Talk:Western India

Name

I think Western India is a more suitable name. Thats how it is reffered to in weather reports. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Expansion

The artice needs to be expanded, on the lines of South India and North India. I am adding a few things. We can expand on culture, history, geography and other themes. --NRS| ^T 12:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Defeats the purpose of the article

The latest changes made to this article has included Rajasthan, which may not be wrong. However, the person who has edited has given unnecessary prominence to rajasthan and it's culture while disregarding the other states and languages. The articles needs to present information in an unbiased manner with equal importance to all the states. Stating that Marwari is the most important language of West India seems too far fetched. I shall edit it if nobody does within a few days.Jcavale (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My god!!!! Doesn't the person who wrote the article know how to spell famous? (famus). This has to be deleted immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcavale (talk • contribs) 13:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes

I have edited the article and have cited the sources. It was really difficult for me as I dunno how to cite. I also would like to know the validity of including Rajasthan in west India. I have let it remain in the article. If anyone feels Rajasthan does not belong in the west but in the north, they can delete everything that is about rajasthan in the article. Jcavale (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

a lot more information needs to be added. Information like places of interests, hill stations, tourism, industries, economy, agriculture, history has to be expanded too. and yeah, we can add politics too. Jcavale (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please delete Rajasthan as soon as you see it in this article

I do not understand why the person who has been adding Rajasthan to this article has been so stubborn. It has been deleted several times and he again writes about Rajasthan and the language is so bad. We either have to 'correct' his 'mistakes' or delete Rajasthan related information which are both tedious. The same effort and energy could be used to improve the article by adding more information about Gujarat, Goa and Maharashtra. I request everyone to to kindly look into this matter. Jcavale (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from South India no region is defined properly. So anyone can believe whatever he wishes to believe. Maquahuitl^talk! 09:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean a goan believing goa is in north india is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.13.191 (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno...Rajasthan might be in West India....66.235.19.167 (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Goans will consider themselves North Indian when they encounter a South Indian. Maquahuitl^talk! 04:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Formal definition

Is there really no formal definition of West India? If not then perhaps this article should be deleted because it will for ever be in a state of some semantic uncertainty, as evidenced by the recent edit back-and-forth and the various discussions above. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. See the lead for Northwestern India. This should certainly be deleted. Add to it a vandal who claimed Maharshtra belongs to NW India as well as North India. And there's another one replacing this image with this shit but that's off topic. -- Ashay (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Western India. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080911040900/http://www.nfhsindia.org/pdf/IN.pdf to http://www.nfhsindia.org/pdf/IN.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)