This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Indies redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Isabelroche19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
if i understand things correctly, the east indies were once known simply as the indies.
so does this mean that east indians were known simply as indians?
Gringo300 08:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The "Portuguese" were the "first" Europeans to set sail in the "East Indies", beginning in "1497"(late 15th century), who arrived in India, Sri Lanka and East Timor between 1500-1520, then followed by the "Spanish" in the early 16th century in "1521" who founded the Philippine Archipelago. The Dutch Explorers arrived 74 years later in "1595", who began exploring the land of what is now Indonesia.
Ok, but one "thing" I don't " understand"; why all the quotation "marks"? "?" 2.25.37.231 ( talk) 15:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Need to get a better map....the one shown is stated as showing the indies, but based on the definition of indies, it doesn't !
I always thought the East Indies were just the islands of Indonesia - its also what it says in the britannica [1]. "Indies" by itself may also be referring to the West Indies (Caribbean) -- Astrokey44| talk 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I would strongly contend that: "The New World was initially thought to be the easternmost part of the Indies by explorer Christopher Columbus, who had grossly underestimated the westerly distance from Europe to Asia. Later, to avoid confusion, the New World came to be called the "West Indies", whilst the original Indies came to be called the "East Indies"." Christopher Columbus knew where he was going. He had maps that showed the location of the islands that he was setting out to explore before he left Lisban! The maps are held in the cartography libraries in Portugal. If you want to see replications just take a look in the book, "1421: The Year China Discovered America", by Gavin Menzies. Menzies is a retired Royal Navy submarine commander and took the maps that he found, and by adjusting the longitude to make up the cartography errors, and layed out solid evidence that Christopher Columbus had in his possession maps that showed the land that he was to "discover". Itzacho ( talk) 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Indianized kingdom, Greater India, Undivided India, Indian subcontinent and Indies - little difference in content, same maps and graphic used over and over, not much accessibility to the information spread over an array of hotchpotch. The only argument I can see against a merger is chauvinism. Yes, India was great and still is great. But, we don't need fifty different entries to prove that greatness, much less the same point that India has/had influence over a wide part of the world and was/is known to have so. *Sigh*. Aditya( talk • contribs) 02:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Copy-pasted from Talk:Undivided India alright, the discussion of the term "India" is spread over too many articles at the moment.
we need to centralize this discussion. This article isn't about "Undivided India" so much as about listing all these terms. it would be best to {{ move}} this article to India (and the present India to Republic of India) and make it a summary discussion of all these terms. It's just too damn confused as it is now. dab (𒁳) 08:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Further discussion may resume below the line |
There is a lot of discussion visible on the talk pages of all of the merger candidates. And, most of the comments against merger seem to hang on to subtleties and nuances (i.e. Greater India is bigger than Undivided India or Indian Subcontinent as a term has been in coinage for long). Unfortunately not one of the against-merger comments said a single thing about the usefulness of having a dozen different articles repeating mostly the same stuff (in copy, ref and graphics) to assert the greatness of India. And, while there are comments saying the original intention of these articles were not this, not one edit has been made to make them conform to the intentions. Therefore I propose being bold and merging them all (almost all, at least) and that pretty quick. Aditya( talk • contribs) 04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Aditya, Indian subcontinent refers, in part, to a big chunk of continental crust that has recently (in geological terms) slammed into Asia and become part of South Asia. South Asia doesn't really need to talk so much about the geology, but Indian subcontinent does. The articles ought not be merged; if they are merged, the geological discussion will have to be moved to some less adequate location on en.wikipedia, like plate tectonics, which will become too long if it must accept many such excluded texts. -- arkuat (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The Indian plate is mostly oceanic crust. It includes the continental crust of the Indian subcontinent, but is much larger than it. -- arkuat (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Copy-pasted from Talk:Indian subcontinent. This follows the section below Can we please go ahead and remove Indian subcontinent from this awful merge proposal? Both Indian subcontinent, the geographical/geological article, and Indianized kingdom, the historical article, ought to be removed from considered merger with the other articles about contemporary culture. Apparently the main discussion of the merger is going on at Talk:Indies. -- arkuat (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Slightly Refactored for clarity
Further discussion may resume below the line |
This really needs a fresh start. I'm trying to get a comprehensive view here. In short, there are way too many articles, most of them highly unsubstantiated, repeating the same thing. If the need to have a lot of redundant articles is not too great, most can be reorganized into one or two articles. That would surely be more useful. Right? Wrong? What? Aditya( talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it so necessary to keep so many articles that don't have their scopes defined enough to warrant independent entries? What purpose are they serving? Spreading confusion? Or, establishing India on the Wikipedia?
Please, take a look. This complex maze of overlapping articles telling the same story over dozens of different pages need to be curbed. Aditya( talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I invite you all to examine the list of articles that link to 'Indies'. Everyone who thoroughly examines this link ought to agree with me that the content of Indies ought to be moved to East Indies, and that Indies itself become a disambiguation page with links to East Indies and Caribbean. Currently, East Indies redirects to Indies. There are a lot of history articles on wikipedia, you know, so we do need to remember historical usages when setting up redirects and disambig pages. -- arkuat (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased that the merge tags have mostly been removed, but still somewhat puzzled that Indies is not yet a disambig page. If this is the consensus decision of Wikipedia editors, then we need to look at articles that link to 'Indies' and start changing all those Indies links that intend West Indies to be in the form of Indies. Frankly, I think making Indies a disambig page and moving the current Indies article to East Indies would be a lot less work, but please, let's get started on one or the other project. -- arkuat (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
If you guys are sure Indian Subcontinent is a geographical thing, then why don't we remove the non-geographical stuff from the article to South Asia or India (let's ignore the geopolitical OR for now). If it keeps closely corresponding the South Asia article, it should be merged into that article, as South Asia seems to be a term in wider usage at that. If it needs a separate existence then it should have it by being separate, as opposed to being similar to the South Asia article. An,d we should also remove this explicitly geographical region from the navbox for politically divided regions. Can we do that? Aditya( talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It's true that Indian subcontinent, as the article has stood for many months now, includes a great deal of cultural and political material that I think ought to be removed from the article (as such material already stands in South Asia and other articles). Although for decades people have used the phrase "Indian subcontinent" as a shorthand for what we now refer to as South Asia, the phrase nowadays is first and foremost a geological concept (the Indian subcontinent is easily distinguished from the Indian plate, which contains it but is not identical with it) and secondarily a physical-geographical (not a cultural-geographical or political-geographical) concept. I remain scandalized that so many links to Indies in so many historical articles on the en.wikipedia link to the article we are supposed to be discussing on this talk page (which ought to be moved to East Indies) when they plainly intend to refer to the Caribbean. -- arkuat (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
This article shows signs of needing a complete re-write - inadequate referencing and confusing in whether it is aligned to India, to the alledged indies or the east indies - as it stands it is a mess.
I would recommend that most of the article be gutted - and the three very different subjects be considered as separate articles rather than stay here - Indies
As it stands with no refs/cites to mention (since when was Britannica a valid ref in Wikipedia? ) and potentially POV assertions within the article as it stands - it needs work Satu Suro 03:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
How come the Indian cultural sphere ends with Pakistan? Why isnt Afghanistan ilncluded? Or Iran? I mean it goes all the way to Indonesia on the East and only Pakistan on the West then? 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
start of the Moslem controlled area, I think. 2.25.37.231 ( talk) 15:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:1801 Cary Map of the East Indies and Southeast Asia ( Singapore, Borneo, Sumatra, Java, Philippines) - Geographicus - EastIndies-cary-1801.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 17, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-08-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to East Indies to reflect current content of article and per Common Name, Indies should be converted into concept DAB as recommended below Mike Cline ( talk) 14:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Indies →
East Indies – Much more common and less confusing name for this article. East Indies is the current name, whereas Indies is an obsolete historical version from before the popularisation of the term West Indies. Note that almost all sentences in this article describing the topic use the term East Indies instead of just Indies.
Oncenawhile (
talk) 22:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk)
05:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Indies redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Isabelroche19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
if i understand things correctly, the east indies were once known simply as the indies.
so does this mean that east indians were known simply as indians?
Gringo300 08:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The "Portuguese" were the "first" Europeans to set sail in the "East Indies", beginning in "1497"(late 15th century), who arrived in India, Sri Lanka and East Timor between 1500-1520, then followed by the "Spanish" in the early 16th century in "1521" who founded the Philippine Archipelago. The Dutch Explorers arrived 74 years later in "1595", who began exploring the land of what is now Indonesia.
Ok, but one "thing" I don't " understand"; why all the quotation "marks"? "?" 2.25.37.231 ( talk) 15:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Need to get a better map....the one shown is stated as showing the indies, but based on the definition of indies, it doesn't !
I always thought the East Indies were just the islands of Indonesia - its also what it says in the britannica [1]. "Indies" by itself may also be referring to the West Indies (Caribbean) -- Astrokey44| talk 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I would strongly contend that: "The New World was initially thought to be the easternmost part of the Indies by explorer Christopher Columbus, who had grossly underestimated the westerly distance from Europe to Asia. Later, to avoid confusion, the New World came to be called the "West Indies", whilst the original Indies came to be called the "East Indies"." Christopher Columbus knew where he was going. He had maps that showed the location of the islands that he was setting out to explore before he left Lisban! The maps are held in the cartography libraries in Portugal. If you want to see replications just take a look in the book, "1421: The Year China Discovered America", by Gavin Menzies. Menzies is a retired Royal Navy submarine commander and took the maps that he found, and by adjusting the longitude to make up the cartography errors, and layed out solid evidence that Christopher Columbus had in his possession maps that showed the land that he was to "discover". Itzacho ( talk) 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Indianized kingdom, Greater India, Undivided India, Indian subcontinent and Indies - little difference in content, same maps and graphic used over and over, not much accessibility to the information spread over an array of hotchpotch. The only argument I can see against a merger is chauvinism. Yes, India was great and still is great. But, we don't need fifty different entries to prove that greatness, much less the same point that India has/had influence over a wide part of the world and was/is known to have so. *Sigh*. Aditya( talk • contribs) 02:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Copy-pasted from Talk:Undivided India alright, the discussion of the term "India" is spread over too many articles at the moment.
we need to centralize this discussion. This article isn't about "Undivided India" so much as about listing all these terms. it would be best to {{ move}} this article to India (and the present India to Republic of India) and make it a summary discussion of all these terms. It's just too damn confused as it is now. dab (𒁳) 08:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Further discussion may resume below the line |
There is a lot of discussion visible on the talk pages of all of the merger candidates. And, most of the comments against merger seem to hang on to subtleties and nuances (i.e. Greater India is bigger than Undivided India or Indian Subcontinent as a term has been in coinage for long). Unfortunately not one of the against-merger comments said a single thing about the usefulness of having a dozen different articles repeating mostly the same stuff (in copy, ref and graphics) to assert the greatness of India. And, while there are comments saying the original intention of these articles were not this, not one edit has been made to make them conform to the intentions. Therefore I propose being bold and merging them all (almost all, at least) and that pretty quick. Aditya( talk • contribs) 04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Aditya, Indian subcontinent refers, in part, to a big chunk of continental crust that has recently (in geological terms) slammed into Asia and become part of South Asia. South Asia doesn't really need to talk so much about the geology, but Indian subcontinent does. The articles ought not be merged; if they are merged, the geological discussion will have to be moved to some less adequate location on en.wikipedia, like plate tectonics, which will become too long if it must accept many such excluded texts. -- arkuat (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The Indian plate is mostly oceanic crust. It includes the continental crust of the Indian subcontinent, but is much larger than it. -- arkuat (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Copy-pasted from Talk:Indian subcontinent. This follows the section below Can we please go ahead and remove Indian subcontinent from this awful merge proposal? Both Indian subcontinent, the geographical/geological article, and Indianized kingdom, the historical article, ought to be removed from considered merger with the other articles about contemporary culture. Apparently the main discussion of the merger is going on at Talk:Indies. -- arkuat (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Slightly Refactored for clarity
Further discussion may resume below the line |
This really needs a fresh start. I'm trying to get a comprehensive view here. In short, there are way too many articles, most of them highly unsubstantiated, repeating the same thing. If the need to have a lot of redundant articles is not too great, most can be reorganized into one or two articles. That would surely be more useful. Right? Wrong? What? Aditya( talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it so necessary to keep so many articles that don't have their scopes defined enough to warrant independent entries? What purpose are they serving? Spreading confusion? Or, establishing India on the Wikipedia?
Please, take a look. This complex maze of overlapping articles telling the same story over dozens of different pages need to be curbed. Aditya( talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I invite you all to examine the list of articles that link to 'Indies'. Everyone who thoroughly examines this link ought to agree with me that the content of Indies ought to be moved to East Indies, and that Indies itself become a disambiguation page with links to East Indies and Caribbean. Currently, East Indies redirects to Indies. There are a lot of history articles on wikipedia, you know, so we do need to remember historical usages when setting up redirects and disambig pages. -- arkuat (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm pleased that the merge tags have mostly been removed, but still somewhat puzzled that Indies is not yet a disambig page. If this is the consensus decision of Wikipedia editors, then we need to look at articles that link to 'Indies' and start changing all those Indies links that intend West Indies to be in the form of Indies. Frankly, I think making Indies a disambig page and moving the current Indies article to East Indies would be a lot less work, but please, let's get started on one or the other project. -- arkuat (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
If you guys are sure Indian Subcontinent is a geographical thing, then why don't we remove the non-geographical stuff from the article to South Asia or India (let's ignore the geopolitical OR for now). If it keeps closely corresponding the South Asia article, it should be merged into that article, as South Asia seems to be a term in wider usage at that. If it needs a separate existence then it should have it by being separate, as opposed to being similar to the South Asia article. An,d we should also remove this explicitly geographical region from the navbox for politically divided regions. Can we do that? Aditya( talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It's true that Indian subcontinent, as the article has stood for many months now, includes a great deal of cultural and political material that I think ought to be removed from the article (as such material already stands in South Asia and other articles). Although for decades people have used the phrase "Indian subcontinent" as a shorthand for what we now refer to as South Asia, the phrase nowadays is first and foremost a geological concept (the Indian subcontinent is easily distinguished from the Indian plate, which contains it but is not identical with it) and secondarily a physical-geographical (not a cultural-geographical or political-geographical) concept. I remain scandalized that so many links to Indies in so many historical articles on the en.wikipedia link to the article we are supposed to be discussing on this talk page (which ought to be moved to East Indies) when they plainly intend to refer to the Caribbean. -- arkuat (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
This article shows signs of needing a complete re-write - inadequate referencing and confusing in whether it is aligned to India, to the alledged indies or the east indies - as it stands it is a mess.
I would recommend that most of the article be gutted - and the three very different subjects be considered as separate articles rather than stay here - Indies
As it stands with no refs/cites to mention (since when was Britannica a valid ref in Wikipedia? ) and potentially POV assertions within the article as it stands - it needs work Satu Suro 03:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
How come the Indian cultural sphere ends with Pakistan? Why isnt Afghanistan ilncluded? Or Iran? I mean it goes all the way to Indonesia on the East and only Pakistan on the West then? 71.105.87.54 ( talk) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
start of the Moslem controlled area, I think. 2.25.37.231 ( talk) 15:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:1801 Cary Map of the East Indies and Southeast Asia ( Singapore, Borneo, Sumatra, Java, Philippines) - Geographicus - EastIndies-cary-1801.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 17, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-08-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to East Indies to reflect current content of article and per Common Name, Indies should be converted into concept DAB as recommended below Mike Cline ( talk) 14:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Indies →
East Indies – Much more common and less confusing name for this article. East Indies is the current name, whereas Indies is an obsolete historical version from before the popularisation of the term West Indies. Note that almost all sentences in this article describing the topic use the term East Indies instead of just Indies.
Oncenawhile (
talk) 22:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted.
Jenks24 (
talk)
05:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)