Talk:India Voyage Tips and guide

There is a project to improve articles about India – see the India Expedition page.

Swept in from the pub

As far as I know, the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests in India are still active. Can anyone Indian colleagues tell about the current situation in India, so that I can confirm whether to issue Template:Warningbox for India? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not in India, but the UK FCO are warning travellers throughout India to avoid protests and large gatherings, and to keep abreast of the local news. The warning is restrained and relatively low down the list compared to the strongly worded terror alerts and advice to avoid all travel to Kashmir. I would say that a brief and measured warning box is appropriate, given this advice and the loss of life which some protests have seen.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/breaking-all-railway-operations-to-be-suspended-till-march-25-due-to-coronavirus/story/398884.html ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

From a cautionbox in the article:

India is suspending most visas (and visa-free travel for OCI card holders) until 15 April 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

It's 26 June 2020. What's the current situation? We can't keep this wording. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the section on phone booths and PCOs is now entirely out of date. I haven't seen a phone booth in ages. Anyone objects to a rewrite? — Ravikiran (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Go right ahead. You are the local expert, so please update or delete as you see fit. Ground Zero (talk) 13:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

One thing I want to point out is that it is not true that most Indians are vegetarian. It is true that most Indians in the West are vegetarians, and that is because only the more affluent Indians can afford to immigrate to the West, and so you have an overrepresentation of Brahmins among Indian communities in the West, and that is what has led to the common misconception in the West that India is a majority-vegetarian country. If you go to Singapore, where most of the Indians are descended from low caste indentured labourers brought over by the British during the colonial period, so you'll find that vegetarians are a minority even among the Hindus. And likewise, in India, only about 30% of the population is vegetarian, which is higher than in most countries, but still very much a minority. The dog2 (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is a lot of detail in this lengthy section that overlaps with Rail travel in India. In particular, the summaries of all of the luxury train services might not be of interest to a wide readership and would be better covered in the Rail travel article than in the national article. Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Although the "Stay safe" section describes a lot of problems to be faced by foreign travellers, the section has missed a problem persistent in India, that is the natural disasters, like droughts, floods, cyclones, earthquakes etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please add them, insofar as they effect the average traveller, and the methods, if any, the traveller can employ to avoid/minimize the risk. Vidimian (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm already writing natural disasters in West Bengal and I'll be adding a summary of natural disasters in India soon. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The rail fare table in India#Get around was added in 2015. Are these still valid, more have fares changed in the last 7 years? Ground Zero (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indian railways publishes a guide each year which also includes a fare chart. You can find the guide on the official Indian railways page or with this link https://indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/view_section.jsp?lang=0&id=0,1,304,366,537,2789

Click on the fares section. Cheers! Leoneix (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have seen some Indian cities (Cooch Behar, Siliguri, Tezpur), where there is (or was) an information box summarising the safety tips described at India#Stay safe. I've removed such boxes from Cooch Behar and Siliguri, since I thought such boxes are unnecessary and can be applicable at any place in the country and overseas travellers will likely look into the India article before looking for its city article. However, I'm now wondering whether such boxes are really unnecessary? I've added a sample of such information box here. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, if the warnings apply to all of India or even just much of the country, they should just be in the main India article and not duplicated in individual city articles. Stay safe sections in city articles are for local safety issues. --Ypsilon (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I mostly agree. There may be cases where some issue is serious and unobvious enough to be repeated – I have included some advice on severe weather and the like in many Do and Stay safe sections of articles on Finland, although this is mostly redundant with the advice in Finland and Finnish Lapland – but the advice in the example box is mostly common sense. Things like the swastika can be looked up in the country article by those baffled by seeing it. –LPfi (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the current situation, but I've read and heard reporting that's suggested in recent years that Delhi is a particularly dangerous city for women even compared to other places in India, so it may warrant a special warningbox for that, or not. Only people really familiar with the situation would know. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Such mostly local situations should belong to the respective city articles and I think the city articles should not have safety tips that are adhered throughout the country, not even a summary. Overseas travellers will always look for the country article before browsing further to its cities. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The women safety issue for Delhi is handled in the second paragraph of Delhi#Stay safe ("Delhi is among the three unsafest cities for women in India [...]"). It can be developed, but it isn't a redundant summary and thus not problematic in the sense of this discussion. –LPfi (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

As per my above arguments, I'm going to remove the safety advice in city articles that are common throughout India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

India as of now only got six big tier 1 cities namely Bangalore Mummbai Hyderabad Delhi Chennai and Kolkatta why to put other smaller cities amongst them. these big cities are the biggest in economy and GDP. There is no point in putting smallest towns amongst them.

Because some of the small cities will be of interest to travellers, more so than a number of the first tier cities, which generally are accorded this accreditation based on the city's economic power and level of development, not historical or cultural interest. User:SingyeDzong

How can someone decide which are those cities. How can someone pin pont those. In that case every city in India got in interest for travelers. This kind of things are subjective. different travelers got different tastes and they will find different cities and the list will be big. We cannot put all here. Who is the one that select this. Usually people from those cities says they are the important ones and rest are not which cannot be accepted. We can only give Tier 1 cities in India as major one. Smaller cities can be given under respective state sub section. Presently there are six Tier 1 cities in India and they can be given which is objective matter. rest all cities shoudl be given in sub sections of respective states or union territories.

Yes, but this is a travel guide, not a Forbes catalogue of the most wealthy and powerful cities. Destinations are decided by consensus. There will be disagreements, but slowly choices will be made as they are on all the countries covered by Wikivoyage. In fact, you already started this process by adding Varanasi, which is not a tier one city. You did that because it is of major interest to travellers, which is exactly my point. User:SingyeDzong

For a tourist, Agra & Varanasi are more important than most of those. When I was there, decades ago, I visited both of those plus three of the places on your list (Delhi, Calcutta & Madras). The places I remember most are Delhi, Agra, Goa, Mahabalipuram & Bodhgaya. If I ever go back (I'd like to), Dharamsala & Leh would top my list of places I want to go. Pashley (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

See also Talk:India/Archive_2013-2019#Review_the_cities_list? Pashley (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

As of now leave this like this. If this is the case the list will become very big according to personal opinions. Too mnay places will be added.

No, nine cities is the limit decided by consensus. The capital on top and eight others are listed below. User:SingyeDzong

The current list has seven & I'd say we should bring it up to nine.

I'd add Agra & Jaipur. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Previously the other two cities were Jaipur and Kochi, but as home to the world famous Taj Mahal, I think that Agra is a good alternative to the latter entry (though it is listed as 'Taj Mahal' under 'other destinations'). User:SingyeDzong

I would agree. Three other points: (1) "Cities" lists in articles where they were decided upon by a discussion that reached consensus (which is most of them but almost certainly every one at the country level) should never be changed unilaterally. (2) It's crazy to list fewer than 9 cities for a vast, extremely populous country. (3) And could everyone please sign all their comments in this thread by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row at the end? It's hard to follow who is saying what otherwise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Goa or Agra is amongst the most visited places in India. Goa and Agra, Jaipur, Amritsar (because of golden Temple), Jaisalmer, Madurai, Aurangabad, Bodhgaya, Mysore, Hampi. These are the most visited places and very appealing for tourists because of their historical significance. Any one of these two can be added. https://www.planetware.com/tourist-attractions/india-ind.htm 1) Goa 2) Jaipur 3) Mysore 4) Madurai —The preceding comment was added by 157.46.218.178 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Please sign as described above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I once voiced the opinion that Shimla and Chandigarh be on the list, for architecture and "touristicness", but nowadays I understand better the balanced choice of cities achieved by consensus here, and don't want it to change, for the record. Ibaman (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Shimla was once on the list, but a previous discussion (Talk:India/Archive 2013-2019#Review_the_cities_list?) reached a consensus to replace it with Hyderabad, which I think was a correct decision.

Several other sections of that archive page have related discussions, at least "remove Kochi", "add Amhedabad" and Talk:India/Archive_2013-2019#What_are_the_city_criteria?. Pashley (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Goa Mysore Madurai Jaipur, any two can be added

I would agree with any of those (except Ahmadabad). User:SingyeDzong

as a Lusopohone, I'd like to see Goa added here. However, as mentioned, I understand and respect and enjoy the current list of cities, and my vote is against changing it. Ibaman (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I also feel the earlier list (before it was arbitrarily changed) was fine, though maybe Goa could replace Kochi, as I believe that the former is a more popular haunt for travelers than the latter. User:SingyeDzong

Jaipur and Goa are much more visited and got much more significance. Also Madurai and Mysore are also good. We can add Jaipur and Goa

Since 2014, India has eight Tier 1 cities. It also includes Ahmedabad and Pune. But being a Tier 1 city is not very relevant in a travel guide or from a tourism POV. Basing it on the older Tier 1 list creates an undue southern bias (3 out of 6 cities) when it comprises about 20% of India's population and area. Even the older version (4 out of 9) was too skewed towards the south. Looking at wikipedia:List of cities by international visitors which uses 2018 Euromonitor data, the most visited Indian cities were (in descending order) Delhi, Mumbai, Agra, Chennai, Jaipur, Kolkata, Bangalore, Pune. That is a more reasonable starting point than the proposed list by Anon 157 though it's a little western region heavy. Swapping out Pune with Ahmedabad would provide more balance between states and Pune is very close to Mumbai. Agra is redundant because it's in other destinations. To that, I would add Varanasi which has more domestic travel significance but on the flip side replace one of the many temple sites in Other Destinations to either Shimla or Darjeeling, or alternatively Goa or Kaziranga. No cities or destinations from Rajasthan are the list currently stands is ridiculous. Gizza ^(roam) 23:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am also from south and I think 3 cities in south namely Bangalore, Hyderabad and Chennai is more than enough. Its better we add cities from north east or any other place. Maybe Goa because of high foreign tourist visitors or Jaipur or some good places from other areas. —The preceding comment was added by 137.97.73.88 (talk • contribs)

Could you please sign your posts on talk pages as described above? Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Goa and Jaipur can be added

• Everybody's taking about adding cities but no one comes up with suggestions of which one of the nine original cities should be de-listed. Any suggestions? Ibaman (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Goa instead of Kochi. Otherwise the list is fine. User:SingyeDzong

Goa is a state, not a city. The substitution must be a city. I don't think Panaji or Old Goa belong in the List of NINE Cities. Ibaman (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Good point. Panaji is not well known, and so maybe Kochi or Mysore, or if a northern city is preferred (as implied in the thread), then Shimla or Darjeeling. User:SingyeDzong

Kochi is there already, this would mantain the current consensus, which I totally support. Ibaman (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fine with me. User:SingyeDzong

Very well, then, it's settled by now. Mantaining existing consensus. Ibaman (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

No kochi should be removed. Add GOA or Ahmedabad or Gangtok or Shillong or Manali or Ninital or Indore. There are already 3 main south cities namely Bangalore Chennai and Hyderabad(biggest cities and most visited places). Other parts of India also needs representation. Kochi is not that much visited place. North east should be represented. Places in central India should be represented. Southern India only got 20% of population and 3 cities are more than enough. Rest of India should be represented. Making it GOA as of now or please make it Shillong or Gangtok or Manali or any other place from other parts of India. GOA is like a state city and is very small. Panaji can be added if needed and anyone can understand it as the capital of GOA. If you remove GOA please give representation to a city from north east like Shillong or Gangtok or a city from central India like Indore or northern India like Manali or Nainital or Chandigarh or Amritsar or Shimla or an Eastern city like Darjeeling. Too much representation for one place in India that only got 20 % of population is not good.

North-east - then Darjeeling. Gangtok is modern and of no particular interest. Shillong is ok, but not worth a special visit. For the north, Shimla is probably the best choice. Ahmadabad is really boring unless you are a business man. Goa is fine with me. Pune is also a cool place. User:SingyeDzong

Goa is fine with me also. But if not GOA then Darjeeling is good. Shimla is also good.

• I would rather keep Kochi but would not vote against replacing it with Shimla or Darjeeling. However, it's best to hear the input from other users too. Ibaman (talk) 11:13, 17 January 2023 (UT

Keeping kochi means too much representation to a particular region that only got 20% of population. Remove kochi and add SHimla or Darjeeling. Other areas in India needs representation. Please choose between Shimla or Darjeeling.

1)Shimla, 2) Darjeeling. Please select amongst these two as selected from different cities by users here to replace kochi.

• As of this moment, there is only one vote for replacing Kochi; @Pashley: and I are for keeping it in the list, and SingyeDzong is indifferent. Let's wait for opinions of other users. Ibaman (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think 2 votes User:SingyeDzong and myself. User:SingyeDzong mentioned to replace Kochi and go for Shimla or Darjeeling. Let @Pashley: also decide. I dont support too much representation to a region where small portion of population lives. Other regions require more coverage. Kochi should be replaced with Shimla or Drajeeling.

please get to know what has already been discussed over this subject. It's a really long discussion, really. The "remove Kochi" vibe is nothing new in this talk page. Ibaman (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

These is clear reason for that. kochi is not that much visited and also got less tourist significance compared to many places in India. I dont know who added kochi. Also too much priority to southern part of India is the result. There are already three cities from South. Other places should also be equally represented. Kochi is unnecessary to be added along the main nine list.

I tend to agree. While Kerala has a rich culture and many tourist attractions, Kochi is nothing special and there are many more deserving places that should be on the list of primary cities. Shimla is lovely, but as the north east lacks representation, maybe Darjeeling should be considered. Anyway, that's just my personal opinion. User:SingyeDzong

You are right User:SingyeDzong we can go for Darjeeling. That area also need representation

I support replacing Kochi with Darjeeling (or with Shimla as a second option). The northeast is unrepresented in both Cities and Other Desinations. There is also no Himalayan representation in Cities or Other Destinations. The most appropriate article from Kerala would be Kerala Backwaters, which would fit in Other Destinations, rather than Kochi, which is an average city. Kerala is known for its natural beauty rather than urban areas. Goa itself or a destination in Goa would better in Other Destinations as well for similar reasons. Amritsar is not necessary because it is already represented via the Golden Temple in Other Destinations. Gizza ^(roam) 23:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. So that we have 3 votes now for replacing kochi. Me, User:SingyeDzong and User_talk:DaGizza, lets replace with Darjeeling as that area needs representation —The preceding comment was added by Kelsere1 (talk • contribs)

Once again: could everyone please sign their comments on talk pages? Why are some people persistently not doing so? Four tildes (~) in a row. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have a question. Is Darjeeling considered a city, or is it just a rural region? Rural regions should not be going into the city list. And Darjeeling is not in the North East, and would be a second city in West Bengal, since we already have Kolkata in the city list. If you want something truly North Eastern, perhaps a city in Gangtok or Imphal will be better. The dog2 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I STILL think the list is good as it is, there's no need to change. Ibaman (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Darjeeling is definitely a city. Its population was 118,805 as of the last census in 2011. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think most of the cities in India#Cities are obvious. Let's have the list here to look at:

• 28.6177.231 Delhi — the capital of India and the heart of Northern India
• 12.96666777.5666672 Bangalore (Bengaluru) — the beautiful garden city, once the sleepy home of pensioners, now transformed into an IT hub for high-technology companies and sprouting pubs.
• 13.08333380.2666673 Chennai (Madras) — the main port in Southern India, cultural centre, automobile capital of India
• 17.3778.484 Hyderabad — known for pearl and diamond trading, now with major manufacturing and financial institutions
• 26.975.85 Jaipur — the Pink City, a major exhibit of the Hindu Rajput culture of medieval Northern India
• 9.9776.286 Kochi (Cochin) — the Queen of the Arabian Sea, historically a centre of international trade, now the gateway to the sandy beaches and backwaters
• 22.56666788.3666677 Kolkata (Calcutta) — the cultural capital of India, known as the City of Joy, and home to numerous colonial buildings
• 18.97572.8258338 Mumbai (Bombay) — the largest city and the financial capital of India, the city that never sleeps, home of "Bollywood", the Hindi film industry
• 25.2882.969 Varanasi (Benares) — considered the most sacred Hindu city, on the banks of the Ganges, one of the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world

I would say that every city on the list is obvious except for the arguments about Kochi and maybe Varanasi. But isn't Varanasi the biggest holy city on the Ganges? A visit there was certainly memorable for me in 1977, for what it's worth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

yes, I agree Varanasi deserves its spot. And the Darjeeling article starts describing it as a "Victorian town". Many years ago I pushed for Shimla to be included, as it's a capital, with historic and architectural and touristic importance. Ibaman (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would pick Shimla over Darjeeling, simply because Darjeeling and Kolkata are both in West Bengal, and I think we should try to avoid having two cities from the same state in the list. Maybe we can also consider Srinagar. I've never been there but I heard it's really beautiful. The dog2 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I visited Srinagar in 1977. It was indeed beautiful. However, isn't its safety a bit questionable? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

To my knowledge, it is not an active war zone now. I remember back when I was still living in Singapore, the travel agencies were advertising tours to Kashmir as a land of great beauty. The dog2 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking more of terrorism by separatists and Islamists and brutality by Indian troops, not active war between India and Pakistan. That said, if it's reasonably safe to travel to Srinagar, it would be an interesting city to include. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Darjeeling is a city but a small city. But kochi is also a small city. The reason behind the need of removal of kochi is that there will be 4 cities from south which only represent 20% of the Indian population. Also kochi is not that important even in south. Its just a small city with less visitors and not that much tourist significance. I dont know who added kochi to the list. Kochi should be removed and we can go for Shimla, Darjeling or Indore or any other non south Indian city as there is already 3 cities (main cities from south) in the list. Other places should also be considered. There is no reason to put kochi here. Some person without knowledge of India added kochi here and there is no reason to continue that. If its not Darjeeling we can go for Shimla or Indore. —The preceding comment was added by Kelsere1 (talk • contribs) 07:48, January 21, 2023 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion civil. We work by consensus here. And I'm open to swapping Kochi for a different city but there's no need to insult the person who came up with this city list. You can disagree without disrespecting. But that said, I don't think we should have two cities from the same state given how big India is, so I wouldn't go with Darjeeling, since Kolkata is also in West Bengal. Shimla is fine for me, and as I suggested, we could consider Srinagar too. The dog2 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Shimla is ok for me. Srinagar is also ok. I think we will get more votes for Shimla here as many others suggested it here before to be added.

Personally, I would prefer a classic Indian city, rather than another one that merely represents colonial architecture, but I'm fine with Shimla. It's a pleasant place, and HP is not otherwise represented. Leh would be cool, but maybe too small for the city category. User:SingyeDzong

Or would anyone want a city in the northeast? Like maybe Imphal? The dog2 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

A city from north east will be good as that area needs representation. Imphal or Guwahati or anyone is ok. We have to select one. Kelsere1 (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

While location should be considered in choosing the cities on the main page, they should also have some interest to travellers. Sadly, Guwahati and Imphal are lacking in this respect. Shillong would be a better choice, but still not that interesting. User:SingyeDzong

• as far as the articles themselves are concerned, Indore is neary pictureless and needs much copyedit and formatting; Srinagar is in better shape, but its Eat section is vague with no real listings, and the Stay Safe section is concerning and needs update as it reads 2018. The Shimla article has Guide status, and that's why it gets my vote. Ibaman (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm also fine with Shimla. It has numerous attractions and is pleasant place to hang out. User:SingyeDzong

Both Shimla and Srinagar work for me. The dog2 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Done we have consensus and Shimla is on the list now. Ibaman (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok.

I'm aware of several US based individuals who have had difficulty processing payments for Indian eVisas. In fact, they only way they were able to get the payment to go through was to use PayPal (rather than one of the bank links). Thoughts on adding a helpful hint box to the "Getting In" section to recommend Paypal processing? —The preceding comment was added by 72.205.32.178 (talk • contribs) 03:11, January 23, 2023 (UTC)

I don't like having to recommend Paypal, there are many problems with them. Is this a concurring problem or was there some special circumstances lately? Have people been in contact with the authorities? If there is some glitch in the web site implementation, then this should be fixed without much delay. –LPfi (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The static map labels the state of Odisha as Orissa – the state has been known as Odisha for quite some time now. Can anyone fix this on the PNG map? (the SVG map already uses both names). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

India: Vigilante ‘Cow Protection’ Groups Attack Minorities

Does this affect travellers? Pashley (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

There has been a bit of speculation after Modi's G20 letter about India changing its name to Bharat – to prevent this from becoming a contentious issue on Wikivoyage, I've added "potentially officially Bharat (w. no diacritics) from 18 September" in the lede. I think that's all that needs to be done as of now; if it does become more popular in the upcoming years or if it's confirmed to be official, it can always be changed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Policy at Wikivoyage:Naming_conventions#Article_naming is:

"articles should use the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries"

That is certainly India.

Mentioning Bharat in the introduction is debatable, but acceptable. Anything more than that would be foolish, even if it becomes official, unless & until general English usage changes. Pashley (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

No chance of the name Bharat becoming the common name for the country abroad any time soon, although another name most English-speakers can't pronounce if their life depended on it, Myanmar, did take hold, so we'll have to wait and see, but I'm skeptical. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is speculation that the government might introduce a resolution to change the country's name during a special session of Parliament, scheduled from September 18-22.

Or it might not. And Parliament may vote against the resolution. And the name change might not take effect immediately (we haven't seen what the resolution might say, if there is one).

Why would would put something so hopelessly speculative in the first sentence of the article? How is this important to travellers reading the article now?

Sometimes we forget that Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not a news site, and not an encyclopedia. Ground Zero (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's why I added "potentially officially Bharat from 18 September" in the lede, and only that – I don't think anything else needs to be done (though I'm indifferent to that or a short sentence in "Understand"). The potentially suggests that it may or may not happen, but it prevents editors from unilaterally changing the name throughout the article from India to Bharat (we've had enough to deal with Prayagraj already). I'm not saying we should change the article (response to Pashley's comment), and when I meant "it can always be changed" (written in a morning rush), I meant we could always amend what I wrote.

Also, sorry about writing it in the first sentence. I wrote it in a morning rush and didn't think twice about where to include it. Thanks for moving it, GZ. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd have just deleted it instead of moving it. Pashley (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2 Do you have a source for only diplomatic passport holders from China being allowed entry? I understand all e-visas and tourist visas are suspended, but regular visas still appear to be possible: https://india.blscn.cn/ Jpatokal (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Based on this thread, even student and business visas are in practice not issued to Chinese citizens anymore. I presume diplomatic visits are still allowed as China sent a delegation to attend last year's G20 summit, and there is still a Chinese ambassador in India. The dog2 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

So based on lots of reports that Chinese citizens are having difficulty getting any kind of visa for India right now, I think we should also let people know about that. The dog2 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any official sources or statements from the Chinese government? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a report here that China has asked for India to resume issuing visas to Chinese citizens to allow for more people-to-people exchanges. The dog2 (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's another Reuters article where they have said that India has blocked virtually all Chinese citizens from visiting: [1]. The dog2 (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply