Talk:India
India is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 3, 2004, and on October 2, 2019. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
"ভাৰত" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect ভাৰত has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 13 § ভাৰত until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2024
India's population is 1,457,248,665 as of Friday, December 27, 2024[1] Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: Worldometer is unreliable. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 10:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ 2024, India Population. "India Population 2024". morldometer. worldometer. Retrieved 27 December 2024.
{{cite web}}
:|last1=
has numeric name (help)
Reordering sentence in the lead
Minor edit suggestion: Currently the lead reads "It is the seventh-largest country in the world by area and the most populous country.". The latter fact seems by far the more notable of the two, so you'd think "It is the most populous country in the world and the seventh-largest by area" would be a more sensible phrasing. IRN-Dumas (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I support this. The current sentence framing has stayed the same since before India surpassed China in terms of population. I think its due for a change now EarthDude (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I support this aswell. ĀDITYA 20:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support expressed by two editors is not consensus. Please don't change the order. Please see WP:COUNTRYLEAD Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2025
2409:4073:115:4FCD:0:0:BBF:48AC (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Just change the language of "Hindi" to "Hindustani". Both are the same
- Not done. Edit requests should be uncontroversial and backed by RS. Rainsage (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Minor changes to discuss per MOS:OP-ED
- The railway network provided critical famine relief, notably reduced the cost of moving goods...
- No doubt the style of these was used in larger paintings.
The lines above could be found in subsection Modern India and Visual art respectively. The words 'notably' and 'no doubt', although informative the first glance, bring in unnecessary editorialisation. In the first sentence 'noted' puts a subjective emphasisation over the second part without attributing it as an opinion. Similarly the second sentence could also be reframed to remove 'No doubt' which is an clear example of "editoring", but also ironically produces a subtle doubt. Thanks, ExclusiveEditor 🔔 Ping Me! 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Notably," in the modern India section has the meaning of "especially," or "in particular," not "in a notable manner," or "strikingly," which perhaps could be a form of editorialization.
- With "No doubt," in the Visual Art section, perhaps, I have more sympathy with your concern, but in this instance too, the expresson can be used with the meaning of "with certainty," or "with good likelihood." In a signed paper encyclopedia article, say, in Britannica, where an expert is writing and has some leeway in the use of idiomatic language—contrasted with the formal for making the article more readable for an ordinary reader—examples abound. Thus, in the Leonardo da Vinci article in Britannica art historian Ludwig Heinrich Heydenreich writes, "Moreover, he was no doubt enticed by Duke Ludovico Sforza’s brilliant court and the meaningful projects awaiting him there." I tried looking in Harle, p.367 to 371, the cited source, at achive.org, but lack the knowledge to make any judgments. In this instance, I would defer to user:Johnbod, who wrote the Visual Arts section, and who is our resident arts history expert. Perhaps, they might have something to say.
- Thank you user:ExclusiveEditor for bringing this up. Not too many editors notice these things. I wouldn't however call your proposed edits "minor." This article is WP's oldest country Featured Article, now 20 years old. This gives me a chance to remember those who have brought it to where it is, in particular user:Nichalp, administrator and arbitrator, who began the drive for more featured articles on South Asia-related topics and inspired many of us, including user:RegentsPark and user:Abecedare. Also, in September 2019, in preparation for this article's second WP:TFA appearance on 2 October to mark Gandhi's 150th, it was copyedited by the late user:Twofingered Typist, the Lead Coordinator at the time of Guild of Copy Editors, and a member of the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- On "no doubt": it is a common thing in the art history of older periods that a whole class of objects such as wall-paintings have vanished, but smaller works such as miniatures have survived. In cases where some large as well as small works have survived (egt European Romanesque art), their basic styles are normally very similar, so the presumption that this will be the case is often made. Sometimes discoveries are made that confirm this. Some editors think that it is possible to write about the art history of the fragmentary remains from remote periods with the same precision and certainty as (some) subujects from, say, science or geography. It isn't. I don't know what you mean by "editoring", but as we are "editors", this is presumably a good thing. An element of "subtle doubt" is also ok, as no actual examples have survived. We could say "probably", "presumably" etc, but I see no need for a change. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Bringing the article back to FA standard
I have just read user:SandyGeorgia's caution in Talk:India/Archive_58#WP:FARGIVEN of late November 2023. I have also noticed that nothing much has happened in its wake, for no fault of anyone but my own.
Although my heart is not in this article any more, I have had such a long history here that I feel a certain amount of responsibility for not letting it go to dogs.
I won't formally begin an FAR process just yet, but I will improve it so the FAR itself is not fraught with people pointing out the very obvious things we all know we should have done. Please bear with me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have reduced the lead from 751 words to 656. I don't think it can be reduced much further, unless one wants self-satisfied descriptions in blue-linked simple sentences like other country articles, including FAs. India's ancient history alone has a longer span than the histories of many nations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)