Talk:Indian numbering system

untitled
General usage of higher denominations today are recursive e.g. 2 lakh crores (2 followed by 12 zeros).

Would 1014 be refered to as "1 crore crores"?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik42 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Basically

It should be Taken in account, how the numbering system was built and can used effectively.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.248.184 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge (2006) Lakh and crore articles

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I converted lakh and crore to redirect here, but this was reverted. The redirect still makes more sense to me to avoid duplication, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to do it again. However, the text I moved in here from the other articles was left in place. Someone might like to remove it, to avoid further duplication. Or restore the redirects. 207.176.159.90 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Challenging?
I don't see any need to describe the numbering system as challenging. What makes it so? The only thing that has confused me is why the first grouping is 1000, then each term is 100 of the last. If anybody knows why that is (my family doesn't) that would make a good addition. Rahulchandra 15:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Higher numbers
Anybody has an explanation on what follows?

''The 28th Canto of ‘Yudha Kanda’ of the Valmiki Ramayana has one of Ravana’s spies — Suka — describing to him the size of Rama’s army. Before he tells the size of Rama’s army, the spy goes on to illustrate the nomenclature of the number system. Note that decimal numeracy is taken for granted. Here is what the spy says:

* 100,00,000 is one crore (10**7) * 100,000 crore is one shankh (10**12) * 100,000 shankh is one mahashankh (10**17) * 100,000 mahashankh is one vrinda (10**22) * 100,000 vrinda is one mahavrinda (10**27) * 100,000 mahavrinda is one padma (10**32) * 100,000 padma is one mahapadma (10**37) * 100,000 mahapadma is one kharb (10**42) * 100,000 kharb is one mahakharb (10**47) * 100,000 mahakharb is one samudra (10**52) * 100,000 samudra is one ogh (10**57) * 100,000 ogh is one mahaough (10**62)''

Higher numbers idea is interesting, and especially new figures (vrinda, samudra, ogh) but "reuse" of kharb, padma,... is puzzling. Disdero 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

“A hundred thousand Shankus are said to be one Maha Shanku. A hundred thousand Maha Shankus are called one Vrindam here. A hundred thousand Vrindas are said to be one Maha vrindam. A hundred thousand Mahavrindas are called one Padmam here. A hundred thousand padmas are said to be one Mahapadmam. A hundred thousand Mahapadmas are called one Kharvam here. A hundred thousand kharvas are said to be one Mahakharvam. A hundred thousand Mahakharvas are called one Samundram. A hundred thousand Samudras are said to be one ogha here. A hundred thousand oghas are acclaimed a one Mahaugha.”

The source text can be found here http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga28/yuddhaitrans28.htm Disdero 09:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have created a table based on the above, and have used exact sanskrit transliteration -Azykwv (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't this limited to hindi numbering? Personally I haven't any number higher than Arhab being used. (Cloud02 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC))


 * The above link is no longer valid. See new section on Vedic Numbering system on this talk page. - Polytope 4D (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

article is self contradictory
It says they are grouped in two's, but the examples are grouped in three's first, the subsequently n two's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.217.90 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody any idea why that is, even after so many years? Apparently this also confuses native people (see above, addition from 2006) --Ph0nq (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Indian counting system (as it is followed today) uses a simple 3,2,2 based comma separation system with same pattern repeating. So One Lakh Crore should be written as 1,00,000,00,00,000. The idea is that just by looking at the number representation you should be able to read it. This used to be defined correctly in the IN locale settings in Linux in the past, but some one along the line started propagating this 3,2,2,2,... format. I think this happened because not many numbers get written in digits above 100 crores, so the problem was not realized for long. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should propagate this falsehood further. I am going to take up a full rewrite of the article to reflect this. --User:Sivaraj (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The vedic numbering obviously uses a 3,2,2,5,5,5,... format. So will be revamping this as well. Note that this is not currently being used, and is only for historic purposes. Sivaraj 07:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was incorrect in stating that the grouping is repeating groups of 3,2,2. The first three digits from the right (ones, tens, and hundreds) are grouped together, and the rest are grouped in groups of two. A useful reference is the Unicode CLDR data, which is contributed to by professionals from across the world. It's built into all the computer systems, so you can check it yourself. Open your browser console (Ctrl+Shift+I) and type this: (new Intl.NumberFormat('hi')).format(10e16) --harsh_manutd (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeating group of 3,2,2 is the right way of representing Indian numbers. The reason for number grouping is to easily understand what is written, and able to read it without counting the digits. Since Indian numbers are counted in crores this is the right way of representing them. Unicode doesn't accommodate repeating groups. It only supports single digit repetition or left most group different. This is a technical limitation in Unicode which should be addressed. That doesn't warrant changing the way people use numbers. --User:Sivaraj 10:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Sivaraj - can you share some sources where this is written. From what I could find, and from what school systems in North India are teaching, it's always been groupings of 2 except for the right-most 3 digits. Also, can you tell me your native state - as the 3,2,2 repeating pattern might be a local variation. See these sources: http://www.hindi.co/ginatee/numbers_saNkhyaaENn.html, and http://veda.wikidot.com/sanskrit-numbers. Note that Koti (crore) is 10^7 and Ayuta is 10^9 and Niyutam is 10^11 so why would the comma separators follow different pattern? It doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsh manutd (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Padma vs Padm
I was showing this page to several India colleagues and all agreed that the Hindi word listed for "Padma" says "Padm" in Hindi, so is perhaps the English or the Hindi incorrect? I do not know enough obviously to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneliketadow (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The correct spelling is padma (exact devanagari translation), but the pronunciation is "padm". But I have changed the spelling to exact Hindi. Hope this satisfies you. However, I have hidden the numbers after padm, as they get into the way -59.95.35.182 (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I found this page an Indian government website which spells it "padam": http://consumeraffairs.nic.in/forms/contentpage.aspx?lid=697. Maybe that's a typo though? Markshep (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

even powers
It would be helpful for those of us not accustomed to this system to explain what happens to even powered numbers. E.g., 104 and so forth. Tloc (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple, 10^3 is one thousand; 10^4 is 10 * 10^3 ie ten thousand. 10^8 is ten karod (crore), 10^10 is ten arab, etc. -Azykwv (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect representation of adant singhar?
Adant singhar is shown as "100,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000" (note the initial "100" without a comma). However, I believe the correct representation is "1,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000". Can someone more knowledgeable than I confirm? Afalls (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. I have corrected it. But the power notation is better to understand (Don't count the zeros!) -Azykwv (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The languages needed
The list of languages needed to view this article is not complete. As far as I can tell there is at least Burmese (which I don't have on my computer, because it's weird arabic and a few more (see the Usage in different languages section)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.48.57.36 (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Urdu has no mention in this article?!
 * &mdash; iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 01:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please smile (see the last section) -Polytope4d (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

100 crore
The introductory text of the article says "1 billion (100 crore) is written as 1,00,00,00,000" but the large numbers table show it as 100,00,00,000. These can't both be right. I think the table is correct, but not sure enough to want to edit the page. Michealt (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be 100,00,00,000 (as we call it "one hundred crore"). But it depends on what you want to depict and may be written as 1,00,00,00,000. One lakh crore is written as 1,00,000,00,00,000 (notice the three-zero group appearing in the middle: actually a crore is written first and a lakh is simply attached to its left). This may get confusing at times but is not. Hence we've decided to create a separate table after "padm" and keep it hidden. You can always unhide it. -59.95.35.182 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was incorrect in stating that the grouping is repeating groups of 3,2,2. The first three digits from the right (ones, tens, and hundreds) are grouped together, and the rest are grouped in groups of two. --harsh_manutd (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree it's confusing, because, if I understand correctly, the same number can be written in 2 forms : either with only 0 grouped by 2, sometimes grouped by 3.

This is from the tables in English, Italian and Spanish wiki articles, and from the comment of -59.95.35.182 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC) This is what I understand :

"one hundred crore" =   1 arab =   100,00,00,000 =  1,00,00,00,000

"one thousand crore" = ten arab = 1,000,00,00,000 = 10,00,00,00,000

Please confirm to me, and if it is true, then it would make sense to have 2 columns for the Indian system As of today, articles from English wiki, Italian, Spanish and others are conflicting --Emmanuel JARRI (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As a native Hindi speaker, I can confirm that both ways are correct, and can be used interchangeably:
 * 1,00,00,00,000 = 1 arab | (Hindi pronounciation: ek arab)
 * 100,00,00,000 = 100 crore | (Hindi pronounciation: sau crore)

However, the first one is the traditional academic/formal usage as well as the part of the system being described. The second one is a unsystematic, but accepted common verbiage. - Mukt (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Title of this article ("Indian Numbering System" vs "South Asian numbering system")
The title of this article should be "Indian Numbering System" or "Indian Sub Continent numbering system". Reason: At present Wikipedia is redirecting "Indian numbering system" to "South Asian numbering system". In this context "Indian" refers to the Indian Subcontinent. Using the term South Asia by various definition includes more countries/territories than the defined Indian Subcontinent. As such not all South Asian countries follow this numbering system. The numbering system and its details provided in the article itself points to this fact. As such, this type of numbering system cannot be generalized for South Asia. It is very specific to the Indian (or Indian Sub Continent) numbering system. As a reference to why using the term South Asia in this context is disputed, please refer the article mentioned in the sources. Source: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numerals; [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent; [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logbookmark (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with talk. India is a much older identity than South Asia and refers to the whole modern-day Indian Subcontinent. The Muslim world coined the word Hind for the Indian Subcontinent and Europe termed in as the Indies before the British finally named it as India, all much before the term South Asia was coined. Obviously India is different from modern-day Republic of India. People relating the two would also confuse the continents of America with the United States of America and therefore demand change in titles of any America-related articles!
 * We already have so many different terms based on India, such as Indian Subcontinent, Indian Ocean, Indian Civilization, Indian numerals, etc. Why not then rename them all to South Asian? Of course not! Because they are taught the world over as 'Indian' and not 'South Asian'. The same goes with Indian Number System. It was Indian before it became South Asian.
 * I know Pakistani users will oppose this change of topic. I've seen them hotly debate any India-generalized topic covering all of Subcontinent, without understanding the essence of this word 'India' and the difference between India- the Subcontinent and India- the country, which the rest of the world understands much better than them! Their paranoia can be attributed, in part, to their Indophobic school curricula. I'm yet open to receiving their opinion over this matter.
 * It is, however, essential that this debate be reignited and the mods be back to discussing this issue. The person who had changed the title from 'Indian' to 'South Asian' had promised a talk over this but has since perhaps become dormant. Rest of the mods are urged to join in. --therash09 (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't really about Indian - or South Asia - numbering systems. The numbering system is the same as anywhere else. The only difference is the use of lakh and crore for larger numbers.119.224.91.84 (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

WARNING (2013): I believe this Article may be infected by a virus on the Wikipedia server.

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

While I was able to access this Article (and hence this Talk Page) in Safari, Firefox crashes every time I click on this Article. Furthermore, this is the only Article that makes Firefox crash. All other Articles are just fine in Firefox. This leads me to believe there is a virus on this page to which Safari 5 is immune while Firefox 16 is not. I have restarted my computer several times, and there is still the same problem with only this particular Wikipedia Article.

Therefore, my suggestion to improve the Article is: A skilled Admin should clear the server file behind this Article of any and all viruses, bugs, or errors it may presently contain.

Signed,

The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As soon as I upgraded to Firefox 26, I was able to access this Article smoothly. No more beach-balling, no more Force Quit, just an Article rendered like any other on Wikipedia. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This was almost certainly a local glitch; there is no malware in this article and I'm pretty sure it's not possible to introduce any just by editing the wikitext. -- Beland (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.22.203 (talk)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge proposal (2014) with Indian numerals

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose that this article to be merge into the Indian numerals article. This article is basically about the treatment of large numbers in the Indian system, and the current article name, "Indian Numbering System", has the same meaning as "Indian numerals". For example, the Chinese numerals article has a section for large numbers as used in the Chinese system.-- Joshua Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 11:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be a good idea. These are two distinct topics: the names of large numbers vs the characters used to represent numbers.  Both articles are large enough to stand on their own; combining them could detract from clarity.  What might fit for Chinese might not fit here; note that the large number names in Chinese have their own characters so it's not as untangleable. Jimp 08:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jimp. Not a good idea to merge the two. -Polytope4d (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Against. Do not merge 101.163.17.98 (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree these are different things; one is about how Arabic numerals are written in India, the other is about how Indian numerals are written in India. I'll put a hatnote to differentiate. -- Beland (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why?
Basic aspect of a encyc article seems missing?  Tu rk ey ph an t 13:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Modern use
As lakh and crore were used in the traditional Indian numerical system, why are they also still used in Indian English?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no were. These are traditional as well as current number system in all Indian languages. Indian English is no exception. - Mukt (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the history of the Indian numbering system?
Fascinating! What linguistic or cultural traditions led to the use of commas separating the last three digits, but then every two digits above them? Contrast with the history of the metric system etc. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Fractions
The article would benefit from a section or example of how grouping works with fractions. Is it "0.123456789", "0.123,45,67,89", "0.12,34,56,78,9" or something else? jodastephen (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Additionally, it should be included in the text of the article if, whether, and how the words are carried through into terminology for fractional numbers. Like 1/1,000,000 = a millionth? or a tenth of 1/lakh, or?    How would it be expressed? Martino3 (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There is no grouping for fractional part of a number. Fractions are written continuously as in other numbering number systems. Sivaraj 11:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivaraj (talk • contribs)

Abbreviations / Suffixes
I think it would be useful for this article to cover abbreviations used for crore, lahk, arab etc.

The articles on Crore and Lahk mention that these are abbreviated to L and cr respectively, but I've been able to find no information on what arab, lahk crore, crore crore, padm etc are abbreviated to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimTim (talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

mahaugha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.197.127 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment
I was told Indian numbers to be as follows when I was child

Elam is one Daham is ten or 10 Shatam is hundred or 100 Sahastra is thousand or 1,000 Dashsahastra is ten thousand or 10,000 Laksh is one hundred thousand or 100,000 Dashlaksh is ten Laksh or 10,00,000 Koti or Crore is ten Dashlaksh Dashkoti is ten Koti Abja is ten Dashkoti Kharv is ten Abja Nikharv is ten Kharv Mahapadm is ten Nikharv Shankhu is ten Mahapadm Jaladhi is ten Shankhu Antya is ten Jaladhi Madhya is ten Antya And ten Madhya is Parardh

Does anyone know these numbers? Thus one parardh would mean ten rest to 17 or 100,000,000,000,000,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalakarpendse (talk • contribs) 12:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A template on Wikipedia to convert between the two systems?
On several pages related to India (or the subcontinent) it is found that the western numbering system is used, especially with currency. Being an Indian, I find it difficult to identify with the magnitude of a value such as ₹150 million. Yes, I can convert it in my mind but that isn't the point. A template that does the conversion of say ₹150 million to ₹15 cr. would, in my opinion, increase the readability of an article. Abhijeetviswa (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This cuts both ways! The relevant Wikipedia Manual of Style section talks of "opportunities for commonality", suggesting that the forms familiar in the West be used (million, billion, etc.) rather than those familiar in the Indian subcontinent (lakh, crore, etc.).  This would be more convenient for westerners than easterners; yet both need to have the material presented comprehensibly.  A typical English-speaking American or Australian has never even heard of a lakh or a crore, so using these terms fails to communicate with such readers; and the converse may also be true.  The smart solution would be to use hints, so that when a reader hovers their pointing device (mouse, pen or finger) over a hinted term, a concise explanation will appear above and beside it.  Now, where did I see how to do this?  yoyo (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the latter comment. Surely the Indian system, as old and established etc. as it may be, is the exception to the international standard, and not the other way around. While I would have no issue with the Indian system being used on Indian / South Asian wikis, here on English wiki it is IMO bound to cause confusion (case in point: this article's infobox says the film had a budget of 85 lakhs and box office takings of 1.90 crore — so did it make a profit or loss, then?). If this issue could be handled easily (ideally with a convert tag, although hints could also work as suggested), then by all means let's show both, but if the choice must be made then I would default to the int'l standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi per your suggestion to use hints, I've done (something like) that in the infobox of the article referenced in my previous comment. Could you take a quick look to see a) if that's at all what you had in mind, and b) if you think it generally works (and doesn't clash with any policies etc.)? Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, (a) Yes, and (b) Yes (and (c) I don't know of any policy problems, but am not an expert on those.)  Thanks for your efforts!  Do you think a 'convert' solution would be better than this?  yoyo (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally FWIW, I do think a convert template would work better, because a) it would display both values, b) it wouldn't require the reader to do the arithmetics (in my example above, the hint only tells you what crore is; it doesn't give you the other value automatically, although that could of course be written into the hint), and c) I'm guessing it would also be easier to use and more familiar to most editors. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you produce an example showing what that would look like? That probably means actually creating the template - you could do that in a sandbox, I guess?  yoyo (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

10,000,00,00,000 or 1,00,00,00,000?
The article suggests that digits are grouped in groups of 2 except for the last 3, but these two anonymous edits claim that after the second group of 2 there's another group of 3. This is not supported by the reference cited near the edit either; it seems that it was made up by that user. It must be deleted or properly cited and the rest of the text changed accordingly. —Cousteau (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please fix it (revert the IP). See the answer I was given at bnwiki. That says (in Q3) that the Bengali Wikipedia groups like 12,34,56,789.12345 where the first group before "." (789) has three digits, with the others are two digits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Lakh
I recently PRODded Lakh; does not seem to agree with that, but he does agree that the article is not very good. More to the point: the topic of Lakh is really the Indian numbering system, which basically amounts to the use of two different multipliers, Lakh and Crore. So I think anything useful on those pages should be merged into this article, and both lakh and crore should redirect to that. Any opinions? ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * As this is one piece of a larger puzzle conceptually, this does make sense. However I find that the utility of the the frequency of lookup, such as someone not familiar with the concept of Lakh and needing to google it for a definition, finding the Google Featured Snippets page or otherwise finding the reference to Lakh as immediate and condensed increases the ability to rely on Wikipedia as a quick reference for a definition. For example, if a person based in the US was corresponding with someone in India regarding a number, and the response included "5.5 Lakh", the US person may need to quickly look up this definition. The second link (assuming the merge happens) would be the definition of Lakh by Merriam-Webster, where the dictionary responds with a single page. My vote is no, do not merge - however the sentiment for something less frequently subjected to search and quick answer may be more desirable. I personally came to the page today only because I was double checking before I provided an answer to a colleague who hadn't encountered it before (and I'm not the type of person to say "google it yourself"). Dolphx (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not "Google answers". It is here to provide articles, not instant access to factoids. AAMOF, the redirect could (and should) go to the section specific to Lakh or Crore. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah, I doubt that'll work, because redirects are no-indexed. Maybe a soft redirect to the Wiktionary definitions or something? That might put the Wiktionary pages higher up on Google search results.
 * Sorry, what "won't work"? (Remind me what "redirects are no-indexed" means.) WP is not here to win google points either. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that; tell it to, not me. ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Lakh and crore are important names of large numbers, just as million and thousand are. Their articles contain important information about how they are used and what they are called in other languages, information that does not belong in Indian numbering system.  The articles are short but could be greatly expanded, and that would be the best thing to do:  expand the articles, not eliminate them.  Merging them is not appropriate.  HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what information about lakh or crore is not related to the "Indian numbering system"? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I completely support merging this (and even crore) into Indian numbering system. The arguments about how users might see the information from Google and such are not considerations, and never were. This is an encyclopaedia and, thus, it has its own format. The second sentence of the Indian numbering system article arms anyone unfamiliar with the system with basically 99% (since the use of terms other than lakh and crore are so rare that even most native users of the system are unaware of their existence) of the knowledge necessary to navigate the system should they encounter it anywhere. There's already a usage section on the page as well, which essentially makes the usage sections in Lakh and Crore redundant. And the page also has an enumeration of the local names of the different counting words in the most-spoken Indic languages as well, which combined with the fact about the usage information overlap, makes the individual lakh and crore articles entirely redundant. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'm somewhat thick and wish to ask Alexa "What is a crore" and what is a "lakh". I want a simples easy answer not the whole numbering system.  And this article has got template tags already and a merge of something that important into a tagged article is not a great idea.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're going to convince many people with an argument about how a structural change to WP's articles is going to disturb your personal Amazon Echo workflow. Regarding template tags, that's all the more reason to improve the article such that those tags can be removed. Getsnoopy (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm firmly in the oppose to this regardless. We've not really got a lot of participation here.  Thats one argument of many and I've badgered for the last week and IO'm pretty grumpy and you've just rubbed me up the wrong way further by you've put that.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion is already pretty messy with 2 alternate merges albeit compatible discussions in place with very little clarity ... with does not really auger well for any merge as it shows muddled thinking and a muddled merge is likely to result. Thats an additional reason.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAICS, the discussions being had for the "mergers" of the Lakh and Crore articles are more concerning those articles being merged into this one, not the other way around. As for muddled merging of content, that seems like a tactical issue which can be resolved through consensus once it's been decided that the merges should happen in the first place. Furthermore, from a quick glance, it doesn't seem like those individual articles offer anything this article offers. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Thank you for having kept the article. I am reading a news article from India that uses the term. At first I assumed that the term was an abbreviation for an Indian health agency, but then the sentence didn't makes sense! It was so easy for me to google the term, thanks to the wikipedia article. Efficient access to crowd-sourced, vetted information is why wikipedia exists. Those opposed are telling you that we use the current structure. Why not check the logs for the queries that bring folks here, or is the methodology not based on having an information retrieval paradigm? Herewith. "New Delhi: With more than 4.2 lakh confirmed coronavirus cases and 19,100 deaths across the world, the coronavirus pandemic continues to wreak havoc in several countries and scientists are in a race to find a treatment for the deadly virus." from https://theprint.in/science/remdesivir-trials-in-israel-and-italys-drop-in-cases-5-global-developments-on-covid-19/387944/ Failing to use query-based data for the information-retrieval paradigm is a big fail for Wikipedia. Please weigh this carefully to prevent Wikipedia from being obsolete when a platform emerges that does look at query-based retrieval histories. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate, WP doesn't exist to serve an efficient "Google"/search engine workflow. The question is about why the article titled "Lakh" deserves to exist on its own when there's already an article about the Indian numbering system that is a superset of that and the article titled Crore. If your worry is that removing an explicit article titled "Lakh" would remove WP's ability to cater to people seeking knowledge about that topic, that's a tactical issue that can (and will) easily be solved by an article redirect, which Google can handle. In fact, this already happens: if you search for "lakh" on Google, it will list the "Indian numbering system" article as well as a dictionary entry about what the specific word means. The matter at hand is about why it makes sense strategically to have a separate "Lakh" article. And so far, there doesn't seem to be one. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Efficient access to crowd-sourced, vetted information is why wikipedia exists" is what I wrote. This deserves confirmation or refutation. I did not indicate what Getsnoopy attributes to me, then refutes with: "WP doesn't exist to serve an efficient "Google"/search engine workflow."MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your anecdotes about having directly landed on the relevant WP articles by way of Google or other sources were the examples you were giving of "efficient access to information". The "crowd-sourced, vetted information" part, I agree with, but not necessarily "efficient", at least in the way you seem to have used it. Unless you want to clarify whether you meant the word "efficient" in a different way, your comment seems to suggest considering how traffic from other sources ends up on WP, and optimizing for that. And that's precisely what I'm saying is not one of WP's goals, at least not a direct one. Getsnoopy (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I fail to see why a separate article isn't appropriate. Just because it is a subtopic of this article doesn't mean it can't have an article. Just like we have separate articles on the Carbon-14 and Carbon, even though one is a subtopic of the other. If the only reason is because it is a subtopic, that isn't a very good proposal. We have separate articles on each Arabic digit and each Latin letter, but they are also subtopics of their writing systems. We have articles on SI prefixes, like kilo- or mega- which are clearly subtopics of the SI metric system. And they are most clearly just orders of magnitudes differences. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support There's not enough on the subtopic to warrant a separate article. Classic case where a merge-and-redirect would be appropriate. And with only two articles to merge in, there's no risk of the kind of overload that would happen if we tried to smush everything from yotta- to yocto- into metric prefix. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article on lakh is to analogous to Million and must exist for at least the same reasons. - Mukt (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Lakh is a succinct and easily read article for anyone who wants a quick answer to what a lakh is when reading an article on, say Insider trading, or Identity theft, or any of the more than 1000 incoming links, without having to scour a 38 Kb article to find out. Also, as a number in the Indian numeral system it bears comparison with articles on million, billion, trillion, etc. (likewise for Crore) Moonraker12 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Crore
I recently PRODded Lakh; does not seem to agree with that, but he does agree that the article is not very good. More to the point: the topic of Lakh is really the Indian numbering system, which basically amounts to the use of two different multipliers, Lakh and Crore. So I think anything useful on those pages should be merged into this article, and both lakh and crore should redirect to that. Any opinions? ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm somewhat thick and wish to ask Alexa "What is a crore" and what is a "lakh". I want a simples easy answer not the whole numbering system.  And this article has got template tags already and a merge of something that important into a tagged article is not a great idea.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said in the Lakh section above, WP's purpose is not to optimize people's Google/Alexa/Bing/etc. search experiences. What the merits of those articles as they stand given WP policy? Also, I don't know what you mean by a merge of something that important into a tagged article is not a great idea. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @: This merge proposal has been open for over 6 months and the proposer has not brought it to Proposed article mergers for closure. And its a car crash of a proposal anyway and poorly set up.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Indian English has as many speakers as the other forms of English, and this accounting is the norm in that system. If we have million as a stand alone article then we should have lakh and crore. Alternatively we could merge million, lakh, and crore into some common article, like "commonplace big numbers".  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I completely support the merge (see my reasoning above in the discussion regarding the same for "Lakh"). I also suggest we merge this discussion into the previous one, since the overarching concept being discussed is the same and so that we don't have diverging discussions about essentially the same topic. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I fail to see why a separate article isn't appropriate. Just because it is a subtopic of this article doesn't mean it can't have an article. Just like we have separate articles on the President of the United States and the United States of America, even though one is a subtopic of the other. If the only reason is because it is a subtopic, that isn't a very good proposal. We have separate articles on each Arabic digit and each Latin letter, but they are also subtopics of their writing systems. We have articles on SI prefixes, like kilo- or mega- which are clearly subtopics of the SI metric system. And they are most clearly just orders of magnitudes differences. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason for merging the articles is not because it is merely a subtopic, but that the subtopic articles (even the Lakh one) are stubs, with content that essentially doesn't add any more information than this article. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the Lakh and Crore articles don't have enough content to justify separate existence.  Everything beyond the bare definitions is duplicated material which makes sense to merge.    All that's needed for people seeking the definitions is a straightforward rewording of the lead. 196.247.24.20 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support actual use, I just had to open two articles instead of one to interpret an Indian news artcle. prat (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If someone is just trying to figure out what "lakh" and "crore" is they can find what they are without having to look at a different title. 103.132.150.30 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oppose . Thought I'd opposed this but only did the lakh.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You've already voted; yours is the first comment in this thread. I suggest you remove this duplicate vote. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for pointing that out; a dup !vote was never my intention. Switching to comment. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. india is not the only one that uses the crore system, therefore it will be unfair to add this to the Indian numbering system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.198.150 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll say that Arabia is not the only user of Arabic numerals; virtually the entire world is. The system is named after its origin, not its current users. That argument essentially holds no water. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As said before, India is not the only country that uses crores and lakhs. In my opinion, it should not merged with Indian numbering system.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.254.104 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a meaningless argument. See my comment above. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I came to "Crores" to find out what it was, and then had to come here to the Indian Numbering System to figure out why the odd comma placement! Thank you! मील्स फ्लुक्तुस (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it was there in the second sentence, but (for your benefit) it is clearer now. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per my comment in the section above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article on crore is analogous to Million or Billion and must be retained for the same reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukt (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Crore, (and Lakh) are succinct and easily read articles for anyone who wants a quick answer to what a crore is when reading an article on, say INS Vikrant (R11), or Pamela Anderson, or any of the more than 1500 incoming links, without having to scour a 38 Kb article to find out. Also, as a number in the Indian numeral system it bears comparison (and shares notability) with articles on million, billion, trillion, etc. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Digit grouping inconsistencies
For all the written information about the grouping, it states "which group the digits into powers of one hundred in the Indian system (except for the first thousand)". This is reflected in the first table under Use of separators with the third number being "17,00,00,00,000" (?-2-2-2-3). But the fourth number is formatted as "67,89,000,00,00,000" (?-2-3-2-2-3). But in the table under Names of numbers, it's consistently expanding into the format of "10,000,00,00,000,00,00,000" (?-3-2-2-3-2-2-3).

The pattern seems to be a repeating of ",00,00,000" (-2-2-3), and it's not just the first thousand being in a group.

Looking further into the table, it seems to be determined by how you would say the number.

Differences in the first grouping is that it counts up to a crore, then it repeats. It's an indefinite method which I can see being preferred for that reason. The second grouping requires a new term for every 100 multiple. – Where the table ends, the following numbers of the first group are: "one lakh crore crore", "ten lakh crore crore", "one crore crore crore", "ten crore crore crore", ... and for the second group it's indeterminate, as the names aren't given.

In the table under Names of numbers, there's also the mention of "hundred arab", "thousand arab", "ten thousand arab", before ending. By the looks of it, it looks to behave like the 2-2-3 repeating / crore crore system, but instead being 2-2-2-3 repeating / arab arab system. One crore crore crore "1,00,00,000,00,00,000,00,00,000" would therefore be thousand arab arab "1,000,00,00,00,000,00,00,00,000".

So this might be something that should be researched and included in the article.

Liggliluff (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, this has been pointed out before in and  and  Shockingly, after more than 10 years, the article is still contradictory. I guess no editor has come along who either knows the answer for sure or knows how to find the answer. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticisms section
After reverting I've had a quick glance to confirm the content is generally supported by the sources and broadly speaking it is (I open to comments there may have been a slight extrapolation of the sources). There was a failure to bring from the article that the system would be more tenable and suitable if the proper names for the lesser used units were used rather than a form of slang hybrid. If would be good to see additional sources here, and possibly a re-write of re-phrase might be helpful. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Its also based on one source and I think WP:UNDUE. I'd trim it.VR talk 15:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not adverse to it being trimmed. I'm on the road at the minute.  If I think of some prose that might work I hope to give it a shot and try to soften it a little.  I might have a shot in the next 6 hours or so, if not I've likely distracted myself elsewhere. thanks for feedback.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The single source is not scholarly one but a digital news outlet of undecided reputation, which usually serves political news and opinions. This source also seems to be the source of much of inconsistencies and confusions of this article. I don't think it belongs here. - Mukt (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion piece of an individual author; and as such has less scrutiny and can't really be used to support facts, and in arbitration consensus may need to be removed completely. The piece is generally well written.  But to be used would need to be assigned to the individual author writing in ThePrint.  I'd note author seems to have got his piece published more widely than just the print:, and I've seen a different viewpoint here (though again an opinion piece): .  Perhaps this viral social media event is noteworthy, perhaps not, perhaps it is exaggerated? .  I will have a further break then dig and intend to revert (reply) later.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had a good faith attempt at a re-write. I've not checked it as much as I like, some or all sources may be unsuitable and not used to best effect.  I have real life (RL) commitments and deadlines over parts of the next 30 hours at least and I can't really devote and more significant time to this.  On that basis if there's consensus (probably doesnt need a consensus merely 25-33% of people) think this or a variation of it can't be developed to the required the section needs to be removed until it can be replaced by a more suitable content.  I'm sort of recuse'ing from the discussion but its possible I may pop back in.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been RL busy and have lost track of this. The change I've made to the Criticisms section has essentially remained in place to I intend to remove the under construction in a day or so.  The statement "The usage of this system is limited to the nations of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka" doesn't sit well in the system and is a slight variation on locations mentioned elsewhere and might have to go. I have an aversion to losing sources, and the source, namely (Krulwich & Block, 2010) can also be used to cite "Slumdog Crorepati." could be placed into an Examples section.  (Which brought to my attention the prose is all in the lede(lead) rather than a lead summarising the body, so I'm going to do a refactor of that which may help going forward).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what exactly is being discussed here: a way to properly represent the criticism against the system, or to remove the "Criticism" section entirely? Getsnoopy (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From memory there was some valid criticisms of the criticisms section as it previously existed. It is probably appropriate to have some discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the system so the existance of a criticisms section is valid, though another title may be more appropriate.  I reworked the section late August and probably succeeded in getting some way towards a more balanced section; the result probably isn't perfect but no feedback at the time possibly indicates it was roughly ok.  To understand the discussion it is necessary to examine the revision state of the article at the time each discussion update has been added.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see; that's reasonable. From the discussion above, it seemed like people don't think sources like ThePrint are reliable sources, which is definitely not true. I think rewording it is fine as long as criticisms of the system are presented, which definitely exist. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Vedic numbering system table
Some editors are inserting unreferenced units like "neha", "vikrant" etc. in the tables. They might have been used somewhere, but cannot be mixed with another system. Even ayuta and niyuta have confusing meanings. So, Iremoved them. Let us stick to just one system for reference. There is no need to be over-specific, as these sysytems are not used today. I have updated links to the most recent Valmiki Ramayan website (one of the authorised sites approved by renowned scholars), and the table is linked to these six verses only (translation):

http://valmikiramayan.pcriot.com/utf8/yuddha/sarga28/yuddha_28_frame.htm

"Wise men call a hundred lakhs as a crore. A hundred thousand crores is reckoned as a Shanku." (Verse 33)

"A hundred thousand Shankus are said to be one Maha Shanku. A hundred thousand Maha Shankus are called one Vrindam here. A hundred thousand Vrindas are said to be one Maha vrindam. A hundred thousand Mahavrindas are called one Padmam here. A hundred thousand padmas are said to be one Mahapadmam. A hundred thousand Mahapadmas are called one Kharvam here. A hundred thousand kharvas are said to be one Mahakharvam. A hundred thousand Mahakharvas are called one Samu(n)dram. A hundred thousand Samudras are said to be one ogha here. A hundred thousand oghas are acclaimed a one Mahaugha." (Verses 34 - 38).

- Polytope 4D (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Errors in formatting?
The section titled "The Indian System" seems to have multiple formatting errors. The first paragraph ends with a comma and an extra blank line; not sure what's intended. In the third paragraph, the word "arab" does not appear where it should; in place of "arab" enclosed in double apostrophes, the source contains three apostrophes. This triple apostrophe messes up apostrophe pairing in the following text, so that all subsequent parenthetical material is in italics (not sure if this is intended) including also the digit "1" just before the next term (definitely wrong). Finally, the last piece ends with "1 repeats for larger numbers...", again with "1" italicized, rather than explaining exactly what it is that repeats.

Not correcting these myself since I don't know the intent and would probably mess it up further!

Larrydberg (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Billiard balls
Do we really need to reference milliards and billiards in the table? While I appreciate this nomenclature is likely to be useful to visitors from the 19th century, the bulk of our readership exists in the 21st century and have never once seen these terms used in the wild. I suspect this is due to considerate Americans editing under the impression that these terms are still occasionally used in the UK, which I've seen written elsewhere. If so, please accept my assurance they definitely aren't! The last thing a page designed to clarify and illuminate an unfamiliar numbering system is to confuse people further with an entirely different unfamiliar numbering system - particularly one that nobody has used in at least half a century. Dybeck (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hazar?
The pronunciation section mentions the word “hazar” but it isn’t explained in the article. What does it mean? I assume “thousands” but of course I might be wrong. 95.114.106.50 (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, thousands. Double sharp (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Indian (title) vs. Indic (first sentence)
The article is titled “Indian numbering system” but the first sentence starts, “The Indic numbering system”. This is the only occurrence of the word “Indic” in the whole text. Should this be changed to “Indian”? SeL (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)