  Johnbod has already helped with Visual art; Rjensen on Education; EMSmiles (as stated on Climate Change).  There are four of you; I'm sure you could do it.  You can ask me any questions you might have.  Again, I mean this sincerely.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a productive discussion that could be had here. I take it on good faith that some users see issues in the mobile interface, the mobile ecosystem is diverse. Similarly, it should be noted that the images on this article have been the subject of discussion for many years. (I remember there used to be a system where the image that appeared was actually selected from a pool each time the page was loaded, which was a novel idea.)Perhaps this discussion could refocus on the purpose of the images, which may be more useful that simply noting there are too many. Image selection on any country article is difficult, more so for a country with a billion people. They face what is essentially a more extreme version of the Summary style considerations for text (this article's slow growth over time to what is now 71kB prose demonstrates the difficulty there as well).With summary style in mind, part of the issue here may be a reliance on this article, as sub-articles are not as well developed. Take the aforementioned art gallery, my impression was that some thought was put into the selection of images, yet none of the images deemed important enough to summarise at this high level appear on Indian art (although there is a lower quality version of File:MET DT5237 (cropped).jpg) . Demographics of India doesn't have any of the images included in the Demographics, languages, and religion section here. The 1901 maps and the broad generic South Asian language map seem like some of the most obvious cuts for this article, and such cuts are easier if their associated information is close by within the article ecosystem.There may also be smaller changes that could help, which common ground might be found for. For example, many pictures in this article are scaled to be larger, which contributes to sandwiching and potential display distortions. This scaling could probably be removed in some cases, for example I don't see what value a 20% larger tiger image brings to the reader. CMD (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will refrain for now. There are many other editors more experienced with image selection and layout than I am.  Regarding the prose, I think the article could actually be 500-1000 words longer, but consensus and the WP:FA guidelines appear to be against me.  The society and economic sections, I may make an attempt at improving in 2-3 weeks if nobody else does first.  (I really do know nothing about Bollywood, and without a significant wordcount expansion I doubt I can improve the demographics section). User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 03:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A few things. The first, to, in response to "what is the good of waving rules and regulations at seasoned India-hands such as RegentsPark or I?" Well, simply put, the rules are going to be what determines if the article meets the Featured Article criteria. You are free to continue overseeing the article without the star in the top right of the page, should you not heed advice on Wikipedia's policies.
 * Secondly, I think that CMD observation regarding the neglect of spin-off articles is a good one. It’s almost certainly contributing to the bloat. Some sections are neglected while others are vastly over-represented. While many are asking what must be added for comprehensiveness, the reality is that the article is too big and things are going to have to be removed to facilitate that. Wikipedia recommends that articles of over 100,000 bytes "should almost certainly be divided". This article is three times that—at 300,000 bytes. At FAR, we're going to have to determine how best to approach summary style. This isn't just adherence for the sake of it. There are technical limitations and accessibility issues for these guidelines, regardless of whether any one editor is experiencing them. The article's size must come down, quite dramatically. Removing some images is an easy fix for removing bytes but it doesn't work alone. For this conversation to be focused, it has to have a formatted FAR—that is, some editors focused on bringing up some sections in size, bringing down others, removing unnecessary images. I'd like to have our experts on hand for those discussions. I'd also like for our experts to be friendly and approachable, with policy and content discussions occurring with hands in hands rather than fists in faces. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article-size guidance does not count the space used by references, just prose. I measure a prose size of about 85KB for the article, which is still large, but below 100KB and reasonable for an article of this scope. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 21:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * just noting I've seen the discussion, and want to plan the FAR such that the star will be saved. I might work on the economy section before, which needs updating and visually slightly less attention to agriculture. Back from wiki break on 20th. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm noting that an FAR begun by people who are experts in FAR rules and FA criteria is somewhat different from that begun by people who have worked on this article for years and have a sense of what is DUE in Indian topics. Take History for example.  India is one of the most worked over (and reworked over) fields of history in recent times (see here or here) How many books of Romila Thapar and Chris Bayly have you read to have a feel for the landscape of Indian historiography?  How is anyone without experience (envenomed only with "Anyone can edit") help improve those sections?  What will you read when the books published by Cambridge University Press alone are in the hundreds? What slant will you take when there are a dozen slants?   It is easy for people to appear here (as they do from time to time) and recite the FA criteria to our tired ears, but please tell us something "actionable." Not in the manner I hear at FAC from folk who are gaming the system and want to be spoonfed but tell us something specific not "this section is too long, and that too short."  I would request too that you present your proposed version here with their sources (as Johnbod, Rjensen, and EMSmiles already have) Thank you.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So, all in all: Let us forget the FAR for now, but please help improve the sections I have noted upstairs. If you can't do that then let me manage the FAR in the manner I managed the last FAR, and the several other mini-FARs before and after. Please don't take this to be a threat of any sort; it is a simple statement of fact about the complexity of India-related knowledge.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree that FAR should be a future thing. We're having repeated content disputes, and FAR isn't an ideal way to solve them (see the discussion on the British empire). I think, in terms of images, a set of proposals (either via slow but bold editing, or on talk), needs to be made, and if we cannot agree, an RfC should be launched. F&f: you are very knowledgeable about which images are more important. I know you don't want to remove images, but I was wondering if you could state which ones are least important in your view. The 'Early modern India' could be a good starting point, as this is the least ambiguous violation image policy (violating MOS:ACCIM, with sandwiching present on my multiple devices.). Unrelated, but I will work on improving the economy section. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Femke Your ideas are good. About the images, I have to run now so I will be brief, but my general impression is that people who have complained about the images on this page for the last 15 years (and I don't mean anyone in particular) are people who have never read a word of the text and are unable to appreciate the many-splendored ways in which the images complement the text.  In early modern, for example, all are needed.  The first two maps give the reader a feel for the spectacular growth of the Mughal Empire in less than 80 years after its founding.  Without those two maps, the prose will not give a sense of the staggering accomplishment.  The distant view of the Taj from the Agra fort is one of the iconic images of the Mughals—the view of the tomb of his beloved wife that the imprisoned and dying emperor Shah Jahan, the builder of the Taj,  saw from his jail cell in his last days. How can we remove any of it?  The same with the EIC: in a mere 50 years, 1757 to 1805, it had conquered half the subcontinent.  Without the maps, the words are mere words.  The spectacular Gold mohur (another WP Featured Picture) shows the symbolic value of the Indian empire to the British.  More than half the pictures on this page are Featured Pictures.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Femke, I mulled over your question. I think it is a good approach for it creates a hierarchy of quality and appropriateness which could be employed to good use when stark choices need to be made.  I think of the six images the two at the bottom of the totem pole would be India in 1525 and India in 1795.  Those two are still relevant, but the least so among the six.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing that information. I think this is one of the places we don't have much wiggle room with the guidelines, as MOS:ACCESS is based on non-discrimination and may not be circumvented, so stark choices to demote some of the images to the major subarticles will have to be made.
 * I agree that the maps a good first place to look. They are all beautiful historical maps, but not all of them are suitable for being displayed as a thumbnail in an article, as you need to click on them to understand their information. Removing the slightly less relevant ones, also help us {[tq|strive for variety}} (from MOS:IMAGES). With the wikibreak enforcer, I cannot test whether this will solve the accessibility issue, however. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

...and now Fowler has reverted again, to a revision of the article where the images are sandwiched together and too small to read at the size they're displayed at. I can't agree that purpose of images in this article include "giv[ing] a sense of the staggering accomplishment" of the Mughal empire or showing the view that some emperor "saw from his jail cell in his last days". The ONLY purpose of images is to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic—India. If the images are too small to see or they don't give equal or greater encyclopedic value than the amount of text that would fit in the space, they aren't contributing sufficiently to reader understanding. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, that last bit is purely your personal opinion, with no backing in consensus and guidelines. In fact, almost any well-chosen map of India will give much more "encyclopedic value than the amount of text that would fit in the space". For other images the test is probably too deeply subjective to be useful.  This isn't the article to excercise your usual drive-by mass removal approach on. Johnbod (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Buidhe removed a number of pictures that belongs on subpages, which, I think, means "related pages". The cave picture, for example, isn't even discussed on this article/page.  She cited a policy, not a chapter or a verse.  Local consensus doesn't overide global consensus. Catchpoke (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say but the current set of images were arrived by a long drawn consensus driven process. I suggest you wait for that consensus to change. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Would you link the relevant discussion(s) for me? Sorry, fairly new to this article's history. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 02:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the problems about the pictures are but if the pictures aren't discussed in the article, they shouldn't be in the article. User:RegentsPark also reverted a lot of syn and u.r.l. templating changes.  They should be put-back/reverted. Catchpoke (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As this conversation is ongoing, specific proposals here would be better than new massive bold edits which clearly don't have consensus. Pictures do not need to be discussed in the article, that would remove almost all pictures from non-art articles. Probably also best to raise mass changes to citation formatting. CMD (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that the images of this article is so wanton and overfilled to the point where it is probably done to make the reader not read the text and instead just look at the pictures. I am adding my consensus that the image gallery and stacked images should be removed. Compare this article to United States or Japan and see the difference. There are no galleries or 3x3 stack of cuisines in those articles. What gives here?HaryanaMayil (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the same editor who has suggested in a section above: ">>> 'Adding the pork (see here) and chicken (see here) dishes is just provocative honestly and instead of being contentious in this debate lets just use common sense and completely do away with the cuisine images altogether and follow what other articles in the other languages do in the cuisine section which is File:Indian curry with dosa.jpg orFile:Spices in an Indian market.jpg or the old File:Indian Spices.jpg. These images universally represent Indian cuisine as everyone is aware of bread with curry or spices make the curry. So please consider this point.'<<<" I'm sorry to have to inform you that the image File:Indian curry with dosa.jpg is not of dosa at all.  It is naan, a Muslim-influenced bread of India, served at ガネーシャ・ガル 代沢店 (see the Flickr picture) the Ganesha Ghar Daizawa in Tokyo, Japan.  The curry, most likely, is halaal lamb or goat. Here is another picture of their naan; here one of a salad unlike any other eaten in India. There is also the picture of chicken, shrimp, and scallop from the tandoor. It is hardly likely that those universally represent Indian cuisine, especially not the shellfish at that price.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Nooo! Triggerhippie added back the Largest cities of India.  There isn't consensus for this.  Would someone please revert back to Fowler's-and-Fowler's version?Catchpoke (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will look into this. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! We don't need that template and the article hasn't had it for years!Catchpoke (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi,looks like that dish might be from a Japanese restaurant, although I think it is vegetarian. I found two images in Commons that universally represent Indian cuisine that are based on the North and South divide. The first File:Mix vegetable with rice and dal.JPG which represent South India quite well. The other is File:Jaipur Thali.jpg which represent North India. Please critique these two, and see if you can remove the pork vindaloo.jpg for these dishes. Just two pictures is fine.HaryanaMayil (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry every Indian is not a vegetarian Maharajah. (The picture of a Jaipur thali, in any case, is copyrighted.) A much more representative picture is File:Indian Kitchens Outdoor and Indoor, Rajasthan and Karnataka.jpg, which used to be on the page. Pork by the way is eaten by Dalits and Tribals who constitute 1/4 of India's population. I'm sorry but this is as far as I go in humoring you. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  01:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2021
India's GDP per capita as for 2021 in US$ 2100, the article needs to reflect that. Arunhegde12 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC) https://statisticstimes.com/economy/country/india-gdp-per-capita.php https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=IN
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, your own World Bank source says it was $2100 in 2019, but $1900 in 2020. Neither source shows data for 2021; WB stops at 2020 and Statistics Times stops at 2019. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI talk &#124; fings wot i hav dun 15:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"India's" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect India&. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 8 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 July 2021
Remove "and the most populous democracy in the world" in the first sentence of the page. Needlessly divisive and has no real benefit. Systems of government in India are described elsewhere in the article. The only thing that this serves is asserting that India has more Democracy Points than China, which, sure, fine, that's an argument that can be made, but the place to do it really isn't the first sentence of an article about India. MxMorgan (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the proposed edit. India is a democracyShakespeare143 (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Archiving
Anyone know why the bot is not doing it? Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The bot is set to archive threads which have no comments less than 30 days old. All current threads have younger comments than that. CMD (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Chipmunkdavis I didn't mean right now, I meant for the past year. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I pulled the code out of the banner holder, it's possible this might make a difference. CMD (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2021
"Their long occupation, initially in varying forms of isolation as hunter-gatherers, has made the region highly diverse, second only to Africa in human genetic diversity."

I'm new to editing wikis--but phrasing could be improved: specifically "long occupation" and "forms of isolation" are difficult to read. And I'm not sure it's strictly accurate just taking from the referenced material

Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, p. 28, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8.

Will give more attention as soon as possible but just wanted to throw this in the pile. Ethaerist (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

caste lines
By 400 BCE, stratification and exclusion by caste had emerged within Hinduism,[30] and Buddhism and Jainism had arisen, proclaiming social orders unlinked to heredity.[31] Early political consolidations gave rise to the loose-knit Maurya and Gupta Empires based in the Ganges Basin.[32] Their collective era was suffused with wide-ranging creativity,[33] but also marked by the declining status of women,[34] and the incorporation of untouchability into an organised system of belief.

can we remove this line this isnt supported by any major source. Only signs of a varna system are found and there is no difference between brahmana and sramana traditions varna exist in buddhism and jainism as well

The earliest known explicit use of the term śramaṇa is found in section 2.7 of the Taittiriya Aranyaka, a layer within the Yajurveda (~1000 BCE, a scripture of Hinduism). It mentions śramaṇa Rishis and celibate Rishis.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0195344783
 * https://books.google.co.in/books?id=HOzdcIxJy2sC&pg=PA30&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Patrick Olivelle, a professor of Indology and known for his translations of major ancient Sanskrit works, states in his 1993 study that contrary to some representations, the original Śramaṇa tradition was a part of the Vedic one. He writes,

Sramana in that context obviously means a person who is in the habit of performing srama. Far from separating these seers from the vedic ritual tradition, therefore, śramaṇa places them right at the center of that tradition. Those who see them [Sramana seers] as non-Brahmanical, anti-Brahmanical, or even non-Aryan precursors of later sectarian ascetics are drawing conclusions that far outstrip the available evidence.

— Patrick Olivelle, The Ashrama System https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RYkPtXiXRYcC&redir_esc=y ISBN 978-0-19-534478-3 these links show that jainism and buddhism didnt reject social orders and caste system didnt exist before the gupta era. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/the-caste-system-has-left-its-mark-on-indians-genomes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing stuff
In the History section and in the lead, there appears to be no mention of North-east India or the islands, and no mention of the four wars India has fought since independence. The lead fails to mention the World War involvements entirely. No mention of the annexations of Sikkim, Junagadh and Hyderabad by the modern state either. The adivasis are seemingly invisible.

I might start editing and copyediting tomorrow. Just thought I'd put these out so others can help if they have sources. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI talk &#124; fings wot i hav dun 07:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The history here is a highly compressed precis. It is the most compressed there is of India on Wikipedia. It has also undergone a rigorous review, and it is already bursting at the seams. Please don't edit the sections, but you are welcome to air your views here and garner consensus for them.  (Please read: WP:OWN) You are also very welcome to contribute to the articles on those topics, such as Hyderabad State, India's "police action, "Operation Polo" or Annexation of Hyderabad.  There are similar articles on Junagadh and Sikkim. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2021
I wish to change the name of the country in the native language(i.e., Hindi) to the original Devanagri text of the language. Proposed edit: "Bharatiya Ganarajya" to "भारतीय गणराज्य". SSG123 (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

COLOUR INDICATING 'INDIAN' IN MAP
From thousands of years saffron is the symbolic colour of india and indians, so the green colour indicating india in the image should be changed with saffron, please change the colour Lalsingh.the.dragon (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ Please read WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Orthographic maps to know more — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Image basics
Images are not following the basics as seen at other articles as per MOS:IMAGESIZE or MOS:IMAGELOCATION.--204.237.3.51 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Ignorance of North East Culture
I think that more cultural information should be added about Northeast India and that too, in an unbiased way. SpiritVonAdam (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Maharashtra is a footballing state
Though most people say cricket is most popular in Maharashtra but over the past decade, football has grown its presence in Maharashtra and has since became equally popular as cricket in Maharashtra. I would thus request Maharashtra to the list of footballing states in sports section along with other fellow footballing states. Maharashtra also hosts Mumbai FC in ISL. Though we don't see much fan base of this club as there are numerous small clubs who have created their own clubs and compete in local tournaments arranged throughout the city limits and beyond. SpiritVonAdam (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 September 2021
IN INDIA MAP - KASHMIR PART SHOULD BE FULLY DARK GREEN- I.E. FULLY CONTROLLED AND CLAIMED BY INDIA. 2405:201:E:2131:FD9F:ECBB:CDE2:F4F1 (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see WikiProject Maps/Conventions/Orthographic maps to know why — DaxServer (talk to me) 14:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for new section on science and technology
Hi, just a suggestion, the majority of country articles have a section for science and technology, one could be created added for India.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Already discussed about it. Look at this archived-discussion and FAQ-4. Dinesh | Talk 07:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2021
India, officially the Hindu Republic of India Miteshode88 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Of course, not — DaxServer (talk to me) 11:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2021
Xenxkisu (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Allow me to edit some errors
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2021
In regional language there is language missing bhojpuri please add this 2409:4042:78F:9530:0:0:EA2:60B1 (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2021 (2)
Remove Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya its not Hindi its a different language 71.254.10.164 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It is well sourced and there is consensus for the wording. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

ATP 250 Maharashtra Open - Tennis Championship
It is the only ATP level Tennis Championship of south asia. In the culture section it is mentioned as Chennai Open because it was held in Chennai prior 2016 but it is moved to Pune and now it is known as Maharashtra Open. I suggest to change Chennai Open to Maharashtra Open, it is its right name. Newton Euro (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hindi ISO
Do we have a consensus on which ISOs to be added? What was the outcome of the discussion around the opening sentence? The last discussion I see was about 2 years ago, Talk:India/Archive 45 and Talk:India/Archive 45 — DaxServer (talk to me) 14:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2021
27.255.53.190 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC) I edited this because I'm from India and I love india and I have to changes 5 things pls
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2021 (India and Bharat)
X = India, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[23] is a country in South Asia. Change it to Y = India or Bharat, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[23] is a country in South Asia. Reason = Both "India" and "Bharat" are official names of the "Republic of India" as per Indian Constitution, see this for reference. Pyaarkarona (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit
You should add Afghanistan as neighbouring country because India Shares it's land border with Afghanistan's Badakhshan Province with Ladakh Union Territory. Het666 (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before, most recently I think at Talk:India/Archive 48. I do note on the topic that there is no image representation of the Indian claim at Ladakh, nor an explanation of the border with J&Lstate reflecting older boundaries, which feel like significant absences. CMD (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Only "India" or "India or Bharat"
This is a discussion for changing the first line of article, from (India, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[23] is a country in South Asia.)this to (India or Bharat, officially the Republic of India (Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya),[23] is a country in South Asia.)this, reason is "Both "India" and "Bharat" are official names of the "Republic of India" as per Indian Constitution, see this for reference". Pyaarkarona (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @ please participate here! Pyaarkarona (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not original research in the phrasing of the Indian constitution. As a new editor with less than 100 edits, please also read WP:Main article fixation, and I don't mean this paternalistically, only sincerely.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * please see this for reference, this is from the official website of government of india, first line of the constitution of india on page no. 23 says "1. Name and territory of the Union.—(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States." even the country's supreme court also said that bharat and india both are the official name of the nation, see this for reference. Pyaarkarona (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you'll need to cite a reference in the format of "citation" or "cite book" or "cite web," ... with author, title, publisher, year, and other relevant information, not anonymously in a link. Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry i cant understand what are you asking for, as per my knowledge "citations" are used in article for reference purpose, but why does it matter, if i provide you the proof as "citation" or "direct link", i think both are same thing, main motive is to show reference, but for your satisfaction, here is your citation.
 * Formally: Both "India" and "Bharat" are official names of the "Republic of India" as per Indian Constitution. Is it correct? Now. Pyaarkarona (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Thank you for that. Please read WP:PRIMARY which states: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, ... : ... Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."


 * Please note further: The Constitution of India is a primary source. A government body or a court is not a secondary source.
 * Therefore any interpretation of the words of the Constitution of India by a court or government body is not reliable for Wikipedia's purposes.
 * Please note also WP:TERTIARY which states: *:: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight
 * In this instance as all sources may not agree, we use standard tertiary sources. This constitutes footnote 23.  I haven't checked but none of the sources there say, "India or Bharat, officially ...;" in any case, a preponderance do not.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS I can find more tertiary sources. Hold on.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"India" is the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  04:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comment is totally out of context here, we are not discussing "change of article's name", we are discussing to add "Bharat" as another official name in the "body" of article. Pyaarkarona (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * as far as i understand, you are asking me proof of "Bharat" being one of the "two" official name of "Republic of India". Right??
 * If yes then, from your own proofs, see *Encyclopedia Britannica: India, Official Name: OFFICIAL NAME Bharat (Hindi); Republic of India (English), britannica says bharat is the second official name of "Republic of India". if you want more proofs, please let me know. and if i mis-interpret your words, then also please let me know. Pyaarkarona (talk) 05:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you mean Official name: Bharat (Hindi); Republic of India (English) from ? — DaxServer (talk to me) 06:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Pyaarkarona: "totally out of context" is an unnecessary rude comment. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. Pyaarkarona (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It says Hindi in the bracket. Names for India and Names of India in its official languages are probably what you are looking for. — DaxServer (talk to me) 10:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When i wrote that, i didn't find it rude, but while reading it if you find that rude, then please accept my appologies, but my stance is still same, your comment about WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply here. Pyaarkarona (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It makes sense to mention Bharat as well, since that seems to be the commonname in India. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * i can't understand, whether you support this or oppose, "Bharat" was selected as alternate name for "Republic of India" along with "India" as mentioned by me above and also wikipedia itself at Names for India, and about languages, you can check at Names of India in its official languages that each language in india just has different way to pronounce the very same word "Bharat". Pyaarkarona (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Only when a preponderance of reliable tertiary sources (not one or two or three) state something like: India or Bharat, officially Republic of India (Bharat Ganrajya) ..." can we change. Preponderance means "an abundance, a great number, a large quantity, a majority. (OED)" We get these kinds of requests all the time.  Please examine the archives. We cannot interpret the Indian Constitution (that would be original research, nor can we rely on the Indian government or the Indian supreme court interpreting the Constitution (because a primary source can only be interpreted by reliable secondary sources which neither the government nor the courts are. Only when scholarly secondary sources do so (i.e. when the interpretation is reliable) and the trend is reflected in reliable tertiary sources (i.e. the interpretation has due weight) can we change.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * i dont where is the issue laging behind, does my explaination have problems or your understanding has, i just cant figure this out. see, in simple words, India and bharat both are common names for "Republic of India", and as far as i understand, you want a reliable source which will the same line as i do, right?? so please see your own wikipedia article Names for India and Names of India in its official languages, if you are still not satisfied then see this and this, second sources doesn't qoute any court's statement, one thing to be clear here, i can just show you news article mentioning both india and bharat but this is a fact that these news article aren't published on their own, they must have a background to publish something, so they must qoute some event, and if these news portal quote supreme court of india then what can i do?? these is a fact that they have to quote something to write news and they are quoting supreme court, no one can find news article without any quoted sources, which i think you are asking to find, so please see this again, i think this is enough to prove that india has a second name "bharat" which is accepted all over india as country's alternative name. Pyaarkarona (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry this is as far as I go in patiently explaining Wikipedia policy to you. This is a featured article that means that although anyone can edit it, it has gone through some exacting reviews, and care is required in making changes.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Bharat is barely used in English to refer to India. It is an endonym in Hindi but this is the English Wikipedia. India (Hindi: Bhārat) should be more acceptable considering the lead sentence does translate Republic of India (Hindi: Bhārat Gaṇarājya). I think that would be fairly uncontroversial, unless the inclusion of Bhārat Gaṇarājya merits scrutiny too. 2001:8F8:172B:442F:80E5:6ADC:7DB8:EE7 (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All good points, but notions of consistency in WP are limited to article titles and the (regional) variety of English being used in a range of similar articles, not to logical consistency within the text. More importantly, "Republic of India (Bharat Ganrajya) is mentioned because a preponderance of reliable tertiary sources does so; the sources don't say "India or Bharat," or "India (Hindi: Bharat);" they say only "India, officially ..." i.e. with the exception of a small minority.   Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS Scouring my memory for past discussions, there is another problem. Saying "officially Republic of India (Hindi: Bharat Ganrajya)" is fine because Hindi and English are the two official languages of the union (i.e. of the federal government of India).  But "India" is the common name.  Editors have asked in the past, "Why should Hindi be favored among India's many languages in an English-language common name?"   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * i think your question has two answers, first you already given yourself, that hindi is the official language of the union along with english. second answer would be that hindi is the most used language in india, almost 52% people of india speaks hindi as their primary language. so i think the "Hindi" version of india i.e Bharat, must be written in the article as "India or Bharat" i am not talking to change the article's title as "Bharat" so the (english wikipedia) thing will not applicable, because we would be just using "bharat" for making wikipedia factually correct. Pyaarkarona (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Another idea
i have another idea, why dont we put the same language in the article as per indian constitution, like we can replace "India, officially the Republic of India" with " India, that is Bharat, officially the Republic of India". what do you think, does this satisfys your "interpretation" thing as we are writing same thing as per constitution so i think interpretation is not required anymore, what do you think?? Pyaarkarona (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you give up your quest. You are a new user.  You don't understand WP policy.  Beyond a certain point, such on-the-fly persistence constitutes WP:DISRUPTION. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

International Organizations

 * UNESCO International Bureau of Education, World Data on Education, 6th edition, India Quote: "Official name of the country: Republic of India."
 * Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Country Codes/Names (Scroll down) Quote: India, Official name: the Republic of India.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 October 2021
India also share boundaries with afganistan.it is not mentioned in 1st paragraph 2405:204:5308:104A:767F:C618:AAFD:CF64 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

India stance is, POK is India's integral part. POK shares some border with Afg. I vote to add India shares border with Afg. Newton Euro (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of the images are outdated.
Just I mentioned above, the images in this article's sub-sect are outdated and do not represent present India. These images are looking like 40 to 50 years old. India is diverse country but most the images are from North India, why there no images from South, West, East and North East India. Why all these images are from socially & economically backward areas and of poor peoples. I suggest fellow editor to add which represent true, current India not old India beacuse this article isn't abt history of this nation. Newton Euro (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the article, and I could count images from South India are in majority, unlike what you said. I see images from Sikkim, Assam, Gujarat, Amritsar, Srinagar, Kashmir, Varanasi, Odisha. I see maps of India from 1022, 1398, comparing 250 BC and 350 CE, 1525 and 1605, 1795 and 1848, 1901 and 2011, map of Indian states & UTs (28-8) which is the latest. I see images of [adult] women in literacy class, in jeans, chudidar, hijab. I see images of farmers, who represent rural India. I see all sects fairly represented. Perhaps you could provide some images and propose to add them? Also, I think the correct article you are looking for is the History of India (1947–present) — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The concerns are unsubstantiated and indicative of a POV. That being said, can we can something from North East? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

add about football in sports column
About ISL And other stuff 2409:4052:240B:64B6:0:0:23D9:8AD (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding India's claim to a 106km border with Afghanistan is important.
Hi all,

I have been reading the detailed Wikipedia article of India which mentions India bordered by Pakistan, China, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar & Bangladesh however, India officially claims to also have a 106km border with Afghanistan. Though the region where the Afghan border is currently is under Pakistani administration, India has always claimed to have a short border with Afghanistan as it claims the entirety of Jammu & Kashmir and as a result, every single map produced in India (including Google Maps) that its 1.3 Billion citizens use shows a clear Indo-Afghan border. This is important not only since India has one-sixth of the World's people, but also because many of us students studying High School Geography refer to the Wikipedia article for India (including for the Indian Civil Service Exams) and quite a few of my friends didn't realise that India also officially has a 106km border with Afghanistan. Hence, I firmly believe that adding just 1 phrase "In addition, India officially also claims a 106km border with Afghanistan." after discussing the rest of India's bordering countries will remove any confusion for everyone wondering about India's bordering neighbours as per India's official maps. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6B6B:880C:0:4C67:AF1B:6796:1757 (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Maps show such fancy stuff in India because GOI threatened to evict them — I see something quite different. Anyways, GOI != Wikipedia. You need to provide reliable tertiary sources that discusses India to have this border-claim with Afghanistan, when they cover the topic. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I support mentioning this claim in both India and Afghanistan articles, as well as in the Durand Line article. However, please find reliable sources first. Khestwol (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The reality is that India does not share a border with Afghanistan so we cannot say that it does. At best, we could add a note to the lead but that would quickly become complicated because we would need to include all claims and counterclaims between India, China, Pakistan and Nepal. Occam's razor says keep it all out. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Be neutral India doesn't have border with Afghanistan in reality, keep indian claim in Note but don't try to change or expand it. Ytpks896 (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear IP, Please check with the students preparing for the Civil Service exams if they've memorized Kangchenjunga to be India's second-highest mountain. Can you also check if they memorize Nanda Devi to be the 12th highest?  This is because if you take the long route to India's firm border with Afghanistan through India's firm northern lands you will find yourself scaling the Indian peaks of  K2, Nanga Parbat, Gasherbrum I, Broad Peak, Gasherbrum II, Gasherbrum III, Gasherbrum IV, Distaghil Sar, Khunyang Chhish, and Masherbrum, and becoming more breathless each time than you did when you climbed Nanda Devi. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it can't be said. Wikipedia can't adjudicate territorial claims of countries; it can only represent the de facto situation. Personally, I think people studying for Civil Services exams would be expected to know why India claims a border with Afghanistan as well as why Wikipedia doesn't acknowledge it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Education image and caption
User:Fowler&fowler I have reverted you edit and have removed the image. I think the image is more appropriate for Mid-Day Meal Scheme than education because that's what is the image is about. And 'Jai Bhim' is often used by political parties and groups to entice Dalits. Don't we have something better?Akshaypatill (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Fowler&fowler and User:TrangaBellam. I am definitely not going to break 3R rule, but keep in mind that you are essentially breaking Wikipedia policies, making changes without discussion. Please have a look at WP:EQ. You haven't put any arguments to support your edit. The image is not about education but mid day meal. There are no books, no teachers, no uniforms, nothing that can make one think of education. Without a clear caption this image can easily be sold as a dine at a marriage in a small Indian village (Exaggerating). We have better images that can represent the section better like And as I told before Jai Bhim is called as a slogan by some political parties like the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and Republican Party of India (RPI). Akshaypatill (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To argue that MDMS is not intricately connected with education deserves no rebuttal. Uniforms are a luxury in rural schools, as are teachers.
 * Jai Bhim might be used as a political slogan but it is a revolutionary greeting for followers of Ambedkar, (arguably) the greatest social reformer of India. The slogan is a subtle reminder of widespread casteism and how it remains the greatest hindrance to achieving educational equity. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Jai Bhim might be used as a political slogan but it is a revolutionary greeting for followers of Ambedkar, (arguably) the greatest social reformer of India. The slogan is a subtle reminder of widespread casteism and how it remains the greatest hindrance to achieving educational equity. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edit
I want to suggest an edit to the following text from the "Foreign, economic and strategic relations" section.

Current text:

After inlly cordial relations with neighbouring China, India went to war with China in 1962, and was widely thought to have been humiliated. India has had tense relations with neighbouring Pakistan; the two nations have gone to war four times: in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999. Three of these wars were fought over the disputed territory of Kashmir, while the fourth, the 1971 war, followed from India's support for the independence of Bangladesh.

Suggested text:

After initially cordial relations with neighbouring China, India went to war with China in 1962, and was widely thought to have been humiliated. India has had tense relations with neighbouring Pakistan; the two nations have gone to war four times: in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999. Three of these wars were fought over the disputed territory of Kashmir, while the fourth, the 1971 war, followed from India's support for the independence of Bangladesh. Each of these wars ended either in stalemate or Indian victory.

Rationale for suggested edit:

All the Wikipedia pages of these wars either mention an outright Indian victory or conclude that the war ended with India having the upper hand. I think that a line talking about these results should be added as one talking about the result of the 1962 war (with China) is already there.

User:Fowler&fowler What do you think about this?

Update Global Innovation Index ranking for 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathularog (talk • contribs) 09:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Regards Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I did not write this, but I think a short description of war should not be about who won, but what the war was about and what it accomplished. It is the first sentence that is problematic not so much the second and third (although those could be bettered), for it tells us nothing except the early goodwill.  It needs to be rewritten.  Will await others' replies.  Thanks for posting.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. The nuances of who won what are best left to the article on the war itself. Agree about the first sentence which is problematic. What we want to say (assuming we do want to say anything) is that the relations deteriorated after (or because of) the war. Not who started the war or who won/lost it. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * and I agree with what both of you wrote. The problematic first sentence made me check if the Indo-Pak wars had a similar one. Then, in a display of utter stupidity, I suggested to add another problematic line instead of fixing the first one.

Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not stupidity at all. You noticed a discrepancy and suggested a way of avoiding it. We will fix this soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2021
Suggest edits to the following extract:

"British Crown rule began in 1858. The rights promised to Indians were granted slowly,[45] but technological changes were introduced, and ideas of education, modernity and the public life took root.[46] A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged, which was noted for nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule"

To be changed to:

"British Crown rule began in 1858. A pioneering and influential nationalist movement emerged which lead to the British Crown rule conceding rights to the Indians slowly. The movement was noted for its nonviolent resistance and became the major factor in ending British rule" Alindchopra (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not seeing the improvement! Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error
There is an undefined refname in the Cuisine section. The original reference was removed in this edit, while the refname was still in use. The following:   Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I've been trying to reduce those sections and was fearing mangling the cites. I was pleasantly surprised by the absence of damage. But now I know why!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Assessment needed
I strongly recommend a fresh assessment is required to article, to save it from delisting of FA in future.


 * Economy
 * This section needs to include and discuss contribution of Indian Railway in Indian economy, Agricultural income, Unemployment,
 * There are decade old predictions which in-fact past 5 years from now.


 * Lead
 * There is a sentence "and rising levels of air pollution" in lead, but i cannot find any update of air pollution in below article.


 * Education
 * Need to mention Central and state universities quantity.
 * Schooling system, rural and urban schooling, govt provided education and initiatives. Etc


 * Cuisine
 * Section is too bulky with no proper representation of cuisines, instead it focused on particular dishes, culinary history is required if available from indus valley civilization.
 * )--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Omar, would you have some high quality sources on these topics which go into these points? CMD (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Will search for some, the issue is some users will revert and drag the issue on talk page and the matter goes pending.
 * Need a section for infrastructure-with sub sections-(transport system, housing style, roadways etc). :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note this article has 71kb of prose, which is over the 40-60kB target range and 23kb larger than it was at last FAR. CMD (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand, that’s why need fresh assessment by which we can identify unwanted and repetitive data and images, will have to chop and alter many sub sections -(eg: under main section culture there is sub section Visual arts and again one more separate sub section for architecture which in-fact is a part of visual arts). The size of section clothing is XL and do we really need last two paragraphs of Economy section here. Etc etc. :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In fact, both on WP & in RS, art and architecture are usually, though not invariably, treated separately. More to the point, the architecture section is extremely poor. I don't especially agree that the length is a problem, for such a huge topic, but some sections are too long. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixing the huge accessibility problem should be the main concern. Moxy - 20:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Let do this one step at the time. Why don't we first settle the dispute about the Hyderabadi biryani you began in the section above?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that two sections: Food and Dress are long. Since I wrote them, I will reduce them. Dress, ... I mean Clothing will be easier; Food, i.e. Cuisine not so easy. But I'll try. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  10:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well now sections match FA style, Culture and History sections have plenty of images, and this need to be sorted. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error (2)
There is an undefined refname in the Clothing section. The original reference was removed in this edit, while the refname was still in use. The following:   Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * as you might be interested. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. CMD (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. Apologies again for having caused it.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As you're here you've added   recently, but it's one you've previously removed. You'll need to added this instead:   Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I've made the correction.  I feel embarrassed, and also angry at myself for making these errors.  In retrospect,  the trimming should be done for the whole article—en masse—after all the sections all have brought up to snuff.  It can't be done in a piecemeal fashion, which is what I was attempting to do.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're undertaking a quite gigantic task, errors will happen there's no need for self recrimination. Keep your concern on getting the article straight. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

My edits
I linked to wikipages in links, I added author names, I added dates, I added access-dates, I corrected titles. Some sources weren't working, I replaced those with working sources. What I did is right.

In the format of sources, all these are required.

However, a user has reverted all my edits.

Surge_Elec (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)




 * I will await the response of others (see below). When you make dozens of edits to a featured article (which has been vetted by the WP community) it becomes hard for the people who oversee or watch overlook this page to figure out what is going on.  The barest of edit summaries do not help.  I'm not sure if author links are always needed, for example. I worry that you might be doing too much of a good thing.  In any case, please hold off further editing for now.  I'm pinging others      and will await their response.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Correcting:   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Why was the edit reverted is the question posed. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It's completely clear to me what Surge elec did, namely make a series of gnomish edits. For example diff, edit-summary Added author name, which added an author-name. Nothing unusual about it. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Surge_Elec's edits seem to be, in entirety, filling in references. I don't really see a problem with those, quite helpful actually. There are a couple of other edits that have added content but those are not be Surge_Elec - Hyderabadi cuisine for one - though even that seems ok to add, and the World Military Games - that probably is not important enough to include in this article. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I reacted because some 70 edits were made in the last few days.  See here There are edits linking "Budhism," "Jainism", "Palgrave Macmillan," "Oxford University Press" ... in other words every publisher mentioned is linked, some more than once ... the Government of India, and so forth. At some point, well-meaning though the intent might be, it begins to look overmuch.  There was never any consensus here that publishers need to be linked.  They were not in the reftag.citation tool which had been used on this page for upward of ten years.  When the edit summaries say only "corrected source," it does not help. You guys are welcome to revert my revert, but if you don't have a clear policy on how many "gnomish" edits someone can make with opaque edit summaries without declaring some kind of intent on the talk page, you are looking at more problems down the road. As for the Hyderabadi cuisine, the sentence is completely out of place in the text; I am unaware about UNESCO conferring anything on it, but UNESCO confers many even more worthy imprimaturs: India has upward of 30 world heritage sites.  We don't have a sentence about each. Besides Hyderabadi cuisine is already mentioned; even has a picture. Anyway, we need some consensus here on policy within the article.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I'm not a fan of excessive linking, MOS:LINKONCE does explicitly allows repetitive links in citations. But, many of their edits are actually filling out references (and correcting some errors) and are fairly useful. About Hyderabadi cuisine, that should be discussed here first (as also those Military Games) before they are added to the article. Imo, cuisine is notoriously hard to pin down factually so a UNESCO designation, however arbitrary, is one way of ensuring we're not just adding fluff. Unless, of course, those are handed out freely. But, I agree that we should get consensus before adding it. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Its good to be vegelent in patrolling, but you need to see the constructive side of editing, Hyderabadi cuisine is no ware mentioned in the article-(except one picture), UNESCO recognition of cuisine is somewhat unique and need a mention in the related section. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * see below.  thanks for your clear reply.  In the future I won't revert, only post on the talk page.  Please revert or partial-revert or correct the page in the manner you see fit.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored that version. If anybody feels my edits are not right, we can change accordingly. Surge_Elec (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Constructive editing

 * All of my edits were reverted by you, kindly restore and lets discuss if you or anyone have objection. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your source has incorrectly interpreted a "recognition." Hyderabad is a member of the UNESCO "creative cities network."  The network site says: "The UNESCO Creative Cities Network (UCCN) was created in 2004 to promote cooperation with and among cities that have identified creativity as a strategic factor for sustainable urban development. The 246 cities which currently make up this network work together towards a common objective: placing creativity and cultural industries at the heart of their development plans at the local level and cooperating actively at the international level."  It goes on to say: "Join the Network and enhance your city’s creative potential for sustainable urban development, exchange know-how and cooperate on an international level!"  There seem to be six or seven "creative cities" in India in different domains.  It is not clear that it is an honor bestowed by UNESCO; it seems to be more a mission statement of sorts of the city.  On the other hand something like inscription on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity" bestowed on the  Jamdani muslin weavers of Bangladesh is indeed a UNESCO honor.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS I apologize for saying that Hyderabadi cuisine was mentioned in the text, which it was not, but the text is a thematic discussion of the influences in Indian cuisine. Biryani is mentioned, and as you have noted, there is a picture of Hyderabadi chicken biryani.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is lengthy discussion of tandoori chicken-(though a single dish) and a lengthy detail of foreign influences. So why not mention? an Indigenous cuisine that attain an art form and recognized internationally by a respectable organization. I will appriciate if you can c/e and restore it with some meaning ful form. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First, Hyderabad has not been recognized by UNESCO. Please read what I have explained above very carefully.  Second, please do not distort what the cuisine section states.  There is no lengthy discussion of tandoori chicken.  It is briefly mentioned at the end as an aspect of how Indian food has come to be misidentified with "tandoori cooking" (a style really of Central Asia) because of the enterprise demonstrated by refugees from the Punjab and NWFP after the partition. On the other hand, it does say, "'In the last millennium, the most significant import of cooking techniques into India occurred during the Mughal Empire. The cultivation of rice had spread much earlier from India to Central and West Asia; however, it was during Mughal rule that dishes, such as the pilaf,[468] developed in the interim during the Abbasid caliphate,[474] and cooking techniques such as the marinating of meat in yogurt, spread into northern India from regions to its northwest.[475] To the simple yogurt marinade of Persia, onions, garlic, almonds, and spices began to be added in India.[475] Rice grown to the southwest of the Mughal capital, Agra, which had become famous in the Islamic world for its fine grain, was partially cooked and layered alternately with the sauteed meat, the pot sealed tightly, and slow cooked according to another Persian cooking technique, to produce what has today become the Indian biryani,[475] a feature of festive dining in many parts of India.[476]'"  In other words, the Hyderabadi biryani is not indigenous, but a technique that was in the main introduced into India from regions to the northwest, from which different local styles evolved.  Biryani is not just that of Hyderabad; there is also the Lucknow biryani, the Calcutta biryani, ..., there is even a Goa Fish Biryani. Indeed the reference [476], an article of Ashis Nandy states, "Nandy: '(p. 11) Not merely ingredients came to the subcontinent, but also recipes. ... All around India one finds preparations that came originally from outside South Asia. Kebabs came from West and Central Asia and underwent radical metamorphosis in the hot and dusty plains of India. So did biryani and pulao, two rice preparations, usually with meat. Without them, ceremonial dining in many parts of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh is incomplete. Even the term pulao or pilav seems to have come from Arabic and Persian. It is true that in Sanskrit — in the Yajnavalkya Smriti — and in old Tamil, the term pulao occurs (Achaya, 1998b: 11), but it is also true that biryani and pulao today carry mainly the stamp of the Mughal times and its Persianized high culture.'[6]"   We not only give a lengthy description of how biryani evolved, but we even have a picture of the Hyderabadi Chicken biryani. The UNESCO claim though is bogus as far as I can tell; and even if it is not, there is no reason to put it in.  For as I've explained, India has 40 UNESCO world heritage sites and 13 other aspects of its culture inscribed in the  List of Intangible Heritage of Humanity, 12 its very own and 1 (Nauroz) shared with other countries).  Those indeed are UNESCO honors. So, how many will we be quoting in the article? 53?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the barest mention of Hyd. as a UNESCO city of gastronomy. But I oppose all mentions of Hyd. biryani etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It belongs to the Hyderabad page, if they think such networking, mostly a grand mission statement, which is reviewed every four years for goals met, is an honor. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are also nine UNESCO cities of literature. But the Moscow of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Pasternak, ... the Concord of Hawthorne, Emerson, and Thoreau,  the Dublin of Joyce and Swift, the London of Dickens and Eliot (George and TS), have failed to gain admission, their heroes moldering beneath the rugged elms.  This is because the sustainable development goals are met much better in these cities.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * you are either not reading or exaggerating my edit, I did not add or ask to add Hyderabadi biryani anywhere, what I am saying is "Hyderabadi cuisine selected as a UNESCO CREATIVE CITY in Gastronomy category", needs a mention. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is very undue. The UNESCO Creative City is a publicity gimmick, not a real UNESCO honor.  UNESCO's List of Intangible Heritage of Humanity, in contrast, is a true honor.  When a cuisine makes that list, as French Cuisine and Traditional Mexican Cuisine did in 2010, the newspapers of record around the world  report it, carry pictures, the public radios debate it. Similarly, inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List is a true honor.  The inscription of Mohenjo-daro (1980, South Asia's first) and Taj Mahal (1983) are true honors for Pakistan and India and indeed for humanity.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Unhelpful edits
As I've explained above, the UNESCO Creative Cities Network is not an honor, only a recognition of intent, which is evaluated every four years for performance. It does not belong to the cuisine section of the India page. May I request that you not edit war on this page? I removed your edits because they are hard to understand and seem poorly sourced. Speaking of sourcing, I note that on the Hyderabad page's cuisine section, you have made a remarkable claim in an edit of October 2011, that Hyderabad's cuisine was influenced by the French. The source, however, on pages 89 and 90 says: "The sumptuous meat-based food of Lucknow, the state’s capital, is considered one of India’s great cuisines. After the disintegration of the Mughal Empire in the eighteenth century, the governors of this region, called Nawabs, set up an independent court at Awadh. They were famous for their love of luxury and their court was considered the ultimate in refinement in manners, clothing, arts, and cuisine. Eventually, this lifestyle trickled down to the local aristocrats and even the middle class. No expense or effort was spared on food. The Nawabs recruited the finest cooks from all over the subcontinent and paid them enormous salaries. These cooks were in demand all over India (like French chefs in the West today), and took their culinary skills to the courts at Hyderabad, Bhopal, and elsewhere." In other words, not only is the content not about Hyderabad cuisine, it is not about the French either. It seems to have survived for ten years.

Omer123hussain, you are very welcome to propose your preferred sentence(s) here on the talk page.

Pinging and also  as s/he seems to have edited the Hyderabad page. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * PS See p 89 and p 90 of Colleen Taylor Sen's book, Food Culture in India, Greenwood Publishing, 2004, which has been cited. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate and welcome you for pointing out decade old edit at Hyderabad, but please do so on its talk page. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 October 2021
Pranshu03 (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC) India is a good country.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)