Jump to content

Talk:Uttarakhand/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Meaning of Uttaranchal

The article would benefit from information about the meaning of the previous name "Uttaranchal". Uttarakhand means "Northern country", but why was the other name adopted? How does its meaning differ from the present one? -Oghmoir 17:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Uttaranchal, like Uttarakhand is also made from two words 'Uttar' meaning north or northern and 'anchal' meaning area, so meaning of both the names is similar. Traditionally the area has been known as Uttarakhand, however, it was named Uttaranchal allegedly to gain political mileage. After renaming of the State similar allegations were made against another political party. --mānu 08:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Uttaranchal" was introduced in 1998 for a bunch of reasons, none of which made coherent sense other than to gain political mileage. Ideologically and geographically, "Anchal" can be seen as a weaker vision of "Khand", and was meant to hijack the Uttarakhand movement. There are many commentaries on this. The change back to Uttarakhand, the ancient name more than two thousand years old, is now permanent 59.94.134.72 02:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with the ongoing attempt to use the wikipedia site for promotion of personal web sites? The list order keeps getting modified. Is there any way to rank these? 59.94.134.72 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are too many External links most of which are NOT worth listing here. Why shouldn't those external links be remove from this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.171.197 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

bbcamerica

Is this the reference that is intended by the advertizements on bbcamerica which claim the following motto??:

"simply heaven"

Please do comment on these commercials.

If that motto is accurate, then we should add it.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the following two links here because of their previous history as spam, in the hopes that they might be useful here to give editors ideas on how to expand the "Meaning of name and history" section:

--Ronz (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference to an Early Kumaon King

During the reign of Brihadrata c. 197–185 BCE., the last ruler of the Mauryan empire, Shakaditya, a king from Kumaon, a part of the Indo-Scythians, Sakas or Shakya, attacked the Mauryan kingdom. Later, Vikramaditya came to the help of Brihadrata and attacked and destroyed Shakaditya, and thus ascended the throne of Delhi in 56 BC, which also marks the beginning of the Vikrama Samvat (Vikrama Era) calendar. [1].

I am trying to find other evidences to corroborate this evidence.(Ekabhishek (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

References

  1. ^ Introduction Vikram and The Vampire by Richard Francis Burton, 1870.

WP:INDIA Banner/Uttarakhand workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Uttarakhand workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Uttarakhand or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 14:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:TiffinTopView12-GovernorsHouse.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Roorkee the oldest engineering college in asia?

I thought that distinction went to College of Engineering, Guindy, in Chennai. Are you entirely sure of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.124.201 (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Yes you are absolutely right that Guindy has the oldest technical institiute in asia. but IIT-roorkee ( earlier Thomason College of Civil Engg.) was the oldest technical institute to award degrees unlike the college in guindy.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.128.177 (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Official languages

Technically, Hindi and Sanskrit are the only two official languages of Uttarakhand. Please do not add Kumaoni and Garhwali to that list. Apalaria (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Uttaranchal

Is there any reason for having Uttaranchal and Uttarakhand be separate articles? They are just different names for the same state; we don't keep different articles for Bombay and Mumbai, or Madras and Chennai. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As there was no objection, I've gone ahead and merged them. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Uttarakhand is not a traditional name

It is wrong information that "Uttarakhand" is an ancient or even traditional name or that it finds mention in ancient Hindu scriptures. The only time the term Uttarakhand finds mention in the ancients texts is in Ramayana, and it has nothing to do with the 'Uttarakhand" state.

The term "UttaraKhand" was evolved by the activists of the new state, and it actually refers to the fact that it comprises of the Northern areas of the Uttar Pradesh state (mother state). Just like the activists of the eastern areas are calling their state "Purvanchal." It would be so wrong for anyone to claim that the term "Purvanchal" is an ancient one, and that it finds mention in the scriptures.(Awadhi (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC))

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Uttarakhand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonahman10 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC) I will be overlooking this article in the next few days. Feel free to add comments to what I post.

Quick initial overlook

There appears to be a lack of in-line citations near the end of the article, but the problem does not to be too extensive despite several statements that need citation. I will look further to see if this will be an issue in the full review.

The Article seems to be developed enough in general and appears to be relatively stable.

No immediate issues in Grammar either.

Link Checker finds several links as outdated.

Full review

Under review now...

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Minor grammatical errors which I corrected myself. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Overall good, but the section on education needs some work. The music industry would be more appropriate in the economy section and recently in this section could be replaced by a more concrete date. Furthermore, the first paragraph could be converted to list form to be more accessible. The different sections need to be distinguished more or consolidated. Fail Fail
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has no notes here. Neutral Undetermined

Result

Result Notes
Neutral Undetermined The reviewer has no notes here.

The original reviewer went inactive, so I'll take over. The article starts okay, but halfway through the articles gets a lot harder to read and becomes almost entirely unreferenced. As a result this is quickfailed. Make sure everything is cited before re-adding to GAN. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Power Generation in Uttarakhand

Wanted to add the reference links to Tehri Dam and Dakpathar Barrage under the heading, Power Sources Gurpreetbhalla (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

History of the British Raj

The impact of the British can be added in the History Gurpreetbhalla (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ayanosh (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ayanosh (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
more links

Ayanosh (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Uttaranchal Back to Uttarakhand

As of December 6, 2006, both houses of the Indian Parliament have approved the change from Uttaranchal to Uttarakhand. This site will need to trade places with the Uttaranchal site, just as every occurence of Uttaranchal will need to be replaced. How do we get the ball rolling? --Ceti 04:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any declartion/document which states that Dehradun is the provisional capital. I don't think it is right to refer it this way.

Another point is more general in nature. I have noticed that in pages of districts / states coordinates are given as if it is a specific point. Instead its extension should be given. --mānu 10:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dehradun is still provisional as no decision has been made about a permanent capital. Various committees have been charged to determine once and for all what will be the process for fixing the capital. Since the new Kandhuri government has come to power, the issue is still pending, owing to the post-election pact with the UKD that charged the government to look into the issue more seriously that the one-man Dixit committee under the former Tiwari government. 59.94.130.221 19:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why someone changed the article in May 2013 such that it now states that Uttaranchal is the current name of the state and that Uttarakhand was its former name. Uttarakhand is the current name, so that change should be reversed. The user who made that change was also very inconsistent, switching the English names but never changing the name in Devanagari. Additionally, the article reads "Uttaranchal/ˌʉtərɑː khənd/," suggesting that Uttaranchal is pronounced Uttarakhand. It is important to change the article now, because surely many people are looking at this article as a result of the flooding in the region. Thus, I will revert the article back to the previous edit. Wisvishr0 (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Deforestation

Under 'Geography'it is stated that British merchants were responsible for over-logging. This should at least be justified by an authoritative citation or alternatively edited so that the wording is more racially neutral. In 1878, the British Imperial Forest School at Dehra Dun was founded by Dietrich Brandis (German and British foresters used to cooperate well in the Himalaya. I have found contemporary accounts that there were great concerns about over-logging by contractors. Protection of forests, at least partially successful, could by some be thought of as one of the 'good things' of the British Raj. Anyway, it is pleasing to read that to some extent the deforestation is being reversed. I suggest that maybe there is an Indian expert out there somewhere who might edit these one or two sentences a little to improve the NPOV. Dendrotek 16:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Are you referring to the sentence:
Most of the northern part of the state is covered by high Himalayan peaks and glaciers, while the lower foothills were densely forested till logged by British log merchants and, after independence, by forest contractors.
I think it could both be true that "there were great concerns about over-logging by contractors" and that the forests it is factually incorrecect since even at the height of te Britih Administration, the merchants thmselves were not British, but Indian> And the British were taking the logs not for export but to build the Indian railways, which wre again, on the whole, a were "logged by British log merchants". What sorts of things did the British do to protect the forests? If these actions had a major impact on Uttarakhand's landscape then they should be included in a description of its geography. I personally don't find the sentence to be racially charged, since it specifically notes that the logging continued after independence from the British. Tdslk (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am referring to that sentence. Thank you for replying, I agree that both could be true. But I would ask were the actual merchants or contractors British? Unlikely, I suggest. Is there a citation - this whole aspect of deforestation should be authoritatively cited. It happened before and after independence so why distinguish? Would you like to rewrite a few sentences as I suggested to give it a more NPOV? Dendrotek 10:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

I see that this statement about "British log merchants" is still in the Article, despite my having raised it over a year ago. I object - it is racially offensive to me, since I am British and I believe that forestry developments led by we British and indeed by German foresters, based in Oxford, was one of our gifts during the days of the Raj. Furthermore, the merchants themselves were Indian not British, even if working to obtain logs for the railways that - yes those British again - "we" thought might be a good idea for Indian development. Were they (we) correct? I know there were power struggles between different (British) government department too. But that is irrelevant, the foresters did not wish deforestation. I don't need all this explained in this section of the Article, of course, I just want "British" removed from "contractors", and whilst we are at it, a citation around this topic, please.Dendrotek 21:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


list of tourist destination

I think the list should be removed or at least discussed before being added.Most of the important ones are already mentioned so there looks no need to add the list and the picture of bugyal should also be removed.--Ayanosh (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The list is clunky and most of the places are already mentioned in the article. I've gone ahead and removed it. Tdslk (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


adding information

I am a student at LSU and will be adding more information under the section 2013 Natural Disaster. Bharve9 (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the page on 2013 North India floods section is a more appropriate section to add this article. While the disaster did happen in Uttarakhand, it seems that the topic seems to be taking more space than warranted. This article is to chiefly focus on geography, politics, demographics, history, etc. of Uttarakhand. Best of luck for the course assignment. Prad2609 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

2013 Natural Disaster

A whole section has been added into the Uttarakhand article under the title 2013 Natural Disaster. Suggest that this be summarized and re-directed to the removed as the 2013 North India floods section already covers this extensively. User:Bharve9 wrote this as a part of his/her coursework. Prad2609 (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Uttarakhand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Uttarakhand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Uttarakhand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2017

I want to add figures and references for the forest fires of 2016 that caused extensive damage to the flora and fauna of Uttarakhand that is currently missing in the last sentence of 'Flora and fauna' section. Rajkamal Goswami (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done:: If you have exact text and reliable sources you wish to add please propose it here and reactivate the edit request. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Uttarakhand

The hyperlink given on Kalsi word . .is explaining it as a cast in shikhs... But in the context of Uttarakhand it's a place name which is in Dehradun. Please correct it KAVINDRA SINGH (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted, KAVINDRA SINGH! Thank you for pointing it out, it's now fixed. – Uanfala (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Duplication

@Hemant Dabral: Why have you restored a duplicate table in infobox when it is already present in "Flora and fauna" section? The removal of IAST is supported by a discussion at WT:INB which overrides any local consensus at article level. —Gazoth (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: If that's the case, why the IAST transliteration is not yet removed from the India article?
And the duplicate table of state symbols is still displayed in many other articles of the Indian states (Karnataka, Kerala, etc) why not remove all of them too? Or does it apply only to this particular article?
Hemant DabralTalk 22:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hemant Dabral: If you read the discussion that I'd linked, you'd know why. The short answer is that Bharat is a name that is used in English, but Uttarakhand Rajya is merely a transliteration of Hindi name and not something that is used in English. As for your "other stuff" argument, that doesn't make it any less of a duplicate. Anyway, I don't see any duplicate table in Karnataka and I've removed the one in Kerala. —Gazoth (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Official name

The article currently states that the official name of the state is "State of Uttarakhand". I am unable to find anything reliable on this, from what I know Indian states do not have "official names" even India doesn't (see Talk:India/Archive 42#Official name of India) and no other state is describes as such for that matter. Neither does the website of the state describe any official name. While all states are appended with "State of" in legal cases they aren't their official names.

For these reasons I am currently removing this. Gotitbro (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Languages

I've rewritten parts of the languages section. The major changes are:

  1. I've recast the section to use census figures for what the cesnsus calls "mother tongues", not for what the census calls "languages". These "mother tongues" (at least for the case of the major languages unders discussion here) correspond much more closely to what is normally understood as "language" than the census category of "language", which lumps together a vast number of languages into "Hindi", and counts the Tharu languages as part of Maithili. In a general encyclopedic article like this one, we should use language notions as uderstood by the average reader and employed in the linguistics literature, not idiosyncratic constructs.
  2. I've removed mention of Garhwali and Kumaoni being endangered. I haven't checked the UNESCO atlas given as a source, but that's questionable: ethnologue certainly doesn't count them as threatened in any way, and if indeed languages spoken by several million people can be represented as endangered in the long run, this would involve a discussion that is beyond the scope of this article. – Uanfala (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: 1. The pie chart and data below is as per 2011 Census of India for what is officially categorised and considered a language in the census. Since this demographic section is not about "mother tongues" but languages and the fact is already mentioned in the section that these Pahari languages are included as variants of Hindi language according to the census data. There is no need to display them exclusively either as a "mother tongue" or a "language" in pie chart and language section. Same goes for the Maithili and Tharu languages.

2. Every ethnic Garhwali/Kumaoni/Jaunsari person is not a native Garhwali/Kumaoni/Jaunsari language speaker by default and even among those who are native speakers of Pahari languages, a majority of them are in fact bilingual in Hindi and their respective Pahari languages. The linguistics arguement for not lumping these Pahari languages together into Hindi language and mentioning their separate linguistic category is already explained in their respective language articles.

3. The term "idiosyncratic constructs" you came up with, might be your own personal opinion and understanding about the language issue here. Which may or may not reflect the opinion of others, hence a subjective and debatable notion. — Hemant DabralTalk 16:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, if our personal opinions and understandings differ, then what we do is turn to the sources. I've had a look at the standard reference works:

  • Colin Masica in his 1991 The Indo-Aryan languages clearly describes Garhwali and Kumaoni as languages (p. 13),
  • And so does Zograf in the 1990 Iazyki Iuzhnoĭ Azii (pp. 75–75).
  • The closest thing to the "dialect" view is the mention in George van Driem's 2001 Languages of the Himalayas, where (on p. 1099) he calls Garhwali and Kumaoni "dialects", but tellingly not of Hindi but of the "Central Pahari languages" (though he does mention the incipient literary tradition).
  • Michael Shapiro, in his chapter on Hindi in Cardona and Jain's 2003 The Indo-Aryan languages discusses the "complex and highly nuanced state of affairs" with respect to Hindi dialectology, but then writes that the nearest thing there is to consensus excludes the Pahari, Rajasthani and Bihari languages from Hindi proper. (pp. 251–52).
  • James Gair's chapter "Modern Indo-Aryan" in Hock and Bashir's 2016 The Languages and Linguistics of South Asia broaches the topic only in the map on p. 36, where both Garhwali and Kumaoni are represented as distinct literary languages (this is his highest category, contrasting for example with languages without literary traditions like Jaunsari, and with dialects like Bagri).
  • Both Ethnologue and Glottolog treat Garhwali and Kumaoni as languages.

If virtually all reliable sources treat Garhwali and Kumaoni as distinct languages, and if our our own wikipedia articles do so as well, then I can't see how this article here could treat them as dialects. We should aim for WP:NPOV across the board; we can't have a situation where this part of the encyclopedia represents one point of view while that part there represents another.

As for the census, there's nothing "official" in the way it groups languages. Yes, Hindi is an official language of the state, and that means it's used in all higher domains (but I thought the version of the article you reverted was saying just as much). Hindi's official status doesn't imply any relation between it and the other languages spoken in the state. Besides, the census results are WP:PRIMARY sources; it's OK to use them when relevant, but there's no way we can follow their categorisation if it's contradicted by the secondary sources. Personally, I don't think there's a need to use the census at all – I had used the language figures from there mostly because you had earlier objected to my removal of the census-based pie chart. To be completely clear, I wouldn't object if it's remove again – the figures are certainly more reliable than in neighbouring HP, but it's probably still likely that a substantial percentage of those identified their language as "Hindi" are actually L1 speakers of the regional languages.

Of course, it's possible to mention in the article that the local Indo-Aryan languages are sometimes referred to as "Hindi dialects", but we can't do that without a somewhat lengthy discussion of what exactly this means and why it's inaccurate given the usual meanings of these words. I think such a discussion would be beyond the scope of such a broad article. – Uanfala (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

In that case, do we need to edit the information at language section in all the Hindi speaking states articles? For example Awadhi, Bundeli and Braj Bhasha are included as variants of Hindi in Uttar Pradesh. Haryanvi in Haryana, Chhattigarhi in Chhattisgarh, Bagheli and Malwi in Madhya Pradesh, Bhojpuri in Bihar, Marwari, Bagri and Gojri in Rajasthan. Are we to change the languages stats there too, to display these mother tongues separately?

And what about Urdu? According to ethnologue and glottolog, Hindi and Urdu are the two registers of the same language Hindustani, so are we going to replace the stats for Hindi and Urdu in favour of Hindustani for more scientific and linguistically correct version? A common protocol has to be set for editing them all as per WP:CONSISTENT. — Hemant DabralTalk 00:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree we have to do the same thing for all Hindi speaking states for the sake of consistency. And by extension for other "Languages and mother tongues" too [1]. That would be a cumbersome work to do IMHO. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Most state articles leave a lot to be desired. I don't think they've got the consistency you expect: Rajasthan#Language, for example, presents the Rajasthani languages as dialects of Hindi, but Chhattisgarh#Language treats Chhattisgarhi as a language of its own. I don't think we would be able to come up with a simple rule applicable across the board as the situations differ: labelling Awadhi or Haryanvi as Hindi dialects isn't problematic the way it is for Bhojpuru or Garhwali. And as for Hindi and Urdu, I don't see a problem with continuing to list them as separate languages (both ethnologue and glottolog do just that). I think it should be generally acceptable that we should follow the literature and not rely too much on primary sources like the census. – Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've restored a partially reworked version [2]. Now, what it says about Hindi is that it's native to 43% of the population, that's it's official and that it's used as a lingua franca throughout the state. That's a fair representation as far as I'm concerned, but if anyone feels like it doesn't do justice to the extent of use of Hindi, then feel free to add whatever further explanations might be necessary. However, I'm more concerned about the mention of Sanskrit. All we're saying at the moment is that it's been declared as a second official language, and any reader who's not familiar with the language background of India might assume that the use of Sanskrit is greater than it actually is. – Uanfala (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Economy

Hello editors, I will be updating economy section with latest figures. Probably 2018-19 figures. Thank you.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 17:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In this edit to the article on Uttarakhand, IP editor 106.223.187.21 alleged that the photograph of the Chanchari dance was a copyright violation. Please can they provide evidence to support this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.holidify.com/pages/lake-carnival-3432.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.223.187.21 (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The photograph on the webpage is 800 pixels wide. The image Chanchari dance uploaded on Wikimedia commons is 2000 pixels wide. So it cannot have been copied from that webpage. (I am copying this on to Talk:Uttarakhand.) -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Montage

@Prolix: Thank you for your message. However, I have one concern about this montage in particular. The tiny images are large margins such as those in the current montage should be avoided, as many readers may find them difficult to see and identify. In contrast, montages should also not be too overbearing and oversized, that they take the focus away from the text and rest of the page as well as potentially causing formatting and accessibility problems on other devices. Therefore, I removed the bottom image and slightly tweaked the size so it'll work in everyone's favor. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:25, 08:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you Nkon21, I actually prefer your montage the current one. I think in the meantime we can reinstate your edit. However, I would much rather we get to a montage with individual images right away or else we'll never see this fixed. Maybe we could start a discussion now and request editors to suggest images for the infobox? Prolix 💬 08:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Collage Suggestion

Uttarakhand/Archive 1
State
Clockwise from top: Snowy mountains at Auli, Badrinath Temple, Kedarnath Temple, the Raj Bhavan in Nainital, confluence of the Alaknanda and Mandakini rivers at Rudraprayag, a friendly tussle of two Elephants at the Jim Corbett National Park, Har Ki Pauri ghat in Haridwar

Hi, I would like to propose an improved collage for the infobox since the current collage is of very low quality and is a static image instead of the standard amalgamation of multiple images which hinders replaceability and overall quality. I would like to suggest that the following set of images as seen in this sample infobox be used for the collage. I request all editors to voice their opinions regarding the proposed change. Thank you. Prolix 💬 17:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Nice. I'll go with the suggestion. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The new collage definitely looks prettier, but I'm concerned about the increase in size – the images sit right at the top of the infobox and push down out of view its more informative sections. And the infobox is pretty long already, especially with the huge recently inserted table of state symbols at the end – do we really need that to be in the infobox? – Uanfala (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Uanfala, if you're talking about the state symbols that were recently added, I have my doubts. Its certainly an interesting concept but takes up too much space as it currently sits and needs a bit of clean up too. As for the infobox collage, it is quite a bit larger, but that's what this discussion is about right? This is the smallest I could get it to be, the Rudraprayag image takes up quite a bit of space, maybe moving around the images could help with this. Prolix 💬 18:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Prolix 💬, you have my support regarding the new montage you've proposed, go ahead.

As for the infobox going longer, I could remove some of the info from the state symbol infobox such as traditional/unofficial symbols and the Emblem, Song/Anthem, Motto(s), Language(s) and Nickname(s) since these are already mentioned in the header of state infobox at top. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 22:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it just may be too large to make it an improvement over the current one. I think that something more compact will do just the job, as maybe something like this? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 22:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nkon21, thanks for the suggestion, I do prefer the Auli image though since it is much clearer than the panoramas. We could add another image like this one as | photo4b = Governor’s House, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India.jpg{{!}} at the bottom which would reduce the size of the collage significantly. Prolix 💬 04:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Nkon21, we could also remove the confluence image entirely and replace it with a panorama that you suggested since the quality of the former is quite low. Prolix 💬 05:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hemant Dabral, yes there's a lot of overlap that could be removed. But if we do this it will have to be replicated for all other state pages where this new section was added. Prolix 💬 04:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Prolix, Flag, Emblem, Song/Anthem, Motto(s), Language(s) and Nickname(s) should be removed from all other state symbol infoboxes as well since this info can be added to the header of state infobox itself. Therefore no need to repeat it on state symbol infobox. Likewise, the traditional/unofficial state symbols should be removed too if the infobox becomes too long.

I'd also suggest you to add more pictures from Kumaon region in the montage. Most of the current pictures are from Garhwal region, there should be equal representation from both regions of the state. You can add landmark pictures of Nainital, Almora, Jageshwar etc.— Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 06:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hemant Dabral, I added the Raj Bhavan image from Nainital as per your request, let me know if this is okay now. Prolix 💬 10:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Prolix, Yes, thank you! — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 11:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we also include pictures of Sikh pilgrimage destinations such as Hemkund, Nanakmatta? These places are well known and should get a place in your collage too. Binsarhills (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Binsarhills, Garhwal region is already overrepresented in the current montage, therefore I'd suggest Nanakmatta Should be preferred over Hemkund if we're to add Sikh pilgrimage site. If one wants Hemkund to be included, it should replace Kedarnath Temple. That's my suggestion. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 06:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hemant Dabral, I couldn't find any good images of Nanakmatta, also there's no need to replace any image as another image could be added in the last row while reducing the overall size as well. Prolix 💬 07:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hemant Dabral, sure let's do that. Binsarhills (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, why are we presenting two pictures of Himalayas? Let's replace one of them with the Chakrata, as it would represent the Jaunsari community too. Why resort to Kumaon and Garhwal only? Binsarhills (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Binsarhills, the collage you should be referring to is in the sample infobox to the right, there is only one image of the Himalayas there Prolix 💬 07:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Binsarhills, There are two divisions of Uttarakhand state, Garhwal and Kumaon, these two regions were separate independent kingdoms since ancient times and were ruled by various dynasties. Jaunsar-Bawar region is located in Garhwal region already overlapping between Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh. One can say, why must we add representation of Jaunsari community only since there are other communities like Bhotiya, Tharu, Buksa, Raji and Gurjar as well, they all should be represented, Right? But sometimes it's just not possible to represent each and every community in a limited space such as the infobox montage. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 07:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hemant Dabral, we can also add Meetha Reetha sahib, it has a very interesting story if you read it. Guru Nanak visited it too. Binsarhills (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Binsarhills, there are no images of the location you requested on commons. Prolix 💬 07:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Binsarhills, If we are to go by religious representation, pictures of Piran Kaliyar Dargah for Muslims, Mindroling Monastery for Buddhists and Churches of Nainital and Mussoorie could be added too. Each of these places have their own significance and interesting history as well. Or we can just add these pictures in the tourism section. What do you say? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 07:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, Hemkund Sahib, Reetha sahib, nanakmatta are well known Sikh pilgrimage destination. The dargah you mentioned, I heard it's name for the first time also, I don't think that it gets as many pilgrims. Please note that I am not anti-secular. Infact, being a Brahmin, my mom used to take me to dargahs every week. Then, we shouldn't solely add the pictures of Hindu pilgrimage destinations. Binsarhills (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Binsarhills, Piran Kaliyar Sharif is a famous Sufi shrine near Roorkee also known as Sabir Pak Dargah. And by the way Guru Ram Rai Darbar Sahib in Jhanda Mohalla, Dehradun is another famous Sikh pilgrimage site in Uttarakhand, it's hard to determine which one of the above is the most significant place of worship for Sikhs in Uttarakhand. But as I said earlier, it's not possible to add every pilgrimage site to the limited space of infobox montage. Badrinath is listed since it is one of the 4 Dhams in entire India and the most prominent centre for Vaishnavites in the state. Kedarnath is listed since it is one of the 12 Jyotirlingas and the most prominent centre for Shavites in the state. But If you could find a picture of Nanakmatta Gurudwara, it can be be replaced with Kedarnath Temple. Even though Uttarakhand is largely famous for Char Dham Hindu pilgrimage, the most prominent and notable pilgrimage sites in the state. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

We do have Nanakmatta sahib. And, we can look for some copyright free images or someone amongst us may just contribute. Binsarhills (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


It appears that there are no other issues with the infobox collage at the moment and appropriate suggestions have been incorporated. Therefore, I will be replacing the infobox collage with the suggested images. Thank you all for contributing to this discussion Prolix 💬 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for image replacement/inclusion:

The images in the infobox include four (out of six total) images of Hindu pilgrimage site. I propose that one of these be replaced with an image of a non-Hindu site, for which I propose Hemkunt Sahib, which is a Sikh gurdwara in the vicinity of a lake considered holy by both Sikhs and Hindus. This was also suggested by other editors but not followed through. I make the case for Hemkunt instead of other non-Hindu sites for three reasons: one, it is one of the most famous pilgrimages in the state; two, it is the most famous non-Hindu pilgrimage site in the state; and three, it is one of the most famous Gurudwaras in the world and the highest altitude Gurudwara in the world. I’ve searched commons and found the below two to be suitable for inclusion, though if a better image exists it should be chosen:

Unpetitprole (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Prolix: Please consider this. Thanks. Unpetitprole (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Flora and the number of plant species

The current version of the article claims there are about 18,000 species of plants found in the state. This is an unreasonably high number. It's sourced to this paper, of visibly low quality, which gives this figure not for Uttarakhand, but for Garhwal. It cites a few sources, and I was able to easily locate one of them. Yes, it gives the comparable figure of 18,440, but guess what, it's not for the state but for the whole of the Indian Himalayas. So, I'm going to remove the whole sentence, though it would be nice if someone located something reliable on this topic. – Uanfala (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uttarakhand/Archive_1&oldid=1222899539"