 | A fact from Roopkund appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 March 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Untitled edit
'Skeleton Lake and 'Roopkund' is the same thing .Name 'Roopkund' indicates geographic location and only popular name in India. So,better merge both the articles under single name 'Roopkund'.Tribhuwan
Agreed. Please go ahead and do so if you feel motivated. Wachholder0 00:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
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?) - 13:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Legends - how much weightage to be given? edit
It is a proven fact that hundreds of skeletons are found in the lake. But, there is no historical reliable records for the reasons of this find. Legends say that hail stones of size of cricket balls killed a large group pilgrims and some sources are also available for these legends. My question is, how much weightage/importance is to be given for this legend/legends in the body of the article? Some importance is appropriate, as there are no other proven reliable records for the reasons of such a large number of skeletons in the lake. Rayabhari (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Ongoing edit conflict regarding altitude of the lake edit
We seem to have an ongoing lack of consensus regarding the lake's altitude and whether or not it should be converted. Can we please discuss this before further changes are made? Thanks.
nature.com article edit
Research published @ nature.com suggests that the remains are from ~800CE and ~1800CE, eastern Mediterran and Southeast Asian individuals. Andree.sk (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
1800 CE is what it says in the nature article CE Common Era , ie AD. This has been morphed to BC in the article as well as in popular press coverage.
(Perhaps using an obscure but politically correct terminology isn't such a great idea after all!)
Gjxj (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)