Jump to content

Talk:Odisha/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Odissi dance

Odissi is not merely about the love of Krishna and Radha, various other Hindu deities are described as well. Also some Odissi items just contain pure dance with no meaning. I hope someone looks into this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.64.108 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"Odisha" approved

Parliament approves new name for Orissa (Odisha) and Oriya (Odia). utcursch | talk 15:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Going by WP:GOOGLE, a search for Odisha -Orissa gives 896,000 results, while a search for Orissa -odisha gives 18,400,000 results. But then, these results aren't ground enough to deny a move. The usage of Odisha/Orissa by English newspapers need to be noted. I guess a move proposal should be started. Yes Michael? •Talk 15:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


Nandighosh

Nandighosh is Lord Jagannath's Rath(Chariot) used in the annual Rath Yatra held in Puri. It is mainly adorned with Yellow and Red cloth material. The Rath consists of 16 wooden wheels. The symbolic charioteer(In form of a huge wooden statue) is Arjuna in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshanxi (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Maintenance Tags

I have added a few tags for Cleaning up, Wikifying and improving the citations in the article.

Regards,

Sourav Mohanty (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Name change of the state

Hi, the name of the state Orissa is now changed to its original name Odisha by the government, and hence the page name also needs to be changed. sbblr0803(Abhirama) (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Do see the previous discussion, where a discussion has taken place, you may chip in with your comments there. Lynch7 02:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion for moving Orissa page to Odisha

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: rejected. This was not a proper move request, as has been noted several times. — kwami (talk) 08:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I vote for this move. --[[++@adikka 05:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be moved to Odisha. Dracunculus (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a no brainer really. The official title of the state has changed and Wp should follow. Silent Billy (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of moving the page to Odisha. As it has been officially & unanimously accepted by the constitution of India Zephyrmaten (talk)13:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I vote for this move. --Srikant Kedia 18:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I vote for this move.(Nayansatya (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC))
Just a reminder, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and calling this a vote would be very misleading. Have a proper discussion, citing reliable sources showing the increased use of Odisha. Only then can a consensus be reached. Just voting is generally against Wikipedia policies. Yes Michael? •Talk 07:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Though the actual spelling is supposed to be "Odisa" based on the the natural pronunciation of Odia language, though 3 Sas are used (ସ, ଶ, ଷ) in Odia, only one is pronounced ("ସ"), So, both Odisha and Orissa are incorrect, even many of the members of Parliament proposed for "Odisa", but unfortunately many disagreed. So, there is no point of wasting time behind the mere name change, rather many articles need proper citation and quality content development. As the official name change has been approved as "Odisha" and "Odia", they both should be added in Wikipedia, slowly people will start searching for Odia and Odisha and google search result will change. ସୁଭପାSubha PaUtter2me! 07:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Move (immediately). Its name (in English orthography) is now Odisha . Might take a while to filter down in a country where the main language is not English. I still use Bombay but I defer to the correct naming (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)).
I strongly support the motion to move this article. Here are a few news sources which strongly confirms the fact that Orissa is renamed as Odisha :
  1. MSN News
  2. Flash News Today
  3. Breaking News Online
  4. Rediff News
  5. India Briefing News
  6. Headlines India
  7. A video clip supporting the fact that Orissa is now Odisha
  8. Times of India News Article

Regards, Sourav Mohanty (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be moved ASAP. -ansuman (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


  • Don't move yet. Common usage is more important than official usage. A Google search on Odisha in Google News (e.g. recent articles) gives about 259 results, while Orissa gives about 1,670. The move should only be done when Odisha becomes the more common usage. Until then the lead should give Orissa first, as in "Orissa, now officially written Odisha". Aymatth2 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't move yet Not common usage even in India. Besides the name not been used b government sites, hardly any mainstream English dailies/news channels use Odisha [1] v/s Orissa. Also is it officially Odisha yet? After the nod of the Parliament, the President has to be sign it into law. Did she sign? --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Move immediately. There is actually an objective reality behind this that cannot be dismissed, its name is Odisha even if most people haven't caught up yet; it does not really matter if more people use the old name, of course they do for the time being. It should have been changed the same day the name was gazetted. Is the reluctance to change names such as Bombay, Calcutta and East Timor a form of intellectual neo-colonialism? Wikipedia must go for the data, not popular misuse. The idea that the truth is defined by what the majority believe is rather terrifying philosophy among writers of an encyclopedia, history has often shown that most people were wrong at the time. Voting on the name is going to over-represent the view held by westerners to the extent that the editors tend to be westerners, Wiki is supposed to be international, give all those in Odisha without an internet connection a chance to spell the place how they want. Ex nihil (talk) 05:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Of course, I could be all lawyerlike and cite some policies and lawyer this all the way through, but naming this article the way they want is not the "birthright" of a certain group of peoplenothing malicious intended, just a reference to a statement by a certain PM directed at a PM hopeful. While I have all the confidence that Odisha will become common and popular usage, it is currently not the case. Do provide evidence (mentions in newspapers, journals, magazines) that Odisha is popular usage now, and I will readily support this. If not, I'm just sorry. Lynch7 12:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
As for Google hits of course you will get more for the previous name, think about it (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC))

You need to list this with a proper move request or this discussion won't count for anything. — kwami (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, someone's jumped the gun and started changing the name, leaving broken links, orphaned articles, broken refs, mistranscluded templates, empty categories, misquotations, and improper names through blanket conversion without paying attention to what they were doing. I'm reversing it all, or at least what I can find of it. I'm probably introducing a few errors of my own, so please let me know where I have, and I'll try to clean it up.

Oh, and cleaning up the external links, where I need to verify whether there's supposed to be an 'odisha' or 'orissa' in the URL of each reference, is a real pain. — kwami (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Dear Administrators and users of Wikipedia, it a very well known fact that the name of the state has been changed from 'Orissa' to 'Odisha' officially (look at the links sited by Sourav Mohanty). Also, it is true that the name has not yet changed in the official websites of Govt. of India. But someone has to start the process, whether at the govt. sites or social sites. The ultimate aim is to follow the fact. The people of Odisha have waited for this moment for a very long time. Its the time to move forward, think properly and give correct imformation to the public. I am shocked to see that kwami has reversed the changed name from all the articles. For doing that he has done some serious mistakes about the facts (e.g. it is written that Orissa is formally known as Odisha. However, the fact is that the British who ruled the country for two centuries, never spelt a single name properly and it is their mistake that we had to follow for such a long time). So, it is obvious that the spellings are being changed. And now it is our duty to accept the changes and move forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishupriyaparam (talk • contribs) 05:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose : Though I can understand the strong sentiments lies with the people of Odisha. One should first understand that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, where voting decides what stays and what not. We have to follow the following norms WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:COMMONNAME, where the most popular and common name stays. As, it has only been officially declared Odisha yesterday (4th Nov, 2011) ie, final legal step of Notification has been done. It will be a time taking process of renaming and gaining common acceptance. I guess it won't be possible to change the name under this criteria in next atleast 7-10 years if not more. Amartyabag TALK2ME 04:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Move immediately India has a state called Odisha; it does not have a state called Orissa. It did have, and editors may need to be careful in their editing with regard to earlier references; but for any current mentions the name is Odisha. WP:COMMONNAME has no application; counts of Boogle hits likewise. The State has a name, it has ONE name ONLY, it does not have another name, whatever the name may be in the various languages of the state, whatever some may prefer it to have been named in English orthography, it is simply Odisha which is its name (now). It does not have another, earlier, name and we do not use any earlier name in referring (in the present) to Odisha. Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Move immediately above reason.[ibnlive.in.com/videos/199366/orissa-now-becomes-odisha-oriya-becomes-odia.html] --naveenpf (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moving Orissa to Odisha

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Rejected. No policy reason was given for a move, whereas opposition is based on WP:COMMONNAME, both here and in the internal poll above. — kwami (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC) — kwami (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Orissa → Odisha – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)User:Souravmohanty2005 10:29, 9 November 2011‎ (UTC)

  • STRONGLY SUPPORT this move. The Hon'ble Parliament of India has renamed Orissa as Odisha officially. Here are a few news articles asserting this fact :
IBNLIVE News
India Today
Orissa Diary
Mid Day
Deccan Herald
Economic Times
Daily Pioneer
Money Control
Times of India
Yahoo News
Moreover, Google search generated about 487,000 results for the phrase Orissa becomes Odisha. Thanks, Sourav Mohanty (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we all know that the official name has been changed. That isn't the question. The question is whether Wikipedia should follow their example. — kwami (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I strongly support the request to move the page. SubhaUtter2me! —Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
I agree. —Nightstallion 23:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I support too. — aηsuмaη ツ ༽Ϟ 06:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Appeal to all the authors to try to improve the quality and content of the Orissa wikipage, without modifying any occurences of Orissa or Oriya

I have been seeing several edits and reverts for this odisha-orissa conflict. Please avoid this and help make wikipage:Orissa cleaner and easier to maintain. Until its unanimous and passes the commonality test, please refrain from making such changes. Add something valuable and cite every factual information in the wiki page.

Tazdiaz 20:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdiaz (talk • contribs)

A neutral solution to the "odisha and odia" vs "orissa and oriya".

I propose that in the wikipage about Orissa we refer the name as Odisha alongside it like this: Orissa(also know as Odisha::Citation here::) and Oriya(also know as odia::Citation here::) or

In the beginning of the wikipage we could mention a disclaimer: Orissa shall be used throughout the page for consistency although its equivalent to Odisha::Citation for the govt. order no.:: Oriya shall be used throughout the page for consistency although its equivalent to Odia::Citation for the change::

No offence intended. But, as most authors have mentioned we need to keep Orissa for a while because wikipedia caters an international audience and most may get confused between odisha and orissa. People may think that Orissa and Odisha are two different states.

We must first build a general consensus and awareness at the international level, before jumping to creating a pure "odisha and odia" page. We should gradually over time move the Orissa page to Odisha.

As far as the official validity and legality of the orissa being renamed to odisha is concerned, I am totally aware of the legislative approval.
Please share your opinions and views. Tazdiaz 19:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdiaz (talk • contribs)

Thank you for trying to find a middle road that will be explanative. I think that all that hassle is not necessary. Just mentioning in the lead this way: "Orissa, officially Odisha is the..." should be fine, and the same way for the first instance of "Oriya". I really don't think we should go on mentioning Wikipedia article policies in articles itself. As long as we get the meaning across, it should be fine. We can cite the official Parliament approval in the lead, just beside the word "Odisha". Lynch7 19:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It has already been implemented in the wikipage and I hope that's just fine. I just find too many edits/reverts for the Orissa page in a week or so, mostly related to "odisha vs orissa". Hence, the proposal. I would appeal to all the authors to try to improve the quality and content of the Orissa wikipage first and then later on we can think of shifting to Odisha. Please hold the "name change issue" for a little while.Tazdiaz 20:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdiaz (talk • contribs)

Just came across an interesting site: Dhamra Odisha.[3] The earliest archive on the site is 2008. Until at least June 2009, they simply called the province "Odisha": "Odisha, the land of plentiful opportunities ..."[4] (Note, however, that letters from Indian MPs continue to use the form "Orissa"!) However, by October of that year they changed the intro wording to "Odisha, or Orissa (as it is commonly known) is the land of plentiful opportunities ...".[5] This fits with what several Indians have reported of actual use in English in India. — kwami (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2012

Provide hyperlink for 'Odisha' and replace 'Oriya' with 'Odia' as the official language of Odisha,as these are the new names approved by the parliament of India.

210.212.107.213 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been addressed many times. Those are not the common forms in English. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 February 2012

"Other languages spoken in the state are Hindi, Bengali, and Telugu" to "Other languages spoken in the state are Hindi, Bengali, Santali and Telugu"

KaluMajhi 15:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That sentence fragment was spliced in years ago and never fixed. We really don't need that much detail in the lead. I removed mention of all languages but Oriya. Santali is covered in the demography section, and that's probably adequate. — kwami (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 February 2012

Please change the name of Orissa to Odisha because the name has been officially changed to Odisha.The Rajya Sabha has passed a bill on March 24, 2011 to change the name name of Orissa to “Odisha” and an amendment in the constitution to rename “Oriya” language as “Odia” (113th Amendment). Government of India on November 5, 2011 came out with the gazette notification on the change of name which has come into effect from November 1, 2011.

Though the change of name has been mentioned as 'Officially spelled Odisha" but the required changes have not been made through out the article. Sanjeetdash87 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Edit requests can only be used for specific, uncontentious, well-sourced changes. This issue is discussed for more than half of this talk page including two move proposals. Please reach a consensus before requesting any edits on this issue. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sumarize Oriya Literature section

Can someone Summarize the Oriya Literature section. I believe the extensive details should be part of Odia language page itself. This should help with shortening the size of the page. I could help summarize it, but I am not an expert on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumyaparida (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Moderate Bias (heavy sarcasm)

A fair amount of this page is hazily documented assertion melded with local enthusiam/boosterism. The high ratings for anything except comprehensiveness show that this particular article is mostly rated by local enthusiasts. Some of Wikipedia's weaknesses on display. This is not to detract from its strengths, which outweigh the weaknesses. Just imagine what this article would be like without the strengths--IT'S THE GREATEST PLACE ON EARTH!Tapered (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias

In short: the article as it is at the moment is quite allot biased.

For example: there's not a single mention of the huge marxist guerilla (Naxalites). Strangely, the only mentioning of indian communists at all is in the >Literature section (lol?) the Naxalites have been called the biggest threat to the "democracy" of India by the goverment, and altough Orissa doesn't (for the moment, or what i know of) haven't been as severly effected by it as it's neighboring provinces, it should still atleast be noted in the history section.. --109.58.12.150 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There seems to be some disagreement over whether ENGVAR trumps commonality or the other way round. If ENGVAR is the more important then evedience, which was not challenged, was given the Odisha is more common in Indian English. Those arguing that commonality is more important and so it should be kept at Orissa provided no evedience that Orissa was more common in the English speaking world as a whole where as evedience was provided that using all varieties of English Odisha is at least as common, if not more common than Orissa. Taken together I therefore find the strength of arguement for this move. Dpmuk (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


Orissa → Odisha –

It is now over 12 months since the State of Orissa was renamed Odisha. An advanced Google search indicates that the new name is now commonly used in Indian English. As the article in on a subject within India, Wikipedia guidelines are that Indian English is the appropriate form of the language for the article. The advanced Google search for Orissa excluding Wikipedia, restricted to websites in English in India during the last year gives 8,750,000 hits. A similar search for Odisha excluding Wikipedia gives 11,900,000 hits. It appears that it is time that Wikipedia mirrored the change, and changed the article title. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Change to Support following WP:ENGVAR linked below by Skinsmoke. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, fixed-wing aircraft is preferred to the national varieties aeroplane (British English) and airplane (American English).
It goes on, discussing Strong national ties to a topic to point out that:

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. For example:
* Taj Mahal (Indian English or British English)
His comment about the Ganges is not particularly helpful. In that case, useage in reliable sources in Indian English is split, with the Times of India, Deccan Herald and ZeeNews all continuing to use Ganges.
The unsigned comment about Bangalore is somewhat puzzling. How does it relate to this proposal? Bangalore's name change has not been officially completed, the process having been stalled since 2006, and useage in Indian English overwhelmingly continues to refer to the city as Bangalore (38.7 million Advanced Google hits), as opposed to Bengaluru (5.4 million hits). Skinsmoke (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
See also MOS:COMMONALITY: "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles." Orissa is the term more widely used, and more familiar to a broader range of our audience. That has always trumped ENGVAR. Also, I have never seen a coherent article actually written in Indian English, which would make it largely unintelligible to most of the world. — kwami (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Why not quote the whole of the relevant sections of that link, as I did above, rather than just cherry-picking the bit that appears to agree with your point of view? You really can't get away with trying to quote a section that goes on to say Use Indian English and then claim that using Indian English would make the article incoherent. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
"Also, I have never seen a coherent article actually written in Indian English, which would make it largely unintelligible to most of the world." Really? How patronising can you get? Take a look at Kolkata then, which is written in Indian English and is a Wikipedia:Featured article. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems that Skinsmoke has stacked the results to show the prevalence of Odisha in Indian English. We're arguing at cross-purposes because Skinsmoke has yet to demonstrate that 'Odisha' is universally the most common name over 'Orissa'. It doesn't seem to be the case from where I stand. Twelve months really is not a long time when it comes to gaining widespread acceptance and usage for such name changes. Let's revisit this when the popular use of the new name has become more widespread. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 05:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps Ohconfucius would like to explain how I stacked the results to show the prevalence of Odisha in Indian English. I simply did an Advanced Google search over the last 12 months (that is, allowing a couple of months from the formal name change to take effect before the start of the period checked); excluded Wikipedia from the search findings, as this would exclude any mirror hits; restricted the search to English language sites (pretty bloody obvious thing to do); and confined it to sites in India (so as to get the results in Indian English, rather than British English, American English, Australian English or whatever). The parameters should show up clearly on the links I gave to the searches. This is normal practice when examining Google hits in a discussion such as this. I then followed the instructions on reviewing such hits and examined the first couple of pages, so as to determine whether what was coming up was authoritative websites, or blogs and spam. I used exactly the same method when examining Bangalore, which proved pretty conclusively that that particular name change has not been widely accepted in Indian English, as opposed to the change from Orissa to Odisha, which has. Working on the principle that if you throw enough mud, some of it will stick, were you? Skinsmoke (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The flaw in your methodology was in limiting your search to sites in India. Whilst the article should be written in Indian English, there's no reason for the sources also to be written in this. COMMONNAME is particularly important in article titles, and that should take into account all varieties of English, not just the one in which the article is written. Bazonka (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Not at all what it says at Wikipedia:Article titles. In the section headed National varieties of English, it states:

The title of an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation (as in Australian Defence Force, United States Secretary of Defense). However, sometimes a form that represents only minority local usage is chosen because of its greater intelligibility to English-speaking readers worldwide (e.g. Ganges rather than "Ganga").

The point about the Ganges has been covered above. Although Ganga gets more hits than Ganges on an Advanced Google search for Indian English sources, if you examine those hits, useage among authoritative websites is split, which most definitely isn't the case for Orissa/Odisha. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Question - I haven't !voted yet because I'm not clear whether there is consensus that WP:ENGVAR applies to Indian English the same as to British, American and Australian English. ENGVAR only mentions "These varieties (e.g. U.S. English, British English).". If anyone knows please link here or at Talk:Pondicherry. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Of course it applies. Why wouldn't it? It's a variety of English. Bazonka (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, Bazonka, because sometimes MOS-page editors have different views to the rest of us. I'm happy to see that in this case it does recognise Indian English. I wonder when Polish English will be recognised for Polish articles ;). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
If you read WP:ENGVAR, it specifically mentions Indian English, when it states:

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. For example:

  • Great Fire of London (British English)
  • American Civil War (American English)
  • Institutions of the European Union (British or Irish English)
  • Australian Defence Force (Australian English)
  • Vancouver, B.C. (Canadian English)
  • Usain Bolt (Jamaican Standard English)
  • Taj Mahal (Indian English)
Skinsmoke (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Skinsmoke, thanks, I don't know how I missed that, I should have done CTRL+F to find it. Interesting that no example of Singaporean English, thanks, changed to Support. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
IIO, the Taj Mahal example was added on 3rd January so you might have missed it if you checked the ENGVAR before then. I've removed it from ENGVAR for now because we need to have a discussion on Indian English first. (No comment on Odisha/Orissa. Unlike in the case of Puducherry/Pondicherry, I don't think Odisha/Orissa is well known enough outside India for the old name to be the common one.) --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The RM request and argument appears to be taking as read that the new official name is an example of "Indian English", in the same way that basic spelling issues and terms for generic things will be, where there are fixed "right" and "wrong" rules. I'm not sure the principle applies to proper names in the same way, which is more about preference. The fact that some Indian sources still use Orissa adds to the evidence for that idea. Given that, ENGVAR doesn't apply and we are back to looking at global sources for the common name. N-HH talk/edits 15:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think you need to check out the quote from Wikipedia:Article titles, under the section headed National varieties of English, again, where it specifically talks about the Ganges. Clearly, WP:ENGVAR does apply to placenames, or the river would not be mentioned. That means that, where there is use of both names we need to examine which of those sources are the most authoritative, in the same way we would for any other article title, not that we give up and instead look for sources in Falkland Islands English or whatever. In the case of the Ganges, those authoritative sources are split about useage in Indian English. In this particular case, however, the most authoritative sources plump overwhelmingly for Odisha. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, my point is that we do not have "Indian English" as opposed to some other supposedly manifest "XX-ish English" versions here. Each country's sources have variations within themselves, which is not the case when it comes to spelling airplane vs aeroplane, or the terms pavement vs sidewalk. Plus I have checked WP:AT out, many times previously, and this is what it says: "sometimes a form that represents only minority local usage is chosen because of its greater intelligibility to English-speaking readers worldwide (e.g. Ganges rather than "Ganga")". That is, "local" majority is not necessarily what we go for, if it contradicts global predominance. N-HH talk/edits 22:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support:Odisha is now commonly used instead of Orrisa.--sarvajna (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Banks reject documents mentioning Orissa instead of Odisha. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC).
  • Oppose. As with most of these politically-motivated name changes in India, the original name remains the standard throughout the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, For the last year, Highbeam has 1,007 hits for "Odisha", 1,379 for "Orissa." The way Web result numbers are being used above has no validity. When the number of such results is in the millions, it is safe to conclude that they are massively ghosted. Update: I changed my !vote to support because this subject is given as "Odisha" in the Indian press, and it does not get much attention outside India. Administrative divisions are the creation of bureaucrats, so the use of an official name is logical. I am not convinced that Indian English should be considered an Engvar. Kauffner (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment That isn't what those links from Kauffner show. Have they been adjusted to restrict the time period? If so, he needs to tell us what parameters were put in to narrow down the searches. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I filtered for "Past year". The filters are in the left-hand column. Kauffner (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that. You also need to exclude "Wikipedia" (to wipe out hits from Wikipedia and its mirror sites—on second thought, those probably would not show up on Highbeam) and to exclude "Orissa" when searching for "Odisha", and "Odisha" when searching for "Orissa" (to exclude hits that refer to both names). Unfortunately, with Highbeam, unless you have a subscription you then cannot examine the actual article (other than a copy of the first couple of lines) to see the quality of the article (or of its publishing organ), or, indeed, whether Highbeam's copy is identical to the original article. I did mention with the Advanced Google search above that I had gone on to examine each individual hit in the first couple of pages for each search.
      • Incidentally, for those above disputing whether the hits should be confined to Indian English, even without restricting to sources in India, the Advanced Google Search shows 6,480,000 hits for "Odisha" excluding "Wikipedia" and "Orissa" in the past year in English (page through to the last hit and you actually get 555 "unduplicated" hits), against 4,010,000 hits for "Orissa" excluding "Wikipedia" and "Odisha" in the past year in English (page through to the last hit and you actually get 563 "unduplicated hits" including hits for the street "Orissa Place" in Australia, the street "Orissa Road" in England, the street "Orissa Way" in Australia, the "Orissa" restaurant and music venue in the United States, an American woman named "Orissa Jenkins", the street "Orissa Crescent" in New Zealand, a restaurant in Delhi called "Orissa Niwas", and a host of hits from the website "Orissa Online" that don't even mention the state). I have to dash out to a couple of appointments now, but will run a similar check on the "Odisha" hits later. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Have now had a chance to check the "Odisha" hits. Have not checked all 56 pages, but have checked 13 pages and not a single hit refers to anything other than the state. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Skinsmoke's analysis is convincing. It seems to me that Orissa or Odisha is not that well known outside India under either name and skinsmoke's analysis shows that Odisha is the most used within India by a huge margin. Given these two factors, I believe we should simply move the article and refer to the state as Odisha from now on. --regentspark (comment) 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support As per nom and Skinsmoke's analysis and rationale, I am inclined to give it a support. Further, considering the legal status of the name, which is changed through a Constitutional amendment rather than a simple notification or amendment of an Act in case of a City. In addition,the change is only to reflect the true phonetic pronunciation and is not a significant change that the earlier name cannot be recognised (might be considered as an alternate spelling). I propose renaming of the article to Odisha and any subsequent reference to the article must be referred as Odisha. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not a matter of ENGVAR, and in any case the consensus is that international recognition trumps local names. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Where precisely has that consensus been thrashed out? I note you don't provide a link. The last discussion I can recall was this one just over two years ago and certainly the naming of other places and things in India has repeatedly seen national ENGVAR vs international names argued over without always producing the same outcome. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Timrollpickering, ENGVAR does not apply because there is no consensus that Indian English is included as a variant of English. You say "should apply" above, but that is merely a personal opinion and is neither a policy nor an applicable guideline. Consensus on a move or on anything else is not a matter of personal preferences (which is why we don't call this a vote) but rather a matter of examining what is appropriate per our policies and guideline. (Note that I'm supporting the move, it is just your argument that I find wanting.) --regentspark (comment) 13:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

IPA for Odisha

Now that the article name has been changed, it looks like the IPA (English) in the introduction needs to be updated.207.179.110.5 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

saroj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.87.201.52 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Odisha

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Odisha's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "merinews":

  • From Rasgulla: Srivastava, Rohit (19 October 2008). "Woo your love with rasgullas not chocolates". Merinews.
  • From Rasgulla: Rohit Srivastava (2008-10-19). "Woo your love with rasgullas not chocolates". Merinews.

Reference named "fbn":

Reference named "dietamer":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Higher education controversy in Odisha

The Wikipedia article Higher education controversy in Odisha seems to be an orphan. If it isn't worth mentioning in any other article, then maybe it needs to be deleted? Anyway, maybe someone here has time to look at it, and maybe improve it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

New pictures added to history section

This section now has twelve images, almost completely sandwiching the text. Should be probably be cut down to around six. --NeilN talk to me 17:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Do agree with you on that respect. Thanks --Karan1974 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

CUTTACK

CUTTACK SYNONYMS CAPITAL. THERE ARE MANY SYNONYMS OF CUTTACK SUCH AS CAPITAL,FORT AND MANY MORE.OUT OF THEM CAPITAL AND FORT ARE IMPORTANT. SO CUTTACK LITERALLY MEANS CAPITAL. THERE ARE TWO COUNTRIES WHICH RESEMBLES THE SHAPE OF CHILI, THATS WHY THEY HAVE BEEN NAMED SO, ONE IS SRILANKA IN ASIA, ANOTHER IS CHILE IN AMERICAN CONTINENT. LIKE THIS,CUTTACK IS ONLY ONE CITY IN THE UNIVERSE WHICH LITERALLY MEANS CAPITAL,THATS WHY CUTTACK IS "THE CAPITAL". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.66.30.155 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Put them on the Cuttack page. -Kenfyre (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup in Feb 2015

I am cleaning up the page right now. It may take weeks. The following are the major changes I have made so far and the rationale behind them.

  • "Cuttack remained the capital of the state for over eight centuries until 13 April 1948 when Bhubaneswar was officially declared as the new state capital, a position it still holds." This sentence has been modified. Cuttack was the capital of many kings since 1135, but not all kings.
  • Symbols of Odisha referring to a state bird, animal, bird and song have been removed due to lack of reliable references such as a legislation or executive order.
  • Notable people section has been removed. It is did not clarify why people from diverse field were grouped together, some entries have been moved to various sections such as politics, music, cinema and literature.
  • Etymology section made smaller. Claims for which citations were found were moved to Historical names of Odisha.
  • History section completely re-written. Minor events were moved to History of Odisha. Uncited info removed. Non-NPOV terms like lendendary, great etc. removed.
  • Several panoramic images removed. They were affecting readability. They can be put in the articles of sites.

-Kenfyre (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Odisha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

language

once sentence in article quotes " Such a versatile genius is quite rare in Indian cinema history. Nanda alone carried Odia films into the national honour list by winning National Awards three times in 1960, 1966 and 1969 for his acting in Nua Bou, Matira Manisha and Adina Megha." appers too much flattering, further the information that he won 1969 nation award for best actor doesn't seem correct. Rathter the firm had won "Regional" Award as Best Oriya, please refer17th_National_Film_Awards --Sushant savla (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Odisha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Orissa -> Odisha

hi, Please do not rename this page to reflect the current nomenclature as it is linked from too many places. A friendly note. Devopam (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Odisha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Official language

If English is the first language of the whole of India , then it should also be the official language of Odisha alongside with odia. 

 Odisha is a state of India , not an other country . The rules of India also implies to the state of Odisha. Check 1 (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

So I am adding the English language. Check 1 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You are right, but for the wrong reasons.
The Constitution of India. Part XVII "Official Language" ( sections 343-344, pp 212-, PDF pages 240-) gives Hindi as the official language of the Union, and gives English a lesser official status. Section 345 allows state legislatures to adopt any one or more of the languages used in the state or Hindi, as the official language of the state. This means that the official languages of a state do not necessarily include the official languages of the Union.
The Orissa Official Language Act, 1954 of the Odisha Legislative Assembly recognises Oriya (Odia) as the official language of the state of Orissa (now Odisha), and its section 3A allows English to also be used.
I will restore English as an official language, citing this source. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
On re-reading section 3A of the act, it does not describe English as an "official language", but as a language that may be used "for the transaction of business in Legislature of the State of Orissa". Verbcatcher (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute

Murugama, can you explain how the refs support your statements? For the sentence Large sections of the indigenous tribes follow Sarnaism, their indigenous natural religion. you have provided five refs:

The first two links do not support the statement in any way. The fourth ref, which is available online here, does not support the statement too. The third and fifth ref have been copied from Sarnaism page, where they are not used to support such a statement. If you actually have access to the third and fifth refs and if these refs do support your statement, can you provide the relevant page number, chapter name and a quote? When User:Rajrajh added the statement for the first time in this edit, only the first link was provided as a ref. When they were repeatedly challenged, they resorted to adding more and more fake refs and you seem to be continuing in the same trend. —Gazoth (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Gazoth, the tribes like Santal, Oraon , Munda and Ho are demanding their own indigenous religion which is called as Sarna Religion.These tribes reside not only in odisha but also in Jharkhand,westbengal,Bihar in majority and these tribes are regularly demanding and protesting for Sarna religion which is the national news for several years.You can read the books like *A. K. Sachchidananda. Elite and Development. Concept Publishing Co., New Delhi, 1980. ASIN B000MBN8J2, *Malini Srivastava. The Sacred Complex of Munda Tribe. Department of Anthropology, University of Allahabad, Allahabad 211 002, Uttar Pradesh, India. Anthropologist, 9(4): 327-330 ,*Phatik Chandra Hembram. Sari-Sarna. Mittal Publications, 1988. ISBN 8170990440 and the national news like Hindustan times ,The indian express so that You can know about Sarna religion. And the sources which, i have been provided is veified in national newspapers.You should focus on National news of india like Hindustan Times and The indian Express to veify it.Murugama (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Murugama: As per WP:BURDEN, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who restores the content, that is you. You have to provide specific citations which can be used to verify the statements that have been restored. Mentioning just the book names and newspaper names can be perceived as evasion. If you want to mention a book as a source, you need to provide the page number which can be used to verify the material, the chapter name and in this particular case, I'm also requesting for a quote since all the online sources have failed verification. If you want to quote a newspaper article as a source, you need to provide the title, date of publication and if the newspaper is available online, a link too. As for the sources that you have mentioned, Srivastava's article is not an adequate source since it does not support the statement Large sections of the indigenous tribes follow Sarnaism, their indigenous natural religion.. If you want to mention Sachchidananda's or Hembram's books as sources, do provide the extra details that I asked for. —Gazoth (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect map of India being used in this page

This page is about the India state of Odisha. However The map of India being used does not include parts of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir which have been illegally occupied by Pakistan and China and shows them in a different color. File Name : India grey.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.33.173.46 (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2018

It is Orissa not Odisha 122.180.175.18 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 15:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes in bhubaneswar

Coordinates (Bhubneswar): 20.15°N 85.50°E Rocky 734 (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done —Gazoth (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Kalinga Prize?

Can someone explain how the paragraph about the Kalinga prize is relevant to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.121.123 (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I've removed it from the article. —Gazoth (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Cool beans. Didn't sound like it was relevant but wasn't sure if I was missing something. 27.33.121.123 (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

IPA & Odia rendition

It looks like the IPA rendition is not at all in line with the proper pronunciation of the name of the state (and it's using English IPA for some reason). From the audio clip, and from official sources[1], the name of the state in IPA should be [oɽisaː] (written as ଓଡ଼ିଶା in Odia). I suggest it be updated along the lines of the Paris article where it would say "Odia pronunciation: [oɽɪsaː]". This way, the rest of that parenthetical phrase can be updated simply to "formerly known as Orissa" and the Odia rendition can be added. Fully rendered, it would be:

Odisha (Odia: ଓଡ଼ିଶା, pronounced [oɽisaː] ⓘ; formerly known as Orissa)

Thoughts?

- Getsnoopy (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

List of educational institutions

The list of educational is way too high. Is there any criteria to prune the list ? Psanu (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem with photo captions in Wikipedia

This error is so common in Wikipedia now (vs. years ago) that I think it's a computer-generated error. The array of photos is captioned "Clockwise from top: Mukteshvara Temple (Bhubaneswar), Chilika Lake, Mahanadi river, Sun Temple of Konark, Udayagiri and Khandagiri Jain Cave". In fact, the order, clockwise from top is: Mukteshvara Temple (Bhubaneswar), Mahanadi river, Sun Temple of Konark, Udayagiri & Khandagiri Jain Caves, Chilika Lake. Alternatively, leave the listing alone and restate the order to be "top, then clockwise from 2nd row left."2604:2000:1383:8B0B:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

 Done Prolix 💬 04:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

contradictory population Rank

11th largest by population vs 3rd most populous state. Which is correct? Does it make any sense?

This happened in different ways,India's eleventh largest population in terms of total population of Odisha And third in terms of the indigenous population (scheduled tribes) there محمد روح الامین مَیُور بھنجی (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2022

Odisha is an Indian state located in Eastern India. It is the 9th largest state by area, and the 11th largest by population. [2] Yugam Meisheri (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This appears correct per List_of_states_and_union_territories_of_India_by_area ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.odisha.gov.in/
  2. ^ https://odisha.gov.in/

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

In the Education section the name of "College of Engineering and Technology" Will be changed to "Odisha University of Technology and Research". As it was declared as a new unitary university by state government. Ashu.exe (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Please link to the disambiguation page Odisha (disambiguation)

Please change

For the flowering plant, see Odisha cleistantha.
{{for|the flowering plant|Odisha cleistantha}}

to

This page is about the state of India. For the flowering plant, see Odisha cleistantha. For other uses, see Odisha (disambiguation).
{{about|the state of India|the flowering plant|Odisha cleistantha|other uses|Odisha (disambiguation)}}

-- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

The bit under Geography about Rehabilitated persons is a. in the wrong place - is nothing to do with Geogrephy and b. presumably relates to relocated people? It's completely contextless and makes no sense. 62.31.165.232 (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Drawing

All the best India. Jay hind all indian soldier.,ncc cadet,nevey,army ,all indian people's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4089:2D83:D72A:9179:AFEB:FD7D:8D5D (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

please semi protect this article

this article should be semi protected as it an indian state. please someone semi protect this article Radia3746 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is already protected with Pending Changes protection. You can read more about it here: WP:PCPP. ZsinjTalk 20:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox replacement

The {{Infobox settlement}} used on this page is going to be replaced with {{Infobox Indian state or territory}} as per the Proposal and Consensus of RFC. Any questions/suggestions? Discuss Here.

You can also contribute by replacing Infobox settlement with Infobox Indian state or territory on other pages , or by improving this one. Tojoroy20 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Replaced — Tojoroy20 (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Population

Someone keeps trying to update the population with 2022 numbers. The most recent attempt was to make the population "4,41,31,247." Even if that number is supposed to be "44,131,247" it is not supported by the cited reference. Please provide a current, valid reference for any new population estimate if you have expertise on the latest population estimates. Thank you. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odisha/Archive_2&oldid=1254768982"