Open main menu


I saw some weird things written in the etiquette section and removed them, foreigners are not necessarily needed to wear a particular type of clothing in India. Please don't scare people with such content. --Nischayn22 (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for plunging forward and fixing it up! --Inas (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Review the cities list?Edit

There's a fairly firm policy that city lists should be limited to nine entries. Should India be an exception? Or is that a slippery slope that we do not want to start down? I lean to the latter view myself.

Our current list is:

  • Delhi — the capital of India and the heart of Northern India.
  • Bengaluru (formerly Bangalore) — The garden city, once the sleepy home of pensioners now transformed into the city of pubs, technology and companies.
  • Chennai (formerly Madras) — main port in Southern India, cradle of Carnatic Music and Bharatanatyam, home of the famous Marina beach, Automobile Capital of India and a fast emerging IT hub.
  • Jaipur — the Pink City is a major exhibit of the Hindu Rajput culture of medieval Northern India.
  • Kochi (formerly Cochin) — the Queen of Arabian Sea, historically, a centre of international trade, now the gateway to the sandy beaches and backwaters.
  • Kolkata (formerly Calcutta) — the cultural capital of India, Kolkata is home to numerous colonial buildings. It is known as The City of Joy.
  • Mumbai (formerly 'Bombay) — the financial capital of India, "Bollywood" (Indian Hindi Film Industry) hub.
  • Shimla — the former summer capital of British India located in the Himalayan foothills with a large legacy of Victorian architecture.
  • Varanasi — considered the most sacred Hindu city, located on the banks of the Ganges, one of the oldest continually inhabited cities of the world.

There is discussion above at #Hyderabad instead of Bangalore? - The case for.. In the last couple of days, people have added Hyderabad and Mysore and both have been reverted, which is according to policy.

I'm certain Hyderabad should be added; I'd replace Shimla to do that. Hyderabad is a major city & Shimla, while interesting, isn't. I would not replace Bangalore; it is, I think, the Indian city most likely to employ travellers.

It also seems worth considering replacing Jaipur with Mysore, but I'm not certain. Pashley (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP has a list of the most populous cities. I find some of them surprising, but I do not know India well. Pashley (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This issue has come up before at #City cleanup explanation. and #Sacred sites, Tourist Destinations, Other destinations Pashley (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The best option is to replace Shimla with Hyderabad. — Ravikiran (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
That is done. Does it need other changes? Pashley (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the city list is good now. The rest of the page is another matter (sigh) — Ravikiran (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Ravi that it's good now. Definitely would not remove Jaipur – cacahuate talk 16:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I think so as well.
Cities near the top of WP's list by population [1] that are not in our current list are Ahmedabad at 5th, Surat 8th, Pune 9th and Lucknow 11th. Is there a case for any of those? Pashley (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so, personally – cacahuate talk 04:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible travel topicsEdit

Thinking about removing Shimla from the cities list, I wondered about adding a heading for the major hill stations and putting it there. That seems like a sneaky response to the only nine cities rule, though, and it could lead to a very cluttered article. Maybe a travel topic on hill stations instead? WP has a list.

India also has major centers for religion like Varanasi, Bodh Gaya and Amritsar, sites like Kurukshetra, and any number of temple towns, some of which like Mahabalipuram are also major tourist attractions. There are potentially several travel topics or itineraries there as well. Pashley (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I rather like itineraries such as On the trail of Marco Polo, most of which I wrote, and am thinking of doing one on Kipling's Kim. Basing one on the life and travels of Gandhi or Tagore would be interesting, but I do not know enough to tackle those. Pashley (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't really know much about India, but from what little I do know, religious pilgrimages seem to be a big thing and often are a draw for tourists. Maybe a travel topic or even itinerary(-ies) covering pilgrimages and religious shrines. While a travel topic would be linked from a section of the page (in prose or as See also [travel topic]), an itinerary would go right after other destinations. But to start with, such info should be placed on the India page itself (in "see" or "do)...I don't see any comprehensive info about religious shrines on this page. AHeneen (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
It appears that at one point there were lists of #Sacred sites, Tourist Destinations, Other destinations, but they were removed. Pashley (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Turns out there is already a travel topic Sacred sites of the Indian sub-continent. Pashley (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
We now have a few more itineraries like Grand Trunk Road and On the trail of Kipling's Kim, plus travel topic articles for British Raj and Mughal Empire. Should there be others? Pashley (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Given the discussion below, I think a Hill stations topic would help a lot. First of all, there is a basic similarity between them, and second, as many Indians consider them to be places to visit and not "really" cities, this can bridge the gap a bit and help us clean up "Other destinations" sections of Indian state articles in a more culturally sensitive way by leaving hill stations out and putting "See also Hill stations" at the end of the section. The topic wouldn't be restricted to India, though; it should mention traditional summer capitals throughout the world, Taif in Saudi Arabia, hill stations in parts of British India that are now in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and Cameron and Genting Highlands in Malaysia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Most Populous?Edit

The Understand section says that India is the most populous country. Could someone correct it to second most populous? Thanks. 17:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

fixed. Pashley (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


The map has been changed several times in the last week. in one revision, most of Kashmir was removed from the India map. Most recently, an anonymous user removed it as "incorrect" & I restored it with this edit [2], since obviously there should be a map.

A basic principle of Wikivoyage is that "the traveller comes first", so my view is that the India map should show the traveller where he/she can go with an Indian visa. The fact that there are territorial disputes is completely irrelevant to most travel decisions; we need only mention it when it impinges on travel. For example, if there is danger of violence in some areas or travellers should be cautious in sensitive border zones like Gulangyu#Go_next.

I therefore think the map here should show exactly what territory the Indian government currently controls. Disputed areas — whether ones they claim but do not control or ones they control but that others claim — should not be shown since those disputes are mostly irrelevant to travel. Pashley (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now inserted such a map. Pashley (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So you should remove whole pakistan its a hell place for the travellers. You are totaly lost dont make our hope to loose on your websites "WIKI".

Nonsense. We should, and do, include warnings for some areas like Khyber_Pakhtunkhwa, but some areas — Lahore is one example — are very interesting for many travellers. Pashley (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a more general problem than just India, so I have tried to start a general policy discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Regions_map_Expedition#Handling_of_disputed.2Fclaimed_territories. Pashley (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikivoyage:Be fair#Political disputes is pretty clear that what is relevant to travelers is who controls a territory, not who claims that territory. The article text should note that this area is disputed, but the map should reflect which country controls the territory. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
To end this useless edit war, is it necessary to protect this page? I don't want to waste more time on politics that aren't even my issues. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather not resort to a protect unless we have a really high volume edit war, which this still isn't. It's important that useful people can still edit. --Peter Talk 07:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

[unindent] Can the cross-hatching be removed from regions India claims but does not control in the map of Indian regions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bump! I don't know how to edit a map. Any takers on this, please? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

History sectionEdit

I am neither Indian nor a historian, so perhaps I can be ignored here, but it seems to me there are questions worth raising about this section:

  • First, it seem far too long, giving more detail than a traveller needs or wants. I'd say it should be radically shortened.
  • Second, it contains stuff about the "Saraswati civilsation". Policy here is to use the commonest English terms, so I think we should be using "Indus valley civilisation". I am not certain if the other is a politically-motivated bogus controversy (which it smells like to me) or a real debate among historians. Either way, it does not belong in a travel guide.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I tried addressing your second concern. Shortening the history section still needs to be done. — Ravikiran (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I just checked out your edits. I like them, except where you excised information about Sikhism. Should it be reinserted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Sikhism is actually covered a few hundred words and a couple of millenia down the line :) — Ravikiran (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The history section does seem too long at 1470 words, but it actually doesn't compare badly with other countries. Japan, for example, a smaller country with a 5000 year history clocks in 900+ words. The USA, a large country with much less history uses 1400+ words for its history section. I won't mention China, because its history section is surely much longer, but it also has a style tag on top. When you consider our long history, large and heterogeneous population, and the fact that history matters a hell of a lot more in India than in the average country of the world, the length isn't too bad. — Ravikiran (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see the section that mentions Sikhism now.
I think the length of the history section is just fine. As you say, India is one of the oldest civilizations in the world. Its history is rich, varied, and of great importance to the history of Humanity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Current text has "There was an uprising by Indian rulers in 1857 ...". I think of that as mainly a mutiny by Indian soldiers, the seepoys, though with some rulers like the Maharini of Jiansi involved. Have I misunderstood the history? Should the text change? Pashley (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead ImageEdit

I have for long been a critic of using the Taj Mahal as the lead image for the article on the ground that it is too cliched. I have now replaced it with something that is slightly less cliched, the image of a tiger. If this doesn't work, by all means change it back, or change it to something else. Or discuss. — Ravikiran (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My favorite Indian image is Nataraja and Commons has several of those to choose from. There are also an awful lot of fine-looking temples like Mahabalipuram and historic buildings like the Red Fort. Or maybe an elephant picture? Pashley (talk)
Good suggestions. Perhaps we could have a Bharatanatyam dancer depicting the Nataraja. Let's see what other ideas come in. — Ravikiran (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Kathakali dancers often look pretty amazing & Commons has many photos.[3] Pashley (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I like the image of the red fort. I'm not so keen on the tiger. I would like to keep the image non-religious, as it seems not right to use one religion to represent india, as with the natraja one. The red fort is nice, as it has a long history, but also with post independence relevance. And it has the Indian flag in the image too. I'd like to go with that one. --Keithonearth (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I put in the Red Fort. Pashley (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The rupee symbolEdit

Remove KochiEdit

According to me Koch should be removed and industrial and historical city of Kanpur should be added.

See previous discussion at Talk:India#Review_the_cities_list.3F and links there. I'd say the list is OK as is. Lucknow might be worth adding (far more than Kanpur), but not deleting another for. Pashley (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Include AhmedabadEdit

Ahmedabad is one of the major cities and has got a rich cultural heritage, which people outside Gujarat are yet to know. —The preceding comment was added by (talkcontribs)

If you want Ahmedabad to be one of the 9 cities listed in this article, please give an argument for which one it should replace. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek I believe that even though Ahmedabad is a commercial hub, it has a lot of heritage architecture and places worth to visit. The famous Sabarmati Ashram, where Mahatma Gandhi lived, is where tourists visit in numbers. Also, it is a gateway to Gujarati destinations like Rann of Kutch, Gir National Park, etc. I suggest replacing Bangalore. Do compare both the pages. - Chintan Varma

  • Yeah, how about Shimla? It's very much more "touristic" than Ahmedabad and Hyderabad put together. Why is'nt it on the list as well? Ibaman (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that the popular notion of Ahmedabad is not a touristic one, due to the lack of publicity and interest in past. Recently it has all changed, and you may now visit the Wikivoyage page of Ahmedabad and also Gujarat Tourism. I bet someone who loves the architecture of pre-British era will love this city. It was not very much colonized by the British Raj, and so the old areas of Ahmedabad still give a very cultural feel of India. Also the people used to live in 'pols', you will find these only in Ahmedabad. These are houses with brilliant designed wood work. Also Ahmedabad is one of those 'foodie delights' city. Chintanvarma (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Chintan Varma

@Ikan Kekek:, please include Ahmedabad because it is UNESCO World Heritage City. Nizil Shah (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't make decisions here unilaterally; rather, a consensus of users makes decisions. But I don't see a workable proposal in you post. Which city do you think Ahmedabad should replace in the list, and why? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

What are the city criteria?Edit

There has been much discussion over time of what cities belong on the list, including the two sections just above and several others linked from there. I think we need to be a bit clearer about what our criteria are, to avoid too much argument and list churn.

  • I wrote at #Review_the_cities_list.3F "Cities near the top of WP's list by population [4] that are not in our current list are Ahmedabad at 5th, Surat 8th, Pune 9th and Lucknow 11th." If population were our only criterion, we'd obviously have to add Ahmedabad and should think about the others.
  • If importance to travellers were the only criterion, we'd obviously have to add Agra (which ranks ahead of most of the current list as a tourist destination) and should think about Rishikesh, Dharamsala, Shimla, ...

As I see it, a city needs both of those to be added. Also, there is an issue of balance; we want a mix of North & South, places in different provinces, great commercial and transport hubs but also places like Varanasi that are important mainly for other reasons, ... Variety gives an argument for Ahmedabad, since it is the capital of a currently unrepresented province, and an argument against Lucknow since Agra is nearby and more important.

Overall, I'd say Agra is certainly worth thinking about, but I am not sure anywhere else is. Pashley (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggest people to go through Ahmedabad. Thanks. (Chintanvarma (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)) Chintan Varma

But please state which city you'd like Ahmedabad to replace on the list. Unless I missed something, you haven't made such an argument. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest replacing Bangalore (Bengaluru), and my arguments are in the above section of 'Include Ahmedabad' for Ahmedabad, rather than against Bangalore. - Chintanvarma

I understand the positive arguments, but Bangalore is the major centre of the high-tech industry in India. I'd be reluctant to de-list it.
The other option we may have is to eliminate the "cities" section and just describe in prose reasons to visit different cities. It's been proposed to do that in continent articles, and India is more or less its own subcontinent, so maybe that would be a better solution that arguing about which worthy cities shouldn't be listed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, ya, that's a good option. Actually we can do that state-wise i.e. each paragraph will contain info in 1-2 lines about prominent cities of particular state. As far as Bangalore is concerned, what has IT hub got to do with tourism ! - Chintanvarma
This is a site for travellers, not just tourists. Business travellers count. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ahmedabad is a business hub too (the 2nd oldest stock exchange after BSE). Anyways, let's dissolve the section and do the prose you said.. —The preceding comment was added by Chintanvarma (talkcontribs)

Let's please wait at least a day, to give others the opportunity to comment and see if we reach a consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The whole thing is difficult. Scrapping the limit of nine cities leads to a mess; I do not think we can do that.
But trying to manage within it is problematic too. As I see it, adding Agra to the cities list is obviously necessary, and there's a good case for Ahmedabad. Places like Lucknow, Mysore, Shimla and Kanpur have been suggested, and they all have some merit. However, there's nothing on the current list that I want to see deleted.
As for the "just prose" option, I've no real idea how that might work. Can you point to an example? Or just give a link to the discussion? Pashley (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it from the viewpoint of getting a balance across the regions of India, I see several things, none of which I like much:

  • We may have too many Southern cities, four out of ten: Chennai, Kochi, Hyderabad & Bangalore. Can some go?
  • In the central area, we have Delhi and Varanasi and I want to add Agra, but would three out of ten be too many?
  • For the West, we have Jaipur. Is that the one to eliminate if we add Ahmedabad?
  • We have nothing for the Himalayan North. Add Srinagar or Shimla?
  • We have nothing East of Kolkata, North-Eastern India. Add something there? Guwahati?

No answers here, just more questions to consider. Pashley (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the current list makes sense. Agra would be nice but it is already implicitly included with the mention of the Taj in the section below. We could remove Meenakshi temple and the Lake Palace from the other destinations list and add "The valley of Kashmir" instead. For the North East, the only thing I can think of is Kaziranga wildlife sanctuary in other destinations or Shillong in cities. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think I can point to an example of prose only because that was a proposal to deal with disputes about which 9 cities should be listed in, say, North America. I could suggest as another possible, though, that we list 9 cities per region (which would mean at a minimum 9 cities in Southern India and 9 in Northern India). The difficulty is that it's questionable that the interests of the traveller are well served by mentioning only 9 Indian cities, and arguing about which of more than 9 deserving cities should be left out is wasting time, so having 2 or more lists of 9 would help. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Ya, we can have these lists, region wise, so while we're sticking to 9 cities per region strictly, it'll be more representative than the current list (it is not in balance). West Region in our new list may include Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Surat, Jaipur, Pune, etc. ~ Chintan Varma (talk)
We already have nine for the West in the lower-level article Western_India#Cities, & similarly for other regions. Are you saying those lists should be in the India article as well? If so, I disagree fairly strongly. Links, perhaps, but not the entire lists. Pashley (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, what's your suggestion for avoiding this sterile argument about which deserving cities shouldn't be in a single list of 9? How about pure prose, then? Or what? I just think the rule of 9 doesn't always work well, and this is such a case, as India is such a large, populous, diverse, interesting country. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Can we solve the problem with links?
We already have "See also: Indian National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, Sacred sites of the Indian sub-continent and the UNESCO World Heritage List India section." in the "other destinations" section.
In the regions section, add something like this: main cities to each description.
Add a link to Wikipedia's list by population and perhaps Wikivoyage:World_cities#India which lists all cities over 100,000 population.
There was once a list of Indian states & territories giving all of their capital cities. I copied the idea and created a similar list for China, see List_of_Chinese_provinces_and_regions. Later the Indian list was deleted. Restore it and link to it?
It might even be reasonable to scrap the cities section and just use links, but I do not think we need to go that far. Still, with good linking we can worry less. For example, it no longer matters much if Ahmedabad is not listed here since it is in the list for Western India and the WP list of largest cities and, if we add it, the list of state capitals. Pashley (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe in what Ikan Kekek says that 'the 9 cities idea doesn't work for India, it's too big and diverse'. We can increase the number slightly or add a list of states with their capitals or BOTH. ~ Chintan Varma (talk)
Pashley: Definitely no link to a list on Wikipedia, and I don't think a link to a list of cities above 100,000 is useful here, either - there are just too many of them, and not all of them are interesting, I figure. I like the idea of giving capitals of every state (how many states are there in India?), but if you disagree with showing 9 cities per region on this page, why would the capital of each state be better? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a link to the >100,000 list would be silly. That may be useful to editors, but not readers.
I do not want to see long lists on the India page. To me, neither 9 per region nor state/territory capitals on this page is feasible; either gets you over 30 cities and that's too many. I'd say that approach can be rejected out-of-hand. Having those lists elsewhere (region articles or a separate state list) and linking to them is a fine idea, though.
One could make a fairly good case that giant countries like India or China need more than 9 cities listed; perhaps the limit for them should be 12 or 15. I'm not sure I like the idea, let alone that we could get consensus for it, but there is a reasonable argument for it. The counterargument is that the limit of nine for list size is a general principle applied all over the site and if we start making exceptions, we'll eventually create chaos; that is also a reasonable argument.
I'd say any reasonable link, including some to WP, should be added. I've already put some in, under "see also" at the end of regions, cities and other destinations sections. Pashley (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
There's controversy and no consensus behind more than one link to Wikipedia per page. Why can't we link to Wikivoyage pages about Indian states, e.g., instead? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

While I have no reason to believe that nine is some sort of sacrosanct number, we should be mindful of not top loading the article with long lists. We already have a list of cities and a list of "other destinations" and that's already quite a bit. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ikan, we do already link to all the states from within the regions list. For example:
At one point we had a separate article listing all the states and their capitals and giving a bit of additional info. That was deleted after an RFD nomination (see Talk:List_of_Indian_states_and_union_territories), as were similar articles for the US and Brazil, though the one for China was kept. We could recreate that and link to it, but that might be controversial and it is not clear it is necessary.
If we are going to link to something, I'd much rather it was the WP article. It is reasonably good, has additional info like which languages are official for which state, and best of all using it avoids duplication; we do not have to maintain it. Pashley (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
But the problem, as you know, is that links to Wikipedia articles of a different subject than the article (India, in this case) are not currently permitted on the site. If we admins violate the policy, how the heck are we going to enforce it anywhere? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Can we expand the list of the 'Cities' section? I seriously believe 9 are not sufficient. Chintanvarma (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I see the problem, but the limit of 9 is a firm site-wide policy. I do not think we can or should change that. There is a reasonable argument that huge countries like India or China should be exceptions, but I am not convinced and I doubt that argument will get enough support to be taken as consensus.
Each major region of India and each sub-region below that (state, district or whatever) gets its own list of 9. A city like Ahmedabad can be on the lists for both Western India and Gujarat. Pashley (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing the regionsEdit

I think we should focus our energies on rationalizing the India articles. Keep India simple. Use region articles (Northern India, Southern India, Western India and Eastern India) as the main place for "Understand". Under those would be the individual state articles. (For example, the North (India) disambiguation page should be fleshed out into a full fledged article.) --RegentsPark (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC) (Note: I moved North (India) to Northern Inda.) --RegentsPark (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I much prefer the current set of regions to that proposal. Pashley (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
From a tourism perspective, it makes more sense to stick to north, south, east and west; using delhi, bombay, chennai or bangalore, and calcutta as the transport hubs for the various regions. Rajasthan, for example, is better included - both from a historical as well as transport perspective - to be included in the north. Using the term "the plains" for the indo-gangetic plains is also unusual (in tourism speak). Culturally, the states of uttarkhand and himachal are closer to the hindi belt than to Kashmir with only the fact that they and Kashmir are all mountainous and himalayan or trans-himalayan in common. But, these are just my thoughts. If you have a strong preference for the current structure, then let's just stick with that. Much better to focus on content anyway. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Mistaken IdentityEdit

I found the following text rather strange:

Mistaken Identity: People of Sikh religion (present especially in Punjab), and few other Indians like religious saints, wear turbans and may have big beards. Such people are peace-loving and helpful (like other Indians), and no 'mistaken identity' should be developed about them.

I believe the text is subtlety trying to say: "Sikhs are not Muslim and therefore not dangerous". If I am correct then this is racist and should be removed. Does anyone read this differently? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you're right. Shouldn't be there. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Something should be there explaining that Sikhs are neither Muslim nor Hindu, that they have a long history of police & military service, and so on. This isn't it, but we need something. Probably something about the Jains as well.
Various Western nations have some amazingly ignorant bigots. Sikh temples (w:Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, Australia) or Sikhs (New York) have been attacked, presumably by idiots who thought anyone with a turban was Muslim & all Muslims evil terrorists. I'm not certain the sort of people who do such things can be educated, and in any case they are not our problem. However, others may also be somewhat ignorant of Indian religions (I certainly was before I went there, still am in some ways) so a bit of explanation seems appropriate here. Not the current text, though. Pashley (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
That would be good, but I would say it belongs in a section on culture or demographics, not under "stay safe". JuliasTravels (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Right; I had not realised this was under "stay safe". I have now deleted it. We do have some explanations elsewhere, but they could be improved. Pashley (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I would just caution that in Wikivoyage we can describe and summarize the religion in most countries fairly easily. I would say that in India I wouldn't even know where to begin! That isn't to say that someone knowledgeable should not try; just that they should be aware that the task isn't as straightforward as (for example) France or China in this respect. Andrewssi2 (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Telangana, PleaseEdit

Could someone update Wikivoyage's map and guide of India to reflect Telangana's offical and recent debut? It formed just yesterday (June 2, 2014). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Guess you ask User:Ravikiran_r or User:Saqib who contributed to that map. We have regions that not reflect 1:1 the Indian states but i guess this case is to be discussed first as it has an effect on regional structure as well. Let's see what the other think. jan (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I will update the map. --Saqib (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  Done. --Saqib (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Which "Other destinations"?Edit

At the country level, 9 cities are listed, and it's normal to list 9 "Other destinations," too, but there are currently 10 listed. Moreover, "Other destinations" means other than cities and certainly other than states, so Bodh Gaya, Goa and Khajuraho should not be listed, but perhaps the temple complexes in Bodh Gaya and Khajuraho can be. I'm going to plunge forward and remove the state of Goa from this list, as there's no way it could be listed in this section. How would you all like to handle the remaining 9 "Other destinations"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a really hard issue generally, but especially for such huge destinations as India. Personally, I think including regions can be very helpful when they are treated as single destinations in practice, but it's difficult to draw a line. As someone who's travelled very extensively in India, and when talking about "other destinations", I'd say Goa is exactly that: a region conceived by visitors as one destination. Goa is a place to beach hop, village hop, party hop: it's impossible to pick one spot in the area. So in the interest of the traveller, I'd actually say Goa belongs on that list. Unfortunately, this region happens to also be a state along the same lines, and I get your more general idea of not including states. Kajuraho is also a famous destination, not as a city but as an extraordinary temple location. Tricky! I've often thought we'd be more flexible if we'd have a list of "other highlights" rather than "other destinations". The Taj Mahal is fair enough, but the other particular temples and castles seem an almost random pick, as there are so many. I'd say that in e.g. our United States article, national parks are overrepresented. For a country as vast as India, current policy aside, my ideal way to treat other destinations would be rather in a sense of "experiences", I think. exploring the Keralan backwaters, chilling in Goa, seeing sand dunes on camel back in the Thar desert etc etc. But this isn't really helping, is it? :) JuliasTravels (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, the Thar Desert can certainly be an "other destination." I've been to Khajuraho, and I would actually support "The Tantric temple complexes in Khajuraho" as an "other destination," along with a similar designation for the temple complexes in Bodh Gaya. I don't see how we can include Goa as both a state and an "other destination," though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I turned the listings for Bodh Gaya and Khajuraho into listings for their temple complexes, which I think is amply justified. Which listing would you like Thar Desert to replace? We have to be practical about this: There are so many things that could be listed that the best we can do is to list 9 great destinations that might not be obviously the 9 greatest but are all famous, worthwhile and varied in character. In that sense, having a desert would be great, and a mountain could be a good thing, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It's an impossible pick :-) Temples are fortunately unavoidable for travellers, especially if you include some of the 9 city destinations. Also, the Unesco sites are linked directly under the 9 other destinations too. One thing I've learned while travelling through India is that, even when you hold cultural sights in the highest regard, the other experiences make at least as much of an impression. Personally, I'd therefore drop Meenakshi Amman, Bodh Gaya and possibly even the Golden Temple and Konark, if that's the only way to include the Kerala backwaters and desert exploring in the Thar desert (which for me, are both key experiences). As for mountain viewing, there's the Himalaya of course. The Valley of Flowers is great but it's a pretty serious hike. I myself might prefer the tea fields of Darjeeling, even when they're not Himalayan. Also, I do think we should bring back Goa's beach life somehow, as we have no beaches at all now. I suppose the parties and beaches of Palolem would be the obvious choice. As a cultural sight, Konark is more important, but as a destination, Udaipur's lake palace with it's lovely surroundings is what people will likely remember better, afterwards. Just my two cents though. JuliasTravels (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, but I'm even more confused now. :-) I can't imagine dropping the Golden Temple, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Are hill stations cities?Edit

In several articles for Indian states, hill stations are among the listed "Other destinations." I think that they are cities, under Wikivoyage's definition, and therefore shouldn't be listed in "Other destinations," but they seem to be regarded differently in India. So what do you all think? Are hill stations cities, or are they a different category of place, keeping in mind that even small villages are classed generically as "cities" on this site? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hill stations are more like towns in the subcontinent. Murree is Pakistan's most popular hill station and is a town whereas I guess Shimla is India's most popular hill station but its a capital city of a state so they call it a city but still I don't see it more than a town even thought I never been to India. Both Shimla and Murree [[ were used to be the summer headquarters of the local government during British rule. --Saqib (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Saqib. That tends to settle the question because a town, in Wikivoyage classification, is a city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I think they are all villages, towns or cities, so all "cities" in our terms. (I'd say we should change that terminology, but this isn't the place for that discussion.)
Hill stations would make a fine travel topic if someone had the time & knowledge; I lack both so am not volunteering. They exist all over Asia, I think; certainly there were some in Malaya and China in colonial times. Can larger places like Abbottabad or Srinagar be called "Hill stations"? Where do other mountain cities in hot countries fit in? e.g. I've never heard anyone call Taif a hill station but it does get called the "summer capital" of the country. Pashley (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it would make a great topic, and Cameron Highlands would be an obvious Malaysian example. I really doubt Srinagar was called a hill station, but I could be wrong. Like Taif, it's a summer capital, of Jammu and Kashmir, but it's a sizable city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
You know, that brings me to one issue that has always bugged me about "Cities" vs. "Other destinations". I get that "Other Destinations" are meant to be for destinations that are important in their own right, but can't be classified as cities. I think that the example of Angkor Wat makes it clear enough. The problem though is when an attraction is in fact in a city, but the city itself isn't important enough to be listed in the "Cities" section. The Taj Mahal is a good example. The Taj Mahal is in Agra. Agra is a city. It is a city important enough to be listed in the "Cities" section of Uttar Pradesh but not in the "Cities" section of the India article. But Taj Mahal is of course important enough to have a mention in the "Other destinations" section of India, so we have been cheating by listing the Taj Mahal as a destination even though it's in a city. Likewise, with the Meenakshi temple in Madurai. It's in a city. Madurai is a reasonably sized city, but the temple is more important than the city. Hill stations are another example of exceptions to the "Destinations that are not in cities" rule. They are certainly attractions that a traveller would expect to see in the "Other destinations" section, but they are cities. In fact, often, the town itself is an attraction worth roaming around, but rarely will the city be so important that it will deserve to be listed in the "Cities" section. I really think that we should expand the rule about what we should put in the "Otehr destinations" section. Ravikiran (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind an expansive view of what "Other destinations" are, but I think it would be easier to gain agreement if we could define its limits. There are examples of hill stations that are listed in the "Cities" section, though. Munnar is listed in Kerala#Cities; Darjeeling in West Bengal#Cities; Ooty in Tamil Nadu#Cities; Shimla and Dalhousie in Himachal Pradesh#Cities. I'm sure I've missed some, and that's without even mentioning Srinagar. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I was about to propose that we should expand the scope of "Other destinations" to cover attractions that are important enough to be listed in the article, but overshadow the city they are in. The problem though is that still doesn't cover hill-stations. The other problem is, why wouldn't we list those in the "See" section? I know that we aren't supposed to list individual attractions in the "See" sections of countries and regions, but then why are we bypassing that rule by listing them in "Other destinations"? I guess I am expanding the scope of this discussion here and we should probably take this to a policy page, but what exactly is the purpose of "Other destinations"? Ravikiran (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to get back to this so long after your last remark. To state it another way the purpose of "Other destinations" is to cover destinations that cannot be covered or covered adequately as cities. I think what we're encountering here is a cultural difference in how hill stations are viewed. The very fact that the word "city" is not included in "hill station" suggests what they are considered to be: way stations for visitors who are temporarily escaping the heat. And I think that idea breaks down when the city in question has several hundred thousand or a million permanent residents, but where would we draw the line? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Listing every train station?Edit

I notice that in Indian articles in particular, every single train and metro station, as well as many bus stops are given individual listings . See Kolkata/Southern fringes as an example.

If it were a European article, I might be tempted to remove most of them, (i.e. only key train stations close to major attractions may be useful to a traveler) but I wonder if India might need to be treated differently? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Only main and important train station and bus station works for South Asian articles but we'll have to find someone who have local knowledge of Kolkata and can suggest which is the main ones. --Saqib (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, although I put this at India level because it is relevant to many Indian articles not just Kolkata :)
I'm actually visiting Kolkata this weekend, and I just found all those listing confusing when looking at the map. I would suggest good practice would be to remove all but the most obvious useful ones for now... --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree about reducing the number of train/metro stations listed in Kolkata (India) articles - We do need to have more people familiar with the local areas to work on India articles in general... Have a great trip Andrew - Matroc (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I know Andrew that you're talking about India. I said "Only main and important train station and bus station works for South Asian articles". Nice to know that you're visiting Kolkata. Are you in India already? I've a PDF of Lonely Planet. If you need, let me know. --Saqib (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for the offer Saqib , although unfortunately I am not going for tourism! That said I hope to take a day each to look around Kolkutta and Bangalore when I get there this weekend. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Whither the "See" sectionEdit

The "See" section is very problematic. I just edited its lede and created a prose paragraph about the Taj Mahal instead of the bulletted listing it had. By the way, note that it's one of the "Other Destinations", but it's so - justly - famous that it may deserve the overkill of being listed in both sections.

However, the rest of the section is way too listy, and should not have bullet points by city, though cities should be mentioned as appropriate. I would propose, instead that we categorize sights into a few different subsections, all covered in prose like the paragraph I created about the Taj, though in some cases, several sights would be mentioned in a single sentence (and the paragraph about the Taj is probably too long):

Historical monuments and forts




The Taj would belong in the first section. Other sights reasonable to include there would be the Qutb Minar and Red Fort in Delhi, some palaces in Rajasthan and, as a rather different kind of historical monument, the Gandhi Ashram in Ahmedabad. This doesn't seem a sufficient listing, though: What other former royal palaces or forts are among the highest highlights? Should Nalanda's ruined former Buddhist university also be mentioned in this section?

In the Temples subsection, the tantric temple complexes of Khajuraho, the fact that Jammu has so many temples that it's called the "City of Temples" and is a major draw for Hindu pilgrims, the terracotta temples of Bishnupur, the Golden Temple and the Buddhist temples in and around Leh should be mentioned. The Sri Venkateswara Temple in Tirupati (Tirupati Balaji) can also be mentioned.

In the Geographical subsection, we could list the Himalayas and then mention that in India, hill stations, which are cities and towns in mountainous areas, are considered sights and experiences in themselves, and we could choose to mention a bunch from Srinagar on down in size, although this really stretches the meaning of a "sight."

Next, we could mention the Ganges, specifying that for Hindus, it's more than just a major geographic feature but also a holy river for ablutions, prayer and cremation, so there are several holy cities along the river that have many temples but are often more interesting to visit for the overall experience than to visit specific temples per se. I'd mention Varanasi, Rishikesh and Haridwar as good holy cities to visit to see and experience the practice of Hinduism on the Ganges, but did I miss any important cities?

The beaches of Goa, also an interesting former Portuguese colony, Kochi, and the Andaman Islands could be mentioned in this subsection.

Finally, the Thar Desert should be mentioned, along with some cities in Rajasthan such as Jaisalmer that are good bases for camel trips.

Is it important to mention the Sangla Valley in the article for India?

In the "Wildlife" subsection, the Bandhavgarh and Ranthambore tiger reserves, the Gir Forest National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary and the Sundarbans would fit.

I don't see an obvious place for Pondicherry in "See", and "Palaces" is not a useful listing.

If my proposal is accepted, we'll still end up with way more than 9 sights, but I actually see nothing in Wikivoyage:Country article template limiting sights to 9, and at least they'll be better organized and in prose, with the sights, rather than the cities, emphasized.

Is this on the right track or the wrong track? I don't feel right about plunging forward on this kind of major change without a discussion that arrives at some kind of agreement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In brief, your proposal is good so go ahead. The same I've tried to do with Pakistan however not yet finished. For Sangla, it doesn't really matter to mention it as the important and popular ones are already mentioned. --Saqib (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Saqib. I gave it a try. I don't think it's perfect, but I do think it's better, and I'll do some more editing on it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

"National parks" section moved from articleEdit

I just moved this from "Do". My feeling is that these either belong in "Other destinations" or in "See" with the rest of the "Wildlife" subsection (which could be extended to "Flora and fauna" if anyone feels strongly in favor of that) or don't belong in the article, but I put it below in case it has good information we should put somewhere:

National parksEdit

Depending on the area and terrain National Parks provide ample opportunities to the visitors to have a close encounters with the wilds. Indian National Parks have great variety and range of attractions and activities including the observation of their flora, avifauna, and aquafauna, or witnessing various wild creatures in their natural surroundings from on foot or a viewpoint riding upon an elephant or from inside a jeep.

  • Bandhavgarh National Park- located in Umaria District, Madhya Pradesh.
  • Tadoba Andhari Tiger Project- Located in Chandrapur District, Maharashtra.
  • Ranthambore National Park-located near Sawai Madhopur,
  • Kaziranga National Park- located in Golaghat, Assam.
  • Kanha National Park-located in Mandla District, Madhya Pradesh
  • Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)- located in South West Of Kathmandu, Nepal
  • Eravikulam National Park- located in Munnar, Kerala
  • Sasan Gir National Park - Located near Junagadh in Gujarat

I particularly dislike the listiness of this subsection. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Cities and Other DestinationsEdit

Do you all wish to put these cities and Other Destinations into marker templates with images (if available)? These would appear on the geomap - I think we would be the only voyage to do that (France just has Delhi - Matroc (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I favor this, but perhaps it's best to wait a couple of days to see if anyone objects. Just to clarify to anyone who wouldn't know: This proposal does not violate the 1-liner listing guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I did test to show what the cities would look like in marker format and put a geomap at top of my talk page to show the India map city icons (images included). - Section located here
Found another issue - the alt= or alternate name is not part of the template which I though it was - did a textual work around and showing that on my Talk page - Matroc (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I did the Other attractions as a test - included on my talk page and these show up on the geomap I have at top of page.
Ellora has its own page whereas Ajanta does not - Ajanta links to a section of the Aurangabad article where both Ellora and Ajanta Caves are mentioned - just an FYI -- Matroc (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"Other destinations" that are actually just attractionsEdit

Some of the "Other destinations" are actually just attractions that are covered in the See section, which is where attractions should go. Nurg (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of them, like the Taj Mahal and Golden Temple, are such huge attractions that they seem appropriate to list. Which ones would you like to remove from the list, and what would you like to substitute? Parks only? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Autorikshaw or autorickshaw?Edit

I've seen both spellings in articles about Indian destinations. I always thought rickshaw was the correct spelling, so I figured the compound word should be autorickshaw, but autorikshaw seems more popular with Indian posters. What do you all think? Consistent spelling would be good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, "autorickshaw" is by far the more common English spelling and I think we should go with that. I'd never seen the other spelling until recently. Texugo (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I've never bevore seen it spelt without a 'c' either. But also, I've never been to India :) ϒpsilon (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Google shows the spelling with the 'c' as more common (almost 2 million hits vs just over 200,000) and it is used by WP, w:autorickshaw. Nearly all hits without 'c' are on Indian sites. I'd say we should use the 'c'. Pashley (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Visa policyEdit

India has just recently reformed its visa policy, with e-visa available for the following countries: Andorra, Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Cayman Island,Chile, China, China- SAR Hongkong, China- SAR Macau, Colombia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Laos, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Montserrat, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand,Nicaragua, Niue Island, Norway, Oman, Palau, Palestine, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Macedonia, Russia, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Tonga, Turks & Caicos Island, Tuvalu, UAE, Ukraine, United Kingdom, USA, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vatican City-Holy See, Venezuela, Vietnam. Does anyone know more about this? And how does this relate to the visa on arrival (which is not mentioned on the website of the Government of India)? MaartenVidal (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

According to our encyclopedic sister project the visa called "visa on arrival" which was available for citizens of 12 countries has been discountinued. Nowadays citizens of 113 countries (including those 12) can apply for e-tourist visas, which has to be applied for at least four days before you arrive in India. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Include Hotel Chain InfoEdit

Treebo is one of the popular budget hotel chain in India. They are providing good budget hotels at affordable prices. Being a traveller, I read a lot of information about cities on wikivoyage. I really feel that it should be added here to convey the information about this hotel chain to the readers. I am not promoting this brand, I have experienced their stays and really liked it so trying to contribute.—The preceding comment was added by BhavukKhandelwal (talkcontribs)

I'm not familiar with this particular chain, and it seems to be a recent player. However, it's already available in 42 cities (often with several properties) and with dozens more in the planning, so I do think it is a chain worth mentioning. Considering our pricing ranges, it would be a midrange option. We have a few other chains linked, so it could just fit in with them. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I tend to think that it makes sense to list them once at the country level because they have multiple hotels (like 30) in quite a lot of cities, and mentioning in dozens of city guides that "Treebo has 30 hotels throughout [Name of City]" with a link would seem spammy, even though the intent to spam isn't present. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree with both of you JuliasTravels Ikan Kekek. Listing this hotel chain at the country level makes sense. Listing in city guides will look like a spam. Let's proceed with adding this brand name in the India guide. I have read many press releases about them and they are planning to expand to 150+ cities in the coming 2 years. —The preceding comment was added by BhavukKhandelwal (talkcontribs)

(Parenthetically, it's customary in Wikis to sign posts on talk pages by typing 4 tildes [~] in a row at the end of each post. That makes it easy to see who posted what in a long thread.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic mapEdit

I'm fine with geomarking the cities and destinations -- something we can probably look at doing in other articles as well. But do we really need the dynmap here when we already have the nice svg tourist-style map? -GeneralPericles (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Replace void word with correct regional wordEdit

Hello and Thank You for welcoming me and having me help wikivoyage in eradicating past colonial, "funny" words like "subcontinent", that should have no place in our lives!

Please Replace the word "subcontinent" as it is a Past colonial word which is divise, derogatory & discriminatory, which must be eradicted from use in wikivoyage. The correct regional word for the nations and countries thereof for that REGION of Asia, is South Asia. For a United One Asia!

We do not see or hear other continents of the world, i.e. Africa, Europe, South America, North America for instance, calling any region or regions or some of its nations or countries from its continents, a "subcontinent" of itself or should we ALSO?!

FOR EXAMPLE - DO we hear of the words or phrases : the "merriterainian subcontinent" of Europe; or the "scandenavian subcontinent" of Europe; or the "hispanic subcontinent" referring to portugal and spain of Europe; or the "tribal subcontinent" in southern half of Africa; or even the "Ebony subcontinent" of Southern Afirca; or even perhaps the "Amazonian subcontinent" when reffering to a region in South America; or even the "Alaskan subcontinent" of North America!

Thank You Kindly, Neil,

That's a passionate statement, but in what way is "Subcontinent" derogatory? India is a landmass, so geologically a continent, and therefore it makes some sense to call what's now an area of several countries a subcontinent. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Collins American definition subcontinent is : "a large land mass, smaller than that usually called a continent; often, a subdivision of a continent, regarded as a geographic or political entity". It is a geographic term that has zero derogatory (or indeed even political) meaning. Wikipedia states that w:North_America can be considered a subcontinent of the Americas.
Take a moment to read w:Continent#Subcontinents and you will realise that although your argument is indeed passionate, it is based unfortunately on a misunderstanding around how geographies are categorised. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I use both terms, consider them more-or-less synonymous, and see nothing derogatory in "subcontinent". I have a mild preference for "South Asia" as the region article name because it is clearer that that includes Sri Lanka, the Adamans & the Maldives where one might read "subcontinent" as excluding those islands. In a link in another article I'd be more likely to use Indian subcontinent which I think is clearer & which redirects to South Asia.
Any comment from users from the region? User:Ravikiran r, User:Saqib? Pashley (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with using "subcontinent". Being a Pakistani, I myself often use this term often. The term can be safely used interchangeably with South Asia and I don't see any harm. --Saqib (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Serious concerns about E-visa adviceEdit

I am concerned the "VISA" section of the article is unclear and poorly formatted, probably the result of changes to the visa process

could someone who is familiar with the process consider a clean-up so the formatting is more uniform and paragraphs arn't so fragmented I am reluctant to mess with such a sensitive section of the article myself --Willthewanderer (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is a bolded statement in the Visa section "An Indian visa is valid from the day it is issued, not the date of entry.", which does not appear to apply to the e-Visa. From, "The validity of e-Visa will be 60 days from the date of arrival in India."
I'm not sure how the other visa processes work, but I'm sure lots of travelers will do the e-Visa. This bold statement scared me into thinking that in order to maximize my possible stay time I needed to wait until just a week before I leave (but no shorter than 4 days) to apply for the visa. Unnecessarily stressful.
I have half a mind to update the particular statement, at least to clarify about e-Visas. Might wait until after I get mine to verify from personal experience that the visa starts on arrival. Devinplatt (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Please correct anything that's wrong or misleading. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Current political situationEdit

At the risk of stirring up controversy, is enough mentioned about the current political situation in India? Are there any current issues and events it would be good for visitors to know about? I'm not Indian and haven't been to India in a long time, but I think that aside from the ongoing India-Pakistan and intercommunal tensions, which are a constant though they ebb and flow, I have read that some people have raised concerns about what they perceive as Hindu chauvinism from the BJP and the Shiv Sena allied to it, whereas of course many others think Hindus in India have been too defensive for too long and should treat India as a Hindu homeland and protect traditional Hindu values. A problem that afflicts many people and has been touched on a bit in the article is the rash of violence including high-profile rapes and murders of women, which has (some people would say finally) been responded to. The Indian Supreme Court has taken up some social issues recently, too. As always, we don't want to get too detailed, of course, but what do you think would be worth adding, while remembering to be fair? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I just got out of the hot zone in Kashmir and am heading through Kolkuta where there are massive anti governmnet protests and to the seven sisters where the issue with the Rohinga is very relevant. I updated the "Stay safe section of Srinegar a while back and it took very mature editing to put things neutraly and not to publish my own personal oppinions. A possible warning "Tourists should be aware of regional tension relating to 'contested areas between India and Pakistan', 'social struggle between Hindus and Muslims' and refrain from discussing them, If someone asks your oppinion it is best to feign non-interest and avoid the subject".
We would have to be very carefull not to give a version of events, write any history etc. Maybe a template for these warnings would help.
--Billbarrelrider (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

New warning needed?Edit

India introduces death penalty for rape of young children Pashley (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I sure hope we don't have any readers who are planning to rape young children. Mention it in "Stay safe" if you like, but really, fuck anyone who rapes a child! Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Ikan Kekek. If we think that we have enough child rapists in our readership to make such a warning useful, then I'm out of here. Ground Zero (talk)
You guys crack me up sometimes. I think it's relevant to mention any country that takes a very harsh stance, It's generally relevant to the traveler. I doubt we have many "child rapists" in our readership but for travelers to be more aware of compromising situations they might encounter and to avoid inadvertantly facillitating these crimes (eg. giving food to orphans), because the general population might be very sensetive. Most government travel advisories list these warnings, it could be a simpl warning "India has introduced a death penalty for child rapists".

--Billbarrelrider (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you think we should put a warning in the article about the United States that anyone planning on committing a felony should beware that unless they are rich and have excellent lawyers, they are likely to face a much longer prison sentence than in many other Western countries? Should we warn prospective murderers about where there is a death penalty or mandatory life or long sentence for 1st-degree murder? Maybe we also want to warn prospective kidnappers, slave-traders and counterfeiters of money... Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


Bus ticket portalsEdit

Wikivoyage policy, as shown at external links#what not to link to, is to disallow the linking of portals, consolidators or price comparison sites. Right now, though, these kinds of links are proliferating at the city, state and region level, although the portals in question I think without exception are nationwide or even broader. I think we could mention them once in India#Get around's "By bus" section, while deleting all mentions of them in every article subordinate to this one in the breadcrumb trail, although another way of doing things is to list these portals in the article about portals (I don't remember the name; it covers booking services for airplanes, hotels, etc.) and nowhere else.

What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I would concur these mentioning these apps and sites would be in the travelers interest- but the inevitable result especially in an article relation to India would be a huge influx of commercial editors. The impact on Wikivoyage would be huge, and it might have a noticable impace in our SEO. In any case the rising trend of these services probably warrants a mention in the relevant sections.

--Billbarrelrider (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Kumba MelaEdit

I am heading to Kumba Mela and I've realised it doesn't have it's own article (if we do I'll be embarassed)

As the largest gathering of people in the world, and as it totally changes the citties the relevant city articles may not be particularly helpfull. I would like to make a page that gives additional information about travel during this peeiod, the changed transport times, seasonal accomodation, logitcics of planning a trip during this period.

The article would be broken down into a general advisory, and a section with each main city that describes changes expected when traveling during this period.

look forward to hearing what you think --Billbarrelrider (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Does it affect any countries other than India, such as Nepal, for instance? My feeling is, you could start by creating a section in this article and then move it if it gets unmanageably long, but if you clearly know in advance that it would be a full-length article, then IMO, sure, go ahead and start it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy action on Indian train station hackingEdit

Swept in from the pub

TL;DR Indian railways online room booking engines are repeatedly being hacked and they are closing rooms without notice across a wide area, I vote a "caution" be put in the "sleep" section of Indias main page as a temporary measure.

It came to my attention in guwahati, India that the train station rooms were strangely unavailable on consecutive visits, and their claims the rooms were under maintainance didn't stack up.

I encountered the same issue in dimapur, India and for half a bottle of whiskey the staff confirmed my suspicions.

Hackers have compromised the booking site for rooms resulting in double bookings, to avoid embarrassment indian railways are under orders to close rooms at stations until the issue is corrected - which opinion is could take months

Many travellers don't even know about these rooms but some rely on them because of their low cost and importance in long consecutive rail trips.

Unless they have fixed their website since last week a mild caution "indian railways websites are having technical issues and as a result room bookings at stations may be cancelled without notice and bookings over the enquiry counter may be unavailable" --Billbarrelrider (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Would your last sentence (the section in quotes) be appropriate for use as a caution notice in the India article? If so, I'll just go ahead and add that. Thanks for informing us about this! --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Time standard - PM/AM or 24 hr?Edit

Could we agree on a common time standard for India. It is seems there is none currently in place.

Any Indians here that have a clue on the commonly used convention, 13:30 or 1:30PM?

Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I cannot speak from experience, which would give us the best answer. Wikipedia says:
"The 12-hour notation is widely used in daily life, written communication, and is used in spoken language. The 24-hour notation is used in rare situations where there would be widespread ambiguity. Examples include railway timetables, plane departure and landing timings."
So absent a response based on personal experience, the 12-hour clock seems to make most sense. Ground Zero (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to "India" page.