Talk:Hyderabad/Archive 4

Explanation for lead edit

Based on the guide lines of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which says:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points." and also says

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

Based on which I placed the summarized sentence in lead.

"Hyderabad contain many famous historical sites including UNESCO Asia Pacific Heritage site of the Chowmahalla Palace. The city houses many museums, theaters, art galleries, libraries and sports complexes."

Above is a simple summary of the section Economy, Sports and Culture.Based on the significant information in below sections: (The above lead sentence is a summary of below information which is stated in the article related section).

Architecture: *[[UNESCO Asia Pacific Heritage Awards|UNESCO Asia Pacific Heritage site],

• The Qutb Shahi Monuments of Hyderabad Golconda Fort, Qutb Shahi Tombs, Charminar: proposed for World Heritage Site, Submitted by: Permanent Delegation of India to UNESCO and many more.

Sports: as hyderabad was the host of Indian National Games (2002), Afro-Asian Games (2003) and the 4th Military World Games (2007).

Salarjung museum, nizams museum, AP State museum, IMAX 3D, HITEX etc..:) regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Added related sources about the topic. :) regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think one source is sufficient and my problem was only about the sentence "The city houses many museums, theaters, art galleries, libraries and sports complexes." I cogitate that there is a more general term for this, try phrasing it like "Hyderabad has long been a tourist's paradise and carries many tourist spots within the city" instead of going into specifics. Then a never ending list of gardens, lakes, shops, malls, IT parks, research labs, etc. have to be taken into account. And of course, let me remind you that the lead is the last place to edit before the GA review as it has to sum up the whole article. So, better to shift focus to other sections. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 16:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please specify which source in enough so that we can remove others.--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really feel its good to remove it, try merging the sources into one by extending the </ref template and using a *star to put in another cite web template. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

source suggestion for citation needed

IS this source okay for Section Economy citation needed. --Omer123hussain (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

another here.--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

for section culture , abut city pubs here.--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

another here.--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources are perfectly all right. For what info are you going to use them for? Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 16:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

this and This in section ==Economy== for this sentence: "Hyderabad has multiple Central Business Districts (CBDs) spread across the city. There are many major business and commercial districts from the historical Charminar area to latest Kothapet, Gachibowli, Rajendranagar.[citation needed]"

This and This for section ==Culture== "Pubs are also getting popular in Hyderabad.[citation needed]",Regards--Omer123hussain (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The two sources for the economy are all right. No need for this source to support the culture section as it goes into a very specific branch. Btw is the charminar area a commercial district? As far as I know, it has only a few shops with the laad bazaar which might not contribute much to the city's economy. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 12:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Along with recomended sources, I think out of this sentence:

Many national and international brands have set up retail chains in the city. Hyderabad has multiple Central Business Districts (CBDs) spread across the city. There are many major business and commercial districts from the historical Charminar area to latest Kothapet, Gachibowli, Rajendranagar.[citation needed].

We shall keep only this,

Many national and international brands have set up retail chains in the city. Hyderabad has multiple Central Business Districts (CBDs) spread across the city..

Because the it says spread across the city which is more than enough.regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

GA/FA plans

Okay well, Well in this case we all should forget the past and come up or prepare the list of changes needed for this article to propose it for Wikipedia:Featured articles. interested editors can take responsibility of individual section for fixed time and work out with authentic references and information. In my view the sections were we mostly need to workout is 1) Lead section. 2) History 3) Administration 4) Media I hope other users may come up with there views. Mean while I will put a note to Secret of success, Lynch, User:MikeWazowski. and including Qwyrxian for your guidance.--Omer123hussain (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't even a good article yet. You should reach that hurdle first before you even consider an FAR (which is probably much more work than you may imagine). The first think to do is look at the WP:Good article criteria and see there what needs to be done to reach those standards. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We need to make this GA and then only go to FA status. The first thing is to check all sources. At least 30 sources in the article seem like promotional and invalid websites. eg. Hudahyd.com, iloveindia.com, thisismyindia.com, etc. We need to replace them and trim the lead section. Then, I'll check all the grammar in the article. I propose for semi-protection till it passes GA. If you agree, I'll raise the request. I will be logging in almost everyday, so feel free to post messages in my talk page. Cheers! :) :) Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Great. Lets start checking the sources. I'll make a note here each time I notice a bad source. Semi protection is only done for vandalism, I think Qwyrxian will agree with that. Lynch7 15:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the GA criteria says that the article should be completely stable. It is highly possible that some IP's come and create problems here. I also expect Dragonbooster to create another account and destroy the page, so after checking everything, we'll lock it completely till it passes the hurdle. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles are not protected preemptively, they may be protected based on recent disruptions. If Dragonbooster4 decides to come back, then we can ask for protection once the vandalism starts. Lynch7 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

All right. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 16:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well great idea, from my side while for next week i can help with History section with others as well. --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I want to verify that we will not fully protect this page to prevent disruption--full protection is only used to stop edit wars. Semi-protection can be done, but only after demonstrated disruption--articles are never protected because of speculated future disruption. Note that instances of vandalism will not be held against you in a GA review, as long as they are dealt with in a reasonably swift manner (every day or so). Dragonbooster's disruption is also just that--disruption. If it becomes an issue, we can worry about it later.

As for a plan, I recommend ignoring the lead for now. The lead should summarize the contents of the article, so until you know what is going to be in the final article, don't worry about it. I do recommend with Secret of Success's point that sources are a really good place to start. If you're not already familiar with it, review WP:RS; then, go in and scrub out every unreliable source. If you can find an alternative reliable source, then great; if not, tag the relevant sentence and see if anyone else can find it. If no one can within a week or so, then take out the unsupported info. You don't have to have a citation for every single line, but you do need to verify all "statements that might be challenged". I would wait to copy-edit until after the sourcing/content issues are cleared up; otherwise, you'll just have to CE again. While I don't want to personally devote much time to this GA drive, I can certainly help with copy-editing later. Later on, you'll want to review the use of images in the article (including verifying that all of them are either public domain or have an adequate fair use rationale for this page); you may well want to consider removing some of them. There's other steps, but this is a good place to start. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

All right. Here are the list of sources which are either dead or do not satisfy WP:RS. 18, 41, 42, 43, 44, 59, 66, 75, 76, 87, 90, 105, 110, 132, 137, 142-146, 151, 152, 158, 162, 163, 181 and 184. Quite a few of these sources seem to support Trivia. I didn't check for other dead links, but I want to know if the person who reviews the article will point it out or just plainly say that it has failed GA. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 09:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

For now I removed that shopping area image, the main reason being that it is the only image which rests on the left side of the page and the uniformity is being disrupted here. There are sufficient images for the article and this one did not have any special role here. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 17:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Relaced some of the references and removed deadlinks as discussed above.Regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

State which references you replaced or deleted. It will be easier to take over the others. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OOppsssss! Unfortunately, I did not recorded the replaced references with numbers, as they get changed according to adjustment/replacement of the sources.(for instance if i replaced source No.18 from here, then source No.65 will be changed to No.64: thus what i did was stored all the references you listed above according to there related sections, then made the replacement) Any way please find below the list of sources related to section I replaced.

Geography OLD Sources: : NEW Sources:

Administration: Old Source: Removed this dead link template and source, as the information can be found in the exixting source attached with the following sentence. In this reference

Media : Old Source: , New Source:

Cuisine : Old Source: , New Source:

Sister Cities : Removed dead link template as the source is alive Kindly see the following reference

I understand it is quit Systematic and easy to follow the source correction according to section. Kindly update whats your openion. Regards, --Omer123hussain (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Replaced below listed un authentic web sources with book sources, as listed below from the section

Culture : Old source: , , , , Replaced with : , , regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The new refs mostly look good, although the asiawaves.net seems a bit on the self-published side, so not the best reference...it might be okay for the info you're verifying there, but it's not great. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

a temporary references list so that it's easier to see the refs listed above; please add new info above this box

Qwyrxian is right here, the article must be upgraded to a GA before becoming a FA. It would definitely fail, if nominated for a FA. Even if it is nominated for a GA review, the article will face many problems. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 10:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hindi Name of Hyderabad in Lead Section and Info Box

Dear User:Texankudiya,

Do you realize, you are humiliating Hindi language by insisting to apply.

Do you realize, while adding the name of Hyderabad in Hindi you had break the lead paragraph and spoiled the article Intentionally/unintentionally.

We shall come to consensus (with all active editors/admin) here and add or do not add as per final decision on the talk page,

As per your claim in this edit, Please provide the valid reasons and sources:

• to Add the name in Hindi in lead section.
• to add Hindi as official language.

Until then (consensus is reached in this talk page) I shall restore it to previous status, with Good faith :),

Last but not least - Plz do not humiliate/demotivate any editor for his/her work (as you did in this edit summary, and edit summary is not the right place to discuss emotions). :) regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

latest population

Removed 2001 census results.

The city's population in 2001 was 3.6 million and it has reached over 4.0 million by 2009 making it among the most populated cities in India, while the population of the metropolitan area was estimated above 6.3 million.

and updated with latest 2011 census results.

In 2011, the Hyderabad city population reached 4,010,238, making it among the most populated cities in India, while the population of the metropolitan area is estimated above 8 million.

Kindly advice if any more addition is required. :) regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 figures have not yet been released for cities. The population that you have mentioned is for Hyderabad district and not city. Also 5,742,036 (this figure) is the population of Hyderabad Urban agglomeration in 2001. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 10:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Now released. :)regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I was the one who updated that in the page :) --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 09:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Great work.--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The British Raj

To reduce the burden in history section, shall we move the sub section The British Raj, by creating a new page with the name The Nizams and The British Relations. Reasons:-

• The section "The British Raj" have no direct rule/involvement in the History of Hyderabad,
• Nizam maintain cordial relations with British.
• The section "The British Raj" only speaks about the glorious period of Hyderabad Niams.
• Except British army was stationed in secunderabad, and never involved in the politics of Hyderabad Nizams. (this is already mentioned in the "Early Modern" section.) --Omer123hussain (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be inadvisable as even cities like Kolkata and Chennai, which were built and grew up with the British do not have such articles. Hyderabad already has an article called History of Hyderabad, India, in which the info from the article can be moved to. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 17:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, :)regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Heart of the Indian Peninsula

The citation for the sobriquent "Heart of the Indian Peninsula" mentioned in the lead i.e TIME, does not support any such claim in the report. Please replace it with a verifiable one. San kyuu! Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 13:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Suwan Sister cities

Dear User:Secret of success, Most of all

The site you are referring says Suwan has 13 sister cities and 2 friendship cities. Among 13 sister cities it had listed 12 sister cities on the current page. Thus the 13th sister city is Hyderabad, India which is declared by the same source (which you referred) says here that : the City of Suwon has been selecting sister-city candidates among BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) that may lead global economic growth in the 21C. In March, Suwon established a sister-city relationship with Hyderabad (India) and formed friendly ties with Zhuhai (China).

Other sources which declares the same are as below,

• The source which your are blaming as out dated is published in January 25, 2005 by The Times of India, says here that Hyderabad has just signed a preliminary agreement on international sister city relationship with the city of Suwon in South Korea.
• Another sources The Hindu, here, from The Hindu says similar as above.
• Another source from The Hindu on March 04, 2005 here The City of Hyderabad and the City of Suwon in the Republic of Korea, signed the "International sister city" agreement here on Thursday for promotion of mutual understanding and friendly relations. The agreement was inked by the Hyderabad Mayor, T. Krishna Reddy, and his Suwon counterpart, Kim Yong Seo, the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Commissioner, Chitra Ramachandran, and the Director General, Culture and Tourism, City of Suwon, Lee Jae-Sun.
• On March 13, 2005 The Times of India, says here that The MCH recently signed a sister-city agreement with Suwon, which is famous for its gardens.

Please revert your edit 457096906, I beleive these sources are enough to support the sisters family of Hyderabad India. :)-regards---Omer123hussain (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. The next time you are specifically addressing me, please do so in my talk page, not here. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, any way done there also. regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per insufficient consensus to move it. - GTBacchus^(talk) 02:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Hyderabad, India → Hyderabad – and move Hyderabad page to Hyderabad (disambiguation) per WP:PRIMARYMEANING. India in the title is redundant. The name Hyderabad broadly refers to the Indian city of Hyderabad. All ghits are for Hyderabad in India. — Abhishek  ^Talk 19:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and one more option is: Hyderabad, India → Hyderabad and the another existing hyderabad in sindh pakistan to be remain Hyderabad, Sindh for what it is still known to common people.--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the issue of how to name Indian city articles has occurred before, though I don't know if a consensus emerged. I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics requesting that other regular editors of Indian articles comment on this move. I also left a note on Hyderabad; since this proposal also involves moving that article, a note should have been left for them. Myself, I don't have an informed opinion yet; my intuition tells me the move is wrong, but I can't articulate why that is yet. I'll provide more later if I can figure out my own thinking. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, note that you can't proceed with a GA nom until you work out the name of the article. Which is fine; there's still a lot of copy-editing to be done first as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Hyderabad, India is world class city economy wise and population wise. All world class cities like Los Angeles, London use its name as primary name without suffix.(The smaller cities with same name use the suffix like Los Ángeles, Nicaragua, London, Ontario). Hyderabad, India has more than 7million population; next biggest city with same name, Hyderabad, Sindh, has only 1.5million population. Hyderabad, India is global city. It does not need any suffixes. Ramcrk (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. A rare case in which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC actually helps in an RM. Noetica^Tea? 00:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral. You need verification through some form that this is far more important than the other Hyderabads. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 06:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Hyderabad, Sindh, a city of over 3 millions and the fourth largest in Pakistan, and Hyderabad State, an important country for over two centuries, alone disqualify the Indian city as the primary topic. —  AjaxSmack  02:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Hyderabad state was an important and thriving empire till the British rule and Hyderabad, Sindh isn't a minor city. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 06:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

@AjaxSmack: There's been some vandalism with the population figure. For example, this user. I've restored the population back to what the source says and it's only a city of about 1.6 million people. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support still, Hyderabad, Sindh is popular with same name and still exist as Hyderabad, Sindh. Where as former Hyderabad Deccan was dissolved in 1948 and Hyderabad State in 1956, and its capital Hyderabad, India (city since 1591 as Hyderabad) still exist, this can be a supported as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Determining a primary topic.

Even first 50 results of WP Special:WhatLinksHere gives this results, out of 50 at least all are related to Hyderabad, India. :)-regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. At least two major cities with same name (one of 6.8m people, one of 1.5m) mean it is not clear that one is "much more likely than any other topic," per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I note as well that there has been no notification of this WP:RM on pages that would expect have input in this discussion (e.g. Hyderabad State, Hyderabad, Sindh). Tassedethe (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Tassedethe. Hyderabad in Pakistan is not a minor city, not enough to be reduced to a link in a dab anyway. Lynch7 05:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

To get some idea of context, I checked the page views for this article and others with similar titles (see WP:PAGEVIEW for info):

• Hyderabad (the dab page) has gotten about 5600 views so far this month.
• Hyderabad, India has gotten ~ 48,000 views so far this month.
• Hyderabad, State has gotten ~7700 views so far this month.
• Hyderabad, Sindh has gotten ~5300 views this month.

So, the first note is that most people are getting here directly, not through the dab (even if every view of the dab came here, still over 40K come here directly, likely through a combination of wikilinks and watchlists (plus, there's been a lot of editing of this page in the last month, which always ups views).

Second, it looks like this page is of far more interest to reader, by a factor of 6, compared to the next most popular Hyderabad results. The August results ended up about the same, with this page at over 65K views, and Hyderabad State (second) at less than 10K.

To me, this seems to indicate that this city qualifies as the Primary topic.

So, Support move. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Hyderabad is suitable title as:
  

Hyderabad(India) is more famous and visited than Hyderabad(Pakistan) or other contenders
For other not very famous pages, one can reach through disambiguation.
Consider AMD, IT OPENS Advanced Micro Devices, and if you want to read Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research,you go for disambiguation, the same should follow for Hyderabad. ${\mathfrak {ChitranshGaurav}}$ ^($Talk$) 23:55, May 13, 2024 PDT [refresh]

• Oppose per Tassedethe WorLD8115 (TalK) 12:13, 27 October 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.

Sources

There are still some sources which are not reliable or are dead links(12, 53, 57, 58, 71, 79, 85, 86, 87, 95, 111, 141 and 151). Plz replace them. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 13:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish if you can contribute to replace, :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I was unable to find updated sources (after 2008) for 12, 53, 57, 79, 87, 111, 141 and left them as they were. 171 seems okay for now. The sentence in the economy section "urban workforce constitutes 90% of the total workforce" needs a source too. If you can, please change the rest. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 08:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The source 12 is now 11, I dont find any issue in this source. plz comment. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It is published by CNN, but still seems to be a forum. The layout and content of the website aren't really of professional standard. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 09:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I hope sources part is okay now. :) regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

FA

Why is not this article a featured article or a candidate for featured article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitransh Gaurav (talk • contribs)

That's because as of now there is a proposal to move the article to a new title. Once this discussion is closed, it may be nominated for a GA or FA review. — Abhishek  ^Talk 17:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Source Check

Can any one use the related tool and confirm the Sources Authenticity. :) regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So that I can try to replace if any un reliable source is found. :) regards--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Copy-editing

Sp33dyphil did an initial copyedit; I'm making another pass. I only made it through "Nizam period", so I've got quite a bit more to go. I'm also trying to make the article NPOV while I'm at it--there's a bit of inappropriate puffery that needs to be pulled out. After I'm done, someone else should definitely make an additional pass for overlinking; many terms are linked multiple times, and many common words are unnecessarily linked. I'll report back when I get more editing done (it should be tomorrow or the day after). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks dude. I was surprised to see the article in the same state even after so much effort put by the users. I think the main reason was the excessive listings of the people and companies in the last few sections. Reducing its size might make it better. Cheers! Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 13:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Change of image by User:Srikarkashyap

Srikarkashyap (talk · contribs) has been removing File:Hyderabad Montage.png and adding without discussion despite being told in edit summaries to discuss on the same. I have issued a 3rr warning to him. So I am starting this discussion to see if anyone agrees to this change. — Abhishek  ^Talk 15:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the mistake. I didn't know that rule. I will not repeat my mistake again. I just wanted to add more important landmarks of Hyderabad. The previous picture gave only four important ones. So, I added 2 more. P$$K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Srikarkashyap, no worries. Please post your reason as to why you thivk the image you added is better and let's wait for other users to post their opnion on this. — Abhishek  ^Talk 16:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Abhishek, Thank You. Hyderabad is a very large city with many landmarks and monuments. I think that an image of only four important places wouldn't be sufficient. So, i just tried to add 1.The Legendary Golconda Fort 2. Hyderabad International Airport- New Landmark of Hyderabad 3. Prasadz IMAX- The Theater with the world's largest IMAX screen.

Truly yours SRikar Kashyap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikarkashyap (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the present montage is fine, but I don't see how Prasads theater and the airport are places of interest, besides being mere landmarks. If I had an option, I would have uploaded Ramoji city's image instead of the latter. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 07:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

Hi, Made some correction and revised the un sourced and criticism info. Kindly advice for further correction if required, regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

GA/FA status

Hi, any adminstrator may you please take any action for the articles GA/FA status. regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not a thing that administrators are concerned with - any user can nominate an article for GA status, see WP:GAN and WP:GNGA, but first you should read WP:Good articles and the WP:Good article criteria carefully and consider whether the article needs improving to meet them. The article needs to have achieved GA before you start to consider FA. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that the article hasn't even been fully proofread yet. I only got up to through the history section before I ended up going to other things. I'll try to get back to this again. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Well, as recommended above, after studding WP:Good article criteria the requirement a article should have to reach the GA status are:1) Well-written: 2) Factually accurate and verifiable: 3) Broad in its coverage: 4) Neutral 5) Stable 6) Illustrated.

And I shall say that the article meets all the above criteria with 1-2 % more or less, which can be easily fixed.

1) Well written: as most of the editors had contentiously reviewing it and satisfied with the prose standards.

2) Factually accurate and verifiable: All the sources are verifiable.

3) Broad in its coverage: The article covered all the aspects.

4) Neutral: The article is completely neutral in all aspects

5) Stable: there is no ongoing edit war, and all the active editors are understandable with each other views.

6) Illustrated: contains all the CC images.

I Hope we shall very soon come to a final consensus to rank the article GA and then FA. Regards:) --Omer123hussain (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination

Now that the article has been peer reviewed, it has improved substantially and increases its chance of reassessment. Some minor problems do exist, most notably WP:DIRECTORY and some issues in the history section. Further, some vandals are targeting their guns at this page, which is likely to reduce its quality if quick action is not taken. Hence, within the next few days, I wish to nominate the article for a GA review, if at all these issues are fixed, though they take up a huge effort. If anyone has any sort of objections, you may put them forward, so that the article is further improved. Regards. X.One ^SOS 11:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a GA nom now will be fine. If there are problems, the reviewer will let us know and then they can still be fixed. I sincerely doubt there's problems significant enough to outright fail the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, actually some issues in the peer review were not solved, like the unreliable sources pointed out by the reviewer. I do not know much about Hyderabad, its notable entities would be better known by someone who lives there and can remove the unnotable ones, so I think Omer has a better chance of cleaning up the last but two sections. The rest, are fine. X.One ^SOS 14:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I shall be merrily working to clear that errors. Unfortunately it is not clear to me what exactly do need to be corrected, may you kindly specify the errors or sources with there numbers so that i can work/replace those. Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, in the sports section, for instance, the last para seems irrelevant to some extent. All it shows is a list of names, and no content. You might have noticed that there is a separate category for the famous people from Hyderabad, called List of people from Hyderabad. This information is just a repeated list from that page. I prefer that we remove it and since there is a "See also" section listing out the category, a person who wants the info can access it. The "Media" section needs organizing. List out the history of media parts first, and remove the parts "The State owned Doordarshan Kendra Hyderabad transmits two terrestrial television channels and one satellite television channel from Hyderabad. Notable private regional television channels broadcasting from Hyderabad are TV9, MAA TV, I-News, ETV,Gemini, Teja, Zee Telugu, ETV2, NTV, TV5, Bhakthi TV, Local TV, Munsif Urdu TV and ETV Urdu." and "There are fifteen mobile phone companies in which GSMplayers include Vodafone, Airtel, BSNL, Idea, Tata DoCoMo, Reliance,Virgin Mobile, T24, Aircel and Uninor ; CDMA services are offered by BSNL, Virgin Mobile, Tata Indicom, MTS India and Reliance. 3G mobile services are offered by Airtel, Idea, Aircel and BSNL." as that is a clear WP:DIRECTORY. We can create a category later if needed. Thanks. X.One ^SOS 05:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In my humble opnion the sports section of the article should be redone so that it more correctly reflects the famous perosnalities that have their origins in Hyderabad, but at the same time we should ensure that references to the state owned TV stations are not removed but modified to ensure that there is no discrimination when it comes to mentioning hte lists of the private T channels also operating in the region or having their base of operations in the city or surrounding areas. Similarly the information may be seperately listed out so that a person who wishes to see such a list can refer it on seperate page or section without having to clutter up the article (and the sports section especially) with such information which may seek to complicate and render the actual meaning of the statements rather weak. Therefore the seperate category that you speak of will only dilute the whole article.

What Omerhussien has mentioned is therefore very true, and should not be allowed at any cost.Theodorebalthazar (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is an article List of people from Hyderabad, none of them should be listed here (except maybe for the absolutely most famous, like Prime Ministers or the like. I'm not as certain about the TV channels, but we probably shouldn't just have a full list, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree for the organizing about the list of TV channels alteration in Media section.

About section Sports, I should say it is one of the well written, clear and shortest section of the article, As per Qwyrxian advice there is no article about the List of people from Hyderabad existing and earlier article which was there has been redirected to and as Category Category:People from Hyderabad, India. Almost all the cities of India ( Banglore, Chennai, Kolkata) which had been recognized as feature article contains the list of sports personels from the city. The sports persons in the section of Hyderabad, India are all almost captains of national team and internationally recognized. Even now if it is against the WP policy then, we shall edit it. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that featured articles aren't perfect. And it is well known that with the exception of Bangalore, the other two articles are undergoing a featured article review and are likely to fail, so following them will not bring about any good changes to this article. Regards. X.One ^SOS 13:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, even though the list of sports personels is an category and not an article, So i haope we shall contenue keeping it with minor edits. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Information Technology

Is it okay if we remove the sub section Information Technology from the section Economy, as the city is no way in IT lead among first three with in India.. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hyderabad, India/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• "by the sobriquet City of Pearls" - Shouldn’t that be "Sobriquet"?

I have asked at the help desk regarding this. I am not really sure, and WP:MOSCAPS does not help much. X.One ^SOS 09:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk#Capitals. Sufficient? X.One ^SOS 12:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Historical records says that" ----> "Historical records say that"

• Done. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• "one of the world's richest man in 1937." ----> "one of the world's richest men in 1937."

• Done :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Musi river, of which Purana pul is the oldest.[40] Osman Sagarand Himayat Sagar are dams built over the Musi river." - Capital "R" on "river"

• Done.--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Osman Sagar and Himayat Sagar are dams built over the Musi river." Unsourced

• Added source from here.--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Hyderabad has a combination of a tropical wet and dry climate (Köppen Aw) that borders on a hot semi-arid climate ( Köppen BSh). The climate remains fairly warm and does not receive much rainfall in the monsoon. With the onset of winters in northern and central India, temperatures marginally decrease in December and January and the nights become cool in and around the city. For most parts of the year the weather and climate of Hyderabad remains fairly moderate." - Ditto

Sorry, didn't get you. X.One ^SOS 09:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I am wanting you to find a source for that quotation.--12george1 (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Removed a bit of text, which is more or less present in the next para. X.One ^SOS 12:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• "Rrainwater harvesting, water and sewerage services" - typo

• Done --Omer123hussain (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The other major railway stations are Hyderabad Deccan Station, Kachiguda Railway Station and Begumpet Railway Station." - Unsourced

• Done, moved the source below as it contains same info.--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you need a source for that? They are linked to their respective articles and they are very much in Hyderabad only, as their pages say. X.One ^SOS 09:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The yellow-coloured auto rickshaw are" - Pick either one: "The yellow-coloured auto richshaws are" or "The yellow-coloured auto richshaw is"

• Done

• "The Times of India, The Hinduand The Deccan Chronicle." - Add a space and comma between "Hindu" and "and"

• Done --Omer123hussain (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• "There are four fixed telephone line operators in the city BSNL, Tata Indicom, Reliance and Airtel. There are fifteen mobile phone companies in which GSMplayers include Vodafone, Airtel, BSNL, Idea, Tata DoCoMo, Reliance, Virgin Mobile, T24, Aircel and Uninor ; CDMA services are offered by BSNL, Virgin Mobile, Tata Indicom, MTS India and Reliance. 3G mobile services are offered by Airtel, Idea, Aircel and BSNL." - Unsourced

• Done.--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Reference #103, #154 and #181 are a deadlinks. You might be able to find an archive of these URLs at the Way Back Machine.

• Corrected #103, #154 and #181. :)regards. --Omer123hussain (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• It looks good. Overall, no major problems have come up. So I will let you have up to a week to fix the issues I have found on this article.--12george1 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, everything looks good. Therefore, I will now be passing this article.--12george1 (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Blog source of WSJ

I removed this lets finalize if it can be placed, though the site is reliable but the info is from blog. Please advice if it can be continue, for time being i removed it from article until consensus from other editors. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That blog is reliable. Go through WP:NEWSBLOG, which says that blogs can be used when they are maintained by professional organizations, in this case Wall Street Journal. X.One ^SOS 12:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks dude. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad Muncipal corporation, urban agglomeration or Hyderabad district

In Demographics section, we used statisics for 3 different things. Hyderabad Muncipal corporation, urban agglomeration or Hyderabad district. But there is confusion as to which statistic refers to what? To remove that confusion, I made this edit, which was reverted saying that the edit was not discussed. So here it is. Lets discuss about it. Ramcrk (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Earlier to your this edit the section had two statistics

• "According to the 2011 provisional population results, Hyderabad city had a population of 6,809,970, making it the fourth largest city in India, while the population of the urban agglomeration was 7,749,334." (this gives the latest available census results of city (GHMC since 2007) and agglomeration ).
• "Hyderabad is a cosmopolitan city, whose residents are adherents to many religions, predominantly Hinduism (55.40%) and Islam (41.17%), and others including Christianity (2.13%), Sikhism (0.2%) and Jainism (0.4%) as per 2001 Census." (this parts gives the available statistics of hyderabad District as of 2001 census Because there was no GHMC at that time they used statistics of Hyderabad District (Which includes secunderabad) and now both are GHMC. we have to use this statistics unless we get the latest from any reliable source) and after all the sentence reads that the statistics are as of 2001.

Suggestion: I would recommend to remove this The Hyderabad district has a population of 38,29,753 statement which is creating confusion, as the religion wise statistics clearly says as of 2001. and we all know that today's GHMC is previous hyderabad district.

Well in above said edit of yours, you had specified more clearly that the 2001 census statistics are of hyderabad district. So now what is your doubt about Statistics.??? Regards. --Omer123hussain (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the issue(Even you, a wiki contributor, got confused about the data here). Greater Hyderabad Muncipal corporation(GHMC) is not same as Hyderabad district. The GHMC is spread over three districts, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy and Medak. GHMC was expanded in 2007[1]. In 2001, GHMC was same as Hyderabad district. In 2011, GHMC is not same as Hyderabad district. For eg: we don't know the religion stats for the GHMC(because boundaries of GHMC were different in 2001). First census after GHMC boundaries changed was in 2011. So far, 2011 census did not publish relgion stats for GHMC. Until we know the those stats lets define GHMC and Hyderabad district so that readers don't get confused between Hyderabad stats and GHMC stats. Hyderabad district population in 2011 is 4,010,238[2]. GHMC population in 2011 is 6,809,970[3]. Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration's population in 2011 is 7,749,334.[4] These 3 statistics are seperate. All 3 should be included. All 3 should be defined clearly so that reader don't get confused with these stats. Ramcrk (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a separate article for the Hyderabad district and the district census must be moved to this article. Only the metropolitan and city stats should exist here. If they are continuously changing, its always to put an "As of date" in all possible changes. X.One ^SOS 13:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(A): The statement: "Hyderabad metropolital area had a population of 6,809,970, making it the fourth largest city in India, while the population of the urban agglomeration was 7,749,334 by 2011."

have specified the stats of metropolitan and city no issue in this statement.

Where as this statement (B) contents specified: "The Hyderabad district has a population of 38,29,753, whose residents are adherents to many religions, predominantly Hinduism (55.40%) and Islam (41.17%), and others including Christianity (2.13%), Sikhism (0.2%) and Jainism (0.4%) as per 2001 Census."

The above content clearly specified the location as-Hyderabad District, the year of stats issued as 2001. Thus there should be no confusion to keep this stats as until we can get the stats of GHMC 2011. and hyderabad district which is a part of GHMC shall not have any problem to be discussed in the article of which its a part. and we had clearly specified that the stats are of "Hyderabad District". Regards: --Omer123hussain (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We have two options here. 1) If we don't want to include Hyderabad district stats here, lets move religion stats to Hyderabad district. Lets wait for 2011 results to include religion stats of GHMC of post 2007(with current boundaries). This is what suggested by X.One ^SOS above. 2) If we want to include religion stats of Hyderabad district, lets say something about How GHMC(muncipal corporation) and Hyderabad is different to avoid confusion to reader. I am fine with either option. Also, when we said metropolitan area, does it mean GHMC or does it mean urban urban agglomeration? Readers are getting confused here also. Ramcrk (talk)

For now, I went with option 2 and made changes to the article to make the article more accurate and tried to remove some confusion. Lets discuss if there are issues with the change. Ramcrk (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

On what basis did you go with that? Didn't you get my point? If there is a separate article, an independent article for the Hyderabad district, what is the need to specify it here? It is not even relevant to the city. It sounds like we are deviating from the topic. The first choice is the best, if this articles needs an FA. X.One ^SOS 11:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In 2001 census, Hyderabad district was same as muncipal corporation of Hyderabad. But in 2011 its not(because boudaries of muncipal corpation changed). So, while I included 2001 census data for religion statistics, I elaborated on the fact that boundaries are changed in 2007 and warned the reader that religion statistics will change dramatically in 2011 census. Hope it makes sense. I thought about your suggestion but its better give the stats from last census(its better than no stats). I am open to go with option 1, if you still think thats best. Ramcrk (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No matter how clearly we explain it, if at present Hyderabad district is not the same as Hyderabad metro, then it causes a confusion. Period. 2011 census data has been released. And we are adding as of date almost everywhere in the article. So, how is district data relevant to the article? Please undo the changes, it sounds a bit illogical to have the data here. That is, coatrack. Hope you got it. Thanks. X.One ^SOS 08:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Done. Ramcrk (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

section economy

Hi, Reduced the section economy and moved some contents to related articles. Kindly advice in any more corrections are required. :) regards...--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I request you to undo the edit in which the tourism budget was removed. Was there any specific reason to do so? X.One ^SOS 16:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Restored. X.One ^SOS 12:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad is in the middle of Telangana region

Its a fact that Hyderabad is in the middle of Telangana. There are all kids of govt documents that talk about Telangana. Telangana movement is one of the biggest issues in India. When we include all kinds of data in this article(like which state, which district, etc), why its irrelevant to include the fact that Hyderabad is in Telangana region? Why my edit, in which I tried tio include such info, is reverted? Srikrishna committee on Telangana spent entire chapter on Hyderabad. Why some editors think its irrelevant to mention Telangana in Hyderabad article? Ramcrk (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Has the region been officially created and recognized or are people still fighting to create it? I believe the Telangana formation is just a movement right now, and despite nationwide protests, the government has not given way. X.One ^SOS 11:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Telangana region always existed. Even govt document and various agreements based on region. For ex: States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) in 1955(which recommended keep Telangana as state; Gentlemen's agreement, (with the mediatin of central home minister) which talked about conditions for the merger of Telangana with Andhra state. There was opposition for the merger in 1956 and the movement for statehood was peaked in 1969 and now. So, Telangana is not state yet. But Telangana region is always existed. Hyderabad is in the middle of Telangana. Hyderabad was part of Telangana through out history. Even SRC document said , Hyderabad district to be part of Telangana state(read para 389). In the light of Telangana movement, its better say that Hyderabad is in Telangana region. It helps the reader of wiki. Ramcrk (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

All right then. It can be added, but still we must mention an FAQ at the top of this talk page simultaneously, with this one as a note. I don't know how to do that, will attend to it soon. Regards. X.One ^SOS 18:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

May I request in arriving at a consensus before giving a go ahead. A "Region" is not an official administrative division in India. The official hierarchy is: Country, State, District and so on till local bodies. Hence mentioning Region would serve no purpose for "reader of wiki" except suiting the propaganda of certain "write of wiki" Vamsisv (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an article called List of regions in India and the template used supports the parameter. But note that if it is being converted into a state at the moment, that may decline its recognition as a region. Personally, I feel that it is better to avoid it until the issue of Telangana is resolved nationally, so that it loses its regional entity and becomes a state. Otherwise, to avoid a future dispute, we can go by the FAQ way I mentioned above. X.One ^SOS 07:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Even the article you've pointed out says it is a list of "unofficial" regions. So, clearly there is no reason to mention it in Hyderabad article. Mentioning it in one article, would spawn off similar edits on all wikipedia articles on city/town across all regions in India. Especially since this is part of a larger dispute, it is better to avoid. Vamsisv (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with leaving it out. If this is not an "official" region, then it shouldn't be listed--we're not here to provide a vessel for interests that want to argue in favor of a given political status in Indian. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should mention this. Irrespective of the presence of a political movement, Telangana is a geographical region. For Bangalore, we mention the Bayaluseeme region, and similarly, we should do so here. However, it should be mentioned with reference to its Geographical location only, and the political issue should be mentioned somewhere else (in the Politics section perhaps). Lynch7(Public) 08:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The mention on Bangalore article remained because it has not been challenged so far. Why not look at Beijing article? It is not specifically mentioned in the infobox that it is part of Mainland China though we all know its geographical location. I want to reiterate that the "region" is not an officially recognized administrative area. Vamsisv (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is challenging the factual accuracy of the presence of Hyderabad in Telangana region. The Mainland China analogy is farce; it is quite obvious. The location of Hyderabad, is not so obvious. Lynch7 12:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your opinion, but even the Bangalore example is no good. Hardly anyone uses the word "Bayaluseeme" in Bangalore in reference to the region. Location of Hyderabad is also obvious. (May be not for you). On similar lines, would you mention "North India" as region in the infobox on New Delhi article? The point again is : why mention "region" in the infobox at all? Vamsisv (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bingo, you've made my point yourself. Its not obvious to me; its not as if its a very obvious fact. I don't want to engage in silly discussion; North India is a much broader region, not comparable to Bayaluseeme or Telangana. Lynch7 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If any disagreement with your opinion is "silly" - so be it :). I don't think different yard sticks can be used to the same topic. My opinion: "Region" need not be mentioned since it is not a official notation or an administrative distinction for an area! It can only be mentioned for places like Hong Kong (SAR for China) or Darjeeling (which is a special territory). Vamsisv (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Telangana is mentioned in Indian constitution in number of times. See this. Telangana region is special enough to be mentioned in constitution(specifically constitutional amendment 32). If its special enough for constitution I am sure its special enough be included in wiki article. Ramcrk Ramcrk (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand its special status for you, but the amendment says nothing about it being a official administrative area. Vamsisv (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Which part of wikipedia guidelines says it has to be official administrative area? For eg: Tokyo article mentions about Kantō which is not an administrative area. Same with Bayaluseeme in Bangalore. Its its ok with those article why not here? Ramcrk (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It has to make sense in putting into the infobox? I've already said mentioning regions in Indian context doesn't make sense. Especially for Telangana, hitherto the same level of distinction didn't exist. It is only now that it is being exploited to reap political benefits and agenda. And coming to Bayaluseeme, hardly anyone in Bangalore would have heard of that name nor use it - and i fully support that it be removed. Again, would you mention "New Delhi" as part of "North India" region going by your logic? There has to be some consistency isn't it? Vamsisv (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't make your own rules. If its good for Tokyo and Bangalore(Both of which are global cities. But use region info which are not official administriative areas), It should be good for Hyderabad article too. Ramcrk (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not good to use is my opinion based on consistency logic and not my rule! Vamsisv (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I see this getting increasingly partisan. Distinction between the regions does exist. If you want to claim that such a regional distinction never existed, please provide a reliable source. Articles like Bangalore and Mangalore, which are FAs have gone through an extensive review process. No double standards please. Lynch7 10:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lynch: Appreciate your views here. But you don't seem to see my point. The mention of "Region" in the infobox is redundant and going by same standards, why not mention North India/South India for all cities? The standards should be as per what's existing officially. I wouldn't object this to a place like Darjeeling which enjoys a special status! Coming to the Bangalore or Mangalore articles, removing the region would not mean that those articles would lose their FA or GA status. I fail to understand why you, as an experienced Wikipedian, are not able to see the attempt to make this inclusion in this article is veiled and has a hidden agenda. Vamsisv (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary: Just like Mangalore, Bangalore, Tokyo used the region info in the info box, Hyderabad article can use it too. Opinions of individuals aside, unless somebody shows me specific wikipedia guidelines which disallows such inclusion, we should go ahead and include Telangana region in the info box. Ramcrk (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is tough for anyone to accept your one-sided summary which is without any basis. You cannot make a point by just showing some precedence. You are skirting the issue of the purpose of including the same and why not North India or South India. As I said above already, if the place enjoys a special status, then it makes sense. Else, the onus is on you to convince beyond any conflict for inclusion of the same. You cannot go ahead with your wishes in a one-sided manner. That's not how Wikipedia works. Vamsisv (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Precendence and wiki guidelines will decide what content should be there. Precendence already there. I will wait for some for sombody to show me specific wikipedia guidelines which disallows such inclusion. Other wise I am including it. Ramcrk (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You cannot include without the discussion coming to a conclusion. Please read existing wikipedia guidelines before looking forward for more Vamsisv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

Vote

I guess we won't have consensus no matter how long the discussion. Lets vote. How many of the you want the region(Telangana) included in the info box?

Well Ramcrk, starting a 'vote' process is not right when it cannot be settled through discussion. Unless other users are convinced of your argument, it should be discussion all the way. Try putting forth clearer reasons for your view. X.One ^SOS 12:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you like, I can remove the vote section. But I would like to see point of view of others. Vamsi and I have very strong political beliefs related to Telangana. So, I would like the point of view of contributors who are more neutral on this topic. Thats the only we can reach conclusion to this topic. My argument is, its a fact that Hyderabad is in the middle of Telangana region is a geographical fact. These days, Telangana is on national headlines on regular basis and the fact that Hyderabad is in the middle of Telangana is the number one reason the for the delay in the formation of Telangana state. Why we should not include such important fact in this article? Why should we deny such important information to the reader of the article? Why anybody think this fact is irrelevant? Since there is already precedence to include unofficial regions in so many other articles, there is no reason to not to have it here. I would really like opinion of others(Me and Vamsisv are repeating same arguments over and over). Ramcrk (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ramcrk - I'm not being rude, but please speak for yourself. I have clarified umpteen times that I don't have any strong political belief or personal agenda regarding this issue. Vamsisv (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me make my opinion clear. I oppose the adding the Telangana part because of two reasons. One, there is no proof to say that the Indian government officially recognizes "regions" as official entities or divisions with defined boundaries. Two, the Telangana region, though it exists, is a sensitive subject at the moment, and the region is being converted to a state with state-wide protests. If it does get converted, it loses its identification as a region. This might result in a lot of edit-warring and disputes within the article and that is not the best thing as there are users indebted to making this an FA. That's it, nothing more from me. If you guys still think it is much better to add it, then please do so. X.One ^SOS 08:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not asking to add Telangana section in the aticle. All I am asking is to mention that "Region: Telangana" in the info-box. If and when Telangana become state, we can simply remove those 2 words from the info box. There is such precedence to include region info in info-box in Tokyo, Bangalore, Mangalore articles. Telangana region is well defined as per the States Reorganisation Commission(see para 389). Regarding fears of edit wars... It should not be the reason to deny such basic information in the article. Edit wars and vandalism will happen no matter what. We just have to deal with it. Ramcrk (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this logic or reason is acceptable. And please, may I again request you to read what is vandalism in Wikipedia context? Region is not an official administrative division, so there is no reason mentioning this. By your logic, North India should be mentioned as region for New Delhi though it is the capital of entire country Vamsisv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC).

You can not compare, Telangana with North India, South India. Telangana is discussed in various govt of India committees(States Reorganisation Commission, Srikrishna committee), have various agreements were reached to have certain privisions for budget allocations, employement etc for Telangana(Gentlemen agreement of 1956, Six Point formula and 32nd Constitutional amendment in 1973[5]), various govt committees to look into the violations of these agreements(Justice Bhargava committee of 1969, Giglani Committee of 2001). So, Telangana is govt recognized region. This info needs to be included in info-box. Ramcrk (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mere mention in some committee reports doesn't make it a government recognized region. Example of a government recognized region is Darjeeling which enjoys a special administrative status. Your facts don't prove the deductions you are making. Vamsisv (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Go fix Bangalore, Mangalore, Tokyo site. Then talk about this. There is precedence. Also, define the "recognized". Don't make up your own rules. Ramcrk (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in fixing those right now. However, I want to maintain the sanctity of this article. Hyderabad is capital of the entire state and cannot be attributed to one region. Just like how Delhi cannot be attributed to only North India. I've mentioned earlier in this article that administrative divisions in India are state, district, mandal and so on. Vamsisv (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad was always with Telangana before and after formation of Andhra Pradesh. This document says Hyderabad belongs to Telangana. Telangana income includes Hyderabad income. Ramcrk (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If anything, Hyderabad has always been known to be part of Deccan region. So if at all, we should mention that? Vamsisv (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Deccan is geographic region. Telangana region has significance in the Andhra Pradesh because there are various agreements, budget allocations are done based on region, Minister allocations are done based on region, emplyment, univerisity admissions are done based on region. Don't compare unrelated things. Ramcrk (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good that you agree that Deccan is a region. See, that is exactly why I'm not in favor of mentioning Region in the infobox since it can mean multiple things - unlike official administrative division such as state or district, since there can be no conflict for those divisions. Further, allocations or university admissions are based on district and not "Region". If that were the case, region would have become an official administrative division in India, but clearly it is not Vamsisv (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong. Allocations are done based on region not district. Per this article in 2011, "As per the state's quota system, seats are reserved for candidates from each of the three regions (Telangana, Rayalaseema and Andhra) in medical colleges located in the respective regions. In this system, 85 per cent of the seats are reserved entirely for students hailing from the respective region. Rest of the seats are open to both locals and non-locals." Gentlemen agreement of 1956 says ".. it has been agreed to the representatives of Andhra and Telangana that the expenditure of the new state(Andhra Pradesh) on central and general administration should be borne proportionately by the two regions and the balance of (Telangana)income should be reserved for expenditure on the development of Telangana area,..". Per this agreement there was Telangana regional council which was responsible for administration of Telangana region including budget, development planning, education, local administration, land sales etc. Justice Bhargava committee of 1969 looked into violations of Gentleman's agreement in regards to Telangana budget allocations. Per this article in 2003 "An estimated 60,000 unemployed youth from Telangana are eagerly awaiting the implementation of GO 610 which envisages the repatriation of non-locals working in various government departments who were recruited against the allotted quota." Ramcrk (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Documents from the 1950s and 1960s don't help here. We need current documents that include the term. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the current ones. Per this article in 2011, "As per the state's quota system, seats are reserved for candidates from each of the three regions (Telangana, Rayalaseema and Andhra) in medical colleges located in the respective regions. In this system, 85 per cent of the seats are reserved entirely for students hailing from the respective region. Rest of the seats are open to both locals and non-locals." Per this article in 2003 "An estimated 60,000 unemployed youth from Telangana are eagerly awaiting the implementation of GO 610 which envisages the repatriation of non-locals working in various government departments who were recruited against the allotted quota." Regarding same topic, per this report in 2011, ".. the Cabinet sub-committee offered to the JAC that the Legislature Committee, the Cabinet sub-committee and the official committee headed by Chief Secretary would be revived immediately, to rectify the injustice done to Telangana employess as proposed by Girglani Committee in its report..." Ramcrk (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You are providing news articles and claim them to be official reports. And you are again wrong in your information. College admissions happen based on local/non-local status of districts but not region. Reservation for state government jobs happen based on zones but not region. Vamsisv (talk)

Here is the link to Osmania University site which says "I. Admission to 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the Osmania University, shall be reserved in favour of LOCAL CANDIDATES in relation to the LOCAL AREA in respect of the Osmania University, subject to community and other reservations that are in force. A. LOCAL AREA : The part of the State comprising the districts of Adilabad, Hyderabad (including twin cities), Karimnagar, Khammam, Mahabbobnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Nizamabad, Ranga Reddy and Warangal shall be regarded as the local area for the purpose of admission to the Osmania University and to any other educational institution (other than State-wide Educational Institution which is subject to the control of the State Government and is situated in the part).". Per States Reorganisation Commission of 1955(see para 389), all these districts forms Telangana region. Ramcrk (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Until 1973, Jobs reservation was based on region(namely, Telangana region and Andhra region). After 6 point-formula of 1973, state was divided into 6zones. Telangana region was divided into 2 zones, Andhra region was divided into 4 zones(See page 24 of link). Even after this, violations continued in 2 zones in Telangana , Thats the reason for GO610 in 1985 and Girglani commission in 2001. Thats what above news article talking about. Ramcrk (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so admissions to the 3 regional universities happen based on districts under local area for those universities. But government jobs clearly don't have that division. And this is because there is no administrative division for Telangana yet. Vamsisv (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

We had parallel government with Telangana regional council between 1956 and 1973. Thats the reason Bhargava committee could access the region wise income and expenditures in 1969 and could prove that there was fund diversion from Telangana to Andhra. After Andhra people's complaints and Jai Andhra movement in 1972, protections to Telangana were diluted and government removed Telangana regional council, created zones; but continued regional reservations for college admissions. So, there is always some kind of reservation on regional basis, one way or other. Its about how much. Now, Srikrishna committee in 6th option proposed the revival of regional committee(which Telangana proponents rejected). Ramcrk (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is what I've been saying - presently there is no recognition for Telangana as a region. As I've said before, once Srikrishna committee's recommendation of regional committee on telangana is implemented and a regional council formed on the lines of Gorkhaland, then it makes sense to treat Telangana as a region in official sense. Till then it is only your POV that you are pushing. Vamsisv (talk) 07:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You are conveniently trying to ignore regional wise reservations in educational institutions. All I am saying is regional identity is/was always important in AP for one thing or other. It was more before 1973, its less now, tomorrow it could be more again in the form of regional committee or in the form of new state. Since region determines some of the govt benefits, so, region info should be included in the info-box. Ramcrk (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I very much agree that reservation in regional universities is based on districts comprising that region, but it is too much to extrapolate that to "region determining government benefits". If such were the case, the details would be very obvious and we would not be debating so much. Vamsisv (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Admission to govt college is govt benefit. You get that benefit based on which region you belong to. Ramcrk (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You cannot extrapolate "reservation of admissions in regional universities" to "region being the basis for all government benefits". And it is not official. Vamsisv (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not say all benefits. Even state or district is not basis for all benefits. All I say is, region is basis for at least one govt benefit. That means you can not ignore region. Ramcrk (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You were the one who talked about government benefits. If you show atleast one benefit based on region, then I'm sure there are more than 1 benefit not based on region. Hence no importance to region? This argument is just getting pointless. Awaiting some constructive inputs from you. Else, I suggest we both take a break from this for sometime with status quo continuing on the article. Vamsisv (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You are the only editor objecting to the inclusion. There is precedence to include the region info even if its not official region but mere geographical region. But Telangana has political, historical significance. On top of it, I proved here that region is significant in receving at least one government benefit; that is admissions to local universities. Now the burden on you to convince rest of us why it should not be included. Until you convince rest of us(at least some of us), we should include this info. Right now you are the only editor who is objecting to the inclusion of this. You don't get to dictate your views on rest of us. Ramcrk (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To me it looks like you are the only author pushing so strongly for its inclusion and you would know the agenda behind it. You are not sitting on a high pedestal to order me to convince you. Infact it is the other way around, where you convince on the logic and benefit of including the same (sadly personal agenda isn't a benefit you can convince people on) You are the one dictating to me and you were the one asking me to "go change bangalore, tokyo articles". I request you once again to divert your aggression away from me Vamsisv (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

While I am currently unclear as to whether this region should be mentioned (before I was opposed, but I see my analysis was overly simplistic) one option that absolutely is not on the table, per policy, is including it only in the infobox. If we want to include the info there, it must also be discussed in the text. Given that the inclusion is clearly complex, and whether or not the region exists in any official way is debatable, we need to explain in the article if we're going to include it. Also, I'm going to post a message on WT:INB requesting that others in the project come and comment on this issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Include:

• I am for Including the the region(Telangana) included in the info box. Ramcrk (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• In addition to Tokyo ..., Ratnagiri (Konkan), Nagpur (Vidarbha), Dhule (Khandesh), Aurangabad, Maharashtra (Marathawada), Udupi (Tulu Nadu), Karaikudi (Chettinad) do include region in the lead/template.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a geographic information, and a notable information as the region has significant political notability besides being a historic and geographic entity. For comprehensiveness, we should include this information. Even if there were not precedence (which we have), I would vote for inclusion of this information. Hyderabad just happens to be in Telangana region, no one can help it, and we can not hide it! Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not mention "Deccan" as region? Traditionally, Hyderabad is known to be part of Deccan region. Nizams were known to be rules of Deccan region and not Telangana. This inclusion is only to propagate a political agenda and nothing more. Vamsisv (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Your rationale is partially true. Hyderabad belongs to the Deccan region, and that needs to be mentioned, I agree with you. Deccan is a geographic region, and not mentioning that would be against comprehensiveness. And indeed, Deccan has been mentioned in the text.

However, Hyderabad is also a part of Telangana (which is a geographic/historic/politically significant entity, as far as I can understand). We can not stay away from truth for the fear of repercussions, or edit wars. I am unaware whether Nizams were known as the rulers of Deccan or Telangana. But that is irrelevant. This article is not about the Nizams. This is about Hyderabad, which belongs to both Deccan and Telangana (unless there is any geographic proof that Hyderabad does not belong to Telangana).

Personally speaking, I have no political agenda here. Speaking from a completely indifferent standpoint, Hyderabad incidentally falls within Telangana. You may be true that certain editors are pushing the inclusion of the name of Telangana to propagate a political agenda. If geography is incidentally in favor of those editors, you can not help that. Can you disagree that Hyderabad is within the Telangana region? In that case, you have to probably prove that there is no Telangan region in the first place. Telangana happens to be a historic and geographic region, and the name is associated with historic events such as Telangana rebellion and probably other more historic events. many such regions exist, such as Vidarbha, Konkan, Bengal.

Now, whether that necessarily needs to be mentioned in the lad, or infobox, that is a different question. But definitely it needs to be mentioned in the main body of the text. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc, No one can disagree that Hyderabad is part of what we currently refer to as "Telangana" region. But the issue, I'm raising is not that. It is as below:

1. Why is it relevant to mention region in the infobox esp. when there is so much resistance and the fact that this is a capital city? (I know there is precedence, but there was no diff of opinion there) It can be mentioned elsewhere in the article, but why only infobox as being pushed by some users with agenda?

2. Region is not an official administrative area in India. By adding it here we are only creating more precedence for future edit wars

3. Will the same logic apply to North India/South India since they are also "Regions" in India? Can North India be mentioned as region in New Delhi's Infobox?

4. Why not mention Deccan as region? Deccan has got more significance in Hyderabad compared to Telangana. Local population relate more to that.

Vamsisv (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am contributing to this article occationally for last few years. But it never occurred to me to include Telangana region. But when some editor tried to include Telangana region in info-box, some other editor reverted it. I could not understand why some people could not tolerate the name "Telangana". Its well known secret that AP govt tried to remove Telangana word form all official documents since 1970s after Jai Telangana and Jai Andhra movement with a hope that regional differences will go way. That kind of policies infuriated Telangan people even more. They thought Andhra dominated AP govt trying to erase Telangana identity. I see similar hegemony when I see such opposition from you to such a simple inclusion. Supressing somebody's identity will not improve the relations and increase the brotherhood. Respecting each other will. Ramcrk (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be based on "Well-known secrets".

Please stop making personal remarks/allegations on me. These kind of remarks are uncalled for. Vamsisv (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not making any personal remarks. It just making an observation. You are the one keep talking about personal agenda(you said that 5 times on this page). Nobody here have agenda. We all trying to contribute to wiki with our own knowledge, perspectives. I am ok if you convince us. But you trying to block the inclusion of relevant info based on your views with such disregard to the views of rest of the editors. You don't care what rest of the wiki editors think. You don't want consensus. You want everybody to agree to your views. You don't care abour precedence. You don't care about history. You don't care about political significance. You are stuck with "its not official" line. Even I proved that the region is official in the sense that college admissions are done on region basis. Ramcrk (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself now. All of the above construe personal remarks! Look at the number of "you"s used. Vamsisv (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, guys, please cool down. Wikistres is increasing here! Let me try to answer question posted above by Vamsi.

1. Mentioning Telangana only in infobox would not be good. Rather, we may choose not to mention the region in infobox at all. However, it should be mentioned in the body of the article.

2.Region is not an official administrative region in India, true. However, regions may carry historic, geographic, and political significance. To be comprehensive, we can not delete such information.

3.IMO same logic applies for North India, South India etc. However, that does not necessarily go in the infobox. As an example, the second sentence in the lead of Kolkata says that it is "...principal commercial, cultural, and educational centre of East India".

4.Of course Deccan should be mentioned. I have no idea whether the people of Hyderabad relate more to Deccan than Telangana. However, from a gneral knowledge point of view, Deccan region is more geographically significant then Telangana,.

To summarise, Telangana must be mentioned, probably not in the infobox, but definitely in the body of the article. At present, the lead of the article is not in a good shape, and I have been planning to improve and expand it after some points raised in the ongoing peer review have been addresses. So, I request all the editors to channelize the resources to improve the article. The principal editors are planning for a FAC. Let's work towards that. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

For those above supporting inclusion, I'd like to know exactly what text you propose to add to the article. As I said before, adding it only to the infobox is absolutely wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Something innocuous. Example: Hyderabad lies within the Telangana region of the state. May be in Geography section. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with not mentioning region in the infobox. But it can definitely be mentioned elsewhere in the article. At the same Deccan should also find a place in the article. Vamsisv (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

* I would like to see the info-box with line "Region: Telangana" ; just like Bangalore(Bayaluseeme) , Tokyo(Kantō), Mangalore(Tulu Nadu), Ratnagiri (Konkan), Nagpur (Vidarbha), Dhule (Khandesh), Aurangabad, Maharashtra (Marathawada), Udupi (Tulu Nadu), Karaikudi (Chettinad). Hyderabad being in the middle of Telangana is one of primary reasons for the merger of Telangana with Andhra(read para 371 of States Reorganisation Commission of 1955). Per Srikrishna committee, Hyderabad being in the middle of Telangana is one of the main reasons for the delay in the formation of Telangana state. Also, students from Hyderabad comes under Telangana region quota and are eligible for reservations in all Telangana regional universities(They are local in Telangana region and there is 85% quota to locals). But they are not eligible to apply for regional universities in Andhra region(they become non-local in Andhra region; can only compete for 15% seats not reserved for Andhra locals). Due to historical and political significance and administrative reasons inclusion is needed.

Since region has no administrative recognition in India - there is bound to be many overlaps. Should we mention the geographic region? political region? which level of geographic or political? There is no clear distinction. Hence it is better to avoid mentioning region in infobox.

You can give lengthy texts to repeat a point which we have agreed (on reservation in regional universities for districts under the local area of that university), but you CANNOT extrapolate and drag same point to falsely project it as an administrative area.

Historically, Hyderabad has always related to "Deccan" as region and not Telangana. Vamsisv (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Deccan is geograpic region. But Telangana is more than that. Per this link, His Silver throne from his father was replaced by the magnificent Takht-e-Firoza (Turquoise Throne) on March 23, 1363 presented to him by Raya of Tilangana. Telangana has historical significance over the centuries and continued keep its identity even now. 15:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto with Deccan (abt historical significance & continued identity). Infact Deccan has a far older historical significance. Looks like you feel Geographic region shouldn't be mentioned but "much more" region be mentioned! Vamsisv (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said not to include Deccan. All I said Telangana has relevance even now. Its a region in Andhra pradesh state which has political, historical significance even today. Its contnue to dominate national headlines even today. We can include both regions. But if we have to include only one region in the info-box, it will have to be Telangana for above mentioned reasons. Ramcrk (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And tomorrow if some other "Region" sounds relevant include that too? We can instead not mention region at all in the infobox as suggested by many reviewers - since clearly it can mean multiple things! Vamsisv (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

What ever is relevant and historically significant should be included. I have shown Telangana is relevant and historically significant and there is precedence to include region info in the info-box. Ramcrk (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you want to continue this argument just like that. Despite your multiple attempts, it is very evident that Deccan is more relevant & significant. That is if region "has" to be mentioned! Vamsisv (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nobody uses to describe himself or herself as Deccani in Hydarabad. Hyderabad students come under Telangana quota for university admissions. There is Telangana movement. There is good chance that there will be a Telangana state in near future. Its incorrect to say that Deccan is more relevant than Telangana. If you are not sure, just read any news paper. Which topic is more discussed? Deccan or Telangana? Ramcrk (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Refer to the precedence you have cited - No one in Bangalore is known as Bayaluseemite. Nor do they discuss it in news papers. Nor is there a movement. The criteria you are giving for region to be listed is very subjective - which is why Me & many other editors are suggesting that region be not mentioned at all. Vamsisv (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats my point. When all these articles have region in info-box why is it not allowed for Telangana which has more relevant for current times? If there is consensus in wiki community to remove region info in in-info box(currenty there is none), Telangana should be the last one to be removed because of relevancy and history. Ramcrk (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed by your arguments! That Telangana is more relevant than Deccan is ONLY your subjective opinion. That region should not be mentioned in the infobox in this article is what many editors feel! Vamsisv (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Until I see some policy prohibiting region inclusion in info-box, Telangana should be included. Ramcrk (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not everything is governed by directly by policy. When no policy speaks, we defer to editorial consensus. If there is a consensus to include it, we should. The default must be to not include it. Is there such a consensus now? There does not seem to be. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There will not be 100% consensus for anything. If you look for consensus there will not be single edit on wiki. So far I have not seen one single reason why region info should not be included in the info-box(other than that it might lead to edit wars). Imagine one Palastine editor objecting to an article on Israel. Or imagine one Israeli editor objecting to an article on Palastine. Just because there is no consensus you won't remove articles on Palastine or on Israel. You can not deny information just because there is no consensus. Ramcrk (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can: WP:CONSENSUS is policy. It's how Wikipedia works. It's the fundamental requirement way we resolve disputes. Otherwise, what would we do when people disagree? However, you are misunderstanding: WP:CONSENSUS does not require 100% agreement. But if you have a case where an overwhelming majority opposes something, then that is consensus. If you have a divided opinion, what you do is leave out the information until you can find a consensus/compromise. To do that, you may need to follow dispute resolution. I've already started that process by asking at WT:INB; if you wish to go further, you may wish to consider starting an WP:RfC in a new section. Unless I'm wrong, and there is actually a consensus supporting the inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought consensus means 100% agreement. Now, I get it. I guess we have consensus for inclusion of region info. So far except vamsisv nobody else objecting to inclusion region in info-box. Thanks. Ramcrk (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Duh! There is no consensus for inclusion of the region info. And more importantly there is no consensus on why Telangana should be mentioned as region and not Deccan! Many editors though seem to agree that there is lot of conflict here and it is better to avoid mentioning region in infobox. Vamsisv (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me summarize the voting here.

For: Ramcrk, Redtigerxyz, Lynch(MikeLynch), Qwyrxian.

Nuetral: x.one(secret_of_success) agreed initially but worried about edit wars; Dwaipayan

Oppose : Vamsisv

So far vamsisv is only the editor who is opposing inclusion. This means there is overwhelming support(4 vs 1) for inclusion. If this is not consensus what is? Ramcrk (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think this is the method to gain consensus! And you voting on behalf of others.!! A lot of discussion has happened since the last time anyone of "for" users responded here. And you even ducked the question of why not "Deccan". You could only give a subjective opinion. No user commented on that!. So sorry to burst your bubble but this is no consensus. Vamsisv (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Um, could you please provide diffs? I don't recall providing any support for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I misunderstood you. I see you are nuetral now. sorry. Here are the diffs. Redtigerxyz yes , MikeLynch yes, Qwyrxian(Initial oppose changed to nuetral), X.one (Initial yeslater nuetral), Dwaipayanc(Initial yeslater nuetral ). Summary: For :3; nuetral : 3; oppose :1. I don't know any otherway to find whether we have consensus or not. I am taking editors last opinion on the subject as their vote. If they changed their opinion they should post it here. Ramcrk (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc clearly mentioned that we may chose not to mention region in infobox at all! How is that neutral??!!! And Lynch who is the other person "for" has not specified why Telangana should be mentioned and not Deccan as region in the infobox - if at all it has to be mentioned Vamsisv (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc used the words "we may choose not to mention region in info-box". Does not mean he does not want it. It means he is not sure what will be the final consensus. Regarding your other comment, Here the discussion is whether to put Telangana region in infox box or not for which Lynch opinion is "Yes". I think there is consensus for including it. Vamsisv thinks there is no consensus. Does anybody else think one way or other? Ramcrk (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Break (after vote)

* We should say in the Introduction that Hyderabad is in the Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. We can also say that before partition, Hyderabad city used to be referred as Hyderabad-Deccan to distiguish it from Hyderabad-Sindh. In Geogrpahy section, we can say "Hyderabad is in Telangana region of the Deccan Plateau". We should include the fact that Hyderabad students come under Telangana region for regional reservations under Education section. We can expand the history section and mention briefly about Telangana regional council and other protections in jobs, budget allocations etc., mentioned in (Gentlemen agreement of 1956; violations of which led to Telangana movement in 1969; and removal of some of the protections after Jai Andhra movement in 1973 with 6-point formula and 32nd constitutional amendment. Can also include the fact that Girglani committee documented and violations to 6-point formula in job recruitments in 2001 which is one of the reasons for Telangana movement. In administration section we can also, include the fact that Hyderabad comes under zone6 for recruitments as per the 6 point-formula of 1973(see page 24 of link). Ramcrk (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why history section of this article should talk about T movement. And zone 6 doesn't mean T region - so why are even bringing up that topic in this disussion Vamsisv (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to include T-movement because Hyderabad is in the middle of Telangana. Because Hyderabad is the center of all protest activities during 1969 Telangana movement and the movement now. Every major event in Telangana history affected Hyderabad. Just like major events of Hyderabad state(like operation polo), Golconda kingdom affected Hyderabad city, major events of Telangana also affected the city. Just like we included the major events of Hyderabad state, Golconda kingdom; we include the major events in Telangana history. How can you not mention Telangana movement? Every daynews articles talk about Hyderabad and Telangana movement. They write tons of article and editorials about Hyderabad being the crux of Telangana problem. But when you see in Hyderabad article on wiki it does not talk about Telangana and how and why Telangana movement related to Hyderabad. I would not write too much about it but explain the movement is few sentenses so that reader get an idea about the issue that affecting the city. we can include the link to main article Telangana movement, on which Vamsisv and I spent lot time in last few years. If you don't explain Telangana movement, Hyderabad article is incomplete. Why zone6 important? Every person who is looking for government job in Hyderabad needs to know about the fact that Hyderabad city is in zone 6. I think its good info to include. I know zone 6 is not T region. Zone 6 is one of the 2 zones in Telangana. Ramcrk (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me introduce you guys to WP:OSE. X.One ^SOS 14:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This is hyperbole, right, Ramcrk? You're trying to transform major sections of this article into information about Telangana. This isn't the Telangana article. This is an article about 1 city. Explaining the Telangana movement here is directly violating WP:UNDUE--the movement is not integral to the city's history. Take all of that information to the Telangana article, and figure out 1-3 concise sentences that can be included here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I only suggested minor changes. My suggestions hardly change the article. I agree it should not be more than 2-3 sentences in history section(which already exist). Sentence 1 about the merger of Andhra Telangana(exist already. link to Gentleman's agreement needs to added). Sentence 2 about 1969 movement, 1972 movement and six point formula.(Exists already. may be link to six point formula needes to be added) Sentence 3 about current movement(already exists. May be a link to Girglani commission?). I think, mentioning the region name in Introduction, Geogpahy is appropriate, relevant and useful. I think mentioning about regional reservations is appropriate to include in Education section(1 sentence will do). Ramcrk (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't Include

Scripts

Consensus at WT:INB was to remove scripts from the first sentence of Indian location and other articles. There were a variety of reasons, but the main ones are that they don't help most readers and that they are the subject of endless edit-warring: someone adds Hindi, someone else adds Urdu, then someone removes Hindi, etc. Given that there is little benefit and lots of problems, removing is the best choice. If people know how to do it, add IPA code was considered okay. OmarHussein said that it was a consensus of editor, not policy...which is kind-of true, except it fails to understand that on Wikipedia, consensus itself is policy. Now, you are welcome to try to change that consensus, but individual article editors cannot override a more general consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Qwyrxian does WT:INB apply to other articles here, here, here, here, here, here, etc...???

• Qwyrxian is this "but individual article editors cannot override a more general consensus" WP policy???? plz specify where???

• Qwyrxian plz specify where does WP says that, editors concensus is WP Policy. Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 07:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Omer, please go through the entire discussion and as well as the final decision on this issue. Consensus was to remove non-English scripts from articles all together. But that does not mean it has to happen in a jiffy. It can take its time and be removed in a span of 6 months from all Indian related articles, but once removed whether now or later, it does not qualify for an inclusion on the basis that some other articles still have them. — Abhishek  ^Talk 07:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Mass removal is what the closing editor said to avoid. One or two articles at a time. X.One ^SOS 08:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is a subsection of the policy WP:CONSENSUS, is the policy which describes issues of local vs. global decisions. But if you think about it, it obviously has to be that way. Otherwise 4 or 5 editors could create a page with original research and and hate-filled POV, and turn away any one or two editors who removed it per policy. As for the other articles, please remove them when you see them, though, as others say, there's no rush. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian this does not reads that “ editors concensus is WP policy” as per your claim/advice?? In-fact it says “participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.” :) regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. And since no policy mandates script inclusion, it's up to editorial discretion. But if you prefer, currently 3 users support removing the scripts. If we asked for advice at WT:INB (asking a Wikiproject is an acceptable way to get help without violating WP:CANVAS), then 5 more people would be here soon to also say the scripts should be removed. Plus, none of this addresses the real reasons for removal: you have given no actual argument for inclusion. To be honest, I would like them removed from the infobox as well. Do you 1) have a rationale why they should be included and 2) a very clear set of reasons (ideally backed with references) to show exactly which scripts should be listed? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

with the fear of edit warring or Majority may not accept, we should not avoid the good faith, and As per WP policy: here: "Straw votes should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision." Here: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Here: Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers says, which can be summarized as " numbers does not count, if discussion/consensus is against fair topic".

1) I keep neutral view here, (in-fact if the site is English:WP the context should also be in English). My main objection was to make uninformative among the articles, Like, Why just only Hyd should not contain names in native?? or if just one [6] disturbs the article, Why RfC's should apply only to Hyd?? and not to others, In-fact I ask, User:Secret of success where is the consensus for this rfc's??? 2) how do you justify that consensus was created for this rfc's.

Qwyrxian at same time if some one want to keep, I don't see any thing irrational in including names in native to a lead for geographic articles, it provides instant message to reader that XYZ is a native language,etc etc (for Ex: France, Moscow, Tokyo, Dubai etc). And at the same time name of place, from the the language of origin seams okay and reasonable. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Omer, if you want to make this analysis active once more and change the consensus, please do so at WT:IN through another rfc. The consensus for this one can be clearly found here. Going against it is not advisable, as it would result in edit-warring and plausibly a break of 3RR eventually leading to a block. X.One ^SOS 09:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR applies to every editor, and mostly you would have given this reason in begging. :) regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Begging? What do you mean by that? X.One ^SOS 13:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Apology for "begging" word it was mis-spelled by mistake: it actually mean beginning. --Omer123hussain (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Omer, if a dozen people in that discussion, along with at least 3 here, all think the scripts don't belong, then if you try to force them into the article, you will inevitably be the one to break 3RR. But that's not what's important: the important thing is that a consensus was reached, and Wikipedia operates on consensus. Now, if you think that previous decision was wrong, you can certainly pursue dispute resolution. You could either start an RfC here, or seek to re-open the discussion at WT:INB (and possibly attempt to pursue mediation there). Do you want to do that? All over some scripts, which will inevitably be the target of bad faith edit wars (not by you, by drive-by editors)? Feel free, but at this point, the onus is on you if you want to try to change consensus (either here or at India-related articles in general). Probably the most certain way to do it would be to very clearly and explicitly explain here exactly what scripts should be on this page, why those scripts are there, and why all others should be excluded. Consider both contemporary and historical reasons, and be sure to find some reasonable way we can all agree on what minority languages should be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian thanks for your detailed response, thou above, i was some time arguable and wrong at certain point, but you had handled the conversation very positively and specified the matter in very nice way, for which I appreciate your great skills.

Its okay I also support that the E-WP should go only with English (uniformly to all) as it is based in English, Same as Britanica, Colombia, and also Encyclopedia Iranica. Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 20:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Page protected

Since people here can't seem to work out their issues on their own, I've protected the article for 3 days. Use that time to sort out your dispute; if it gets resolved, let me know and I'll unprotect the page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Tranlation of the name

Hyderabad is simply mentioned in English, its translation and pronunciation must be in Hindi and Urdu as well, if its not necessary please let me know or please make necessary changes. ChitranshGaurav 15:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Indic translations are no longer allowed in all articles under WP:INDIA. A consensus has been achieved here regarding that matter. The same applies for Indic translation. Regards, Secret of success (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

issues

1. I wish to include the skyline image in hyderabad demographics, I think it is needed.

• Unless your image is applied with WP policies, you may avoid it. The reason to avoid images in article is edit warring, avoid personel taste (because some images may look good to our sight but other editors may not feel it suitable in the article), if it is really worthy we shall proceed with it.

• The another reason Demographics section is empty here without any image in this article is: it will be occupied with Relegious Demographics Chart once it is published.

2. I wish to correct the third paragraph in the introductory section, reference doesnt say pharmaceutical capital

• Probably lead does not require sources, As it is a summary of the article, you may find the proper source in the article's section Economy with specific details why Hyderabad India is known as pharmaceutical Capital of India.

3. as per the reference the number of slums in hyderabad is not given

• Do not remove any unsourced information, search out for the reliable source then if you do not find any, Discusse the unsource claim on talk page, and with consencus of other editors it may be removed from the article.

4. I wish to improve this article, and its poor grammar

• Please go ahead and do your best, No one will stop you, if it is correct, with goot faith and with Consensus.

(Theniyogi (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)).

Hope your all wishes are answered, Happy editing Hyderabad, India. Cheers :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC) --Omer123hussain (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

hii I did my best, I did not do any changes to Economy section, since u have mentioned that it is well sourced. I did not remove any sourced information or sources in other sections. (Theniyogi (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC))

There is no consensus here at all. Where has anyone agreed to your edits? — Abhishek  ^Talk 17:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

okay, you want me to wait, untill u agree???(Theniyogi (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)).

I may not agree totally. Other editors have to agree anyways. — Abhishek  ^Talk 17:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

okay I agree, I am new to this kindly be patient, please revert my edit, but atleast let me improve the grammar (Theniyogi (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC))

please let me know if anything i contributed is not required, I will undo my edits.(Theniyogi (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)).

Dear Theniyogi, for text Hyderabad as a "Pharmaceutical capital of India" is sourced/reference is provided in section Economy with detail information, further to this, no need to source this text in lead, as lead is a summary of entire Article. If we apply repeating sources in the lead it will have to be removed while Feature Article Peer Review.

Please do not get de-motivate for undo/reverting of your edits as our Regular Petrolling Editors encounter lot of fake/Vandal editors playing with the article, Thus do not take it personally and do your work with dedication definitely it will be valued and encouraged. Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Culture

Hi, since last couple of days, I had made multiple additions in the section Culture, kindly make if any corrections are required or plz let us know. regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Omer - Can you please consider including some lines on the statues (destroyed ones as well) on Tankbund which after-all represent culture & language of the state including the city? Vamsisv (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

History

Started a discussion about the History of Hyderabad, Kindly discuss the concerns here before making any changes in the lead. :) Regards.--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Those follow this article may have come across the reverts done by Omer123hussain to some of my changes. I posted the following (below) on his site, and welcome comments from others who have had a look at what I added (2 weeks ago) to Hyderabad article as I feel it is valid changes and relevant. "I noticed your desire to revert everything to what you feel is correct has in the past resulted in much criticism of you (Omer123hussain) by others to the point that I read one say it has begun a 'how many per hour' scenario! If you do not like my alterations let me know the reason why, rather than reverting. I have tried to be reasonable in any editing I have done on this or other articles - the goal being to establish a comprehensive erudite encyclopaedic text - and some times for example I think you forget that it is intended for the ignorant as well as the learned, so it is essential that in the lead section the important salient points are expressed even if later repeated in another sections as the lead is a quick summary of the whole for he who has little time or interest to read all the sections or sub-sections."Mhakcm (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Every right person in this world faces criticism first :), any way thats not the issue we are here to discuss, Let me know what context you want to discuss in the lead. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

waste water management in hyderabad

Waste water management in Hyderabad, a research report--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Others

Drama and Theater, Pp-20, 1984, 3, 4 5 6

Literary, Encyclopedia, Pp-Telugu-1746, Urdu-1748, Pp-1260 (fani, josh kishanpershad), pandith ratan nath sarshar Literary organizations, Participation and sponsorship by corporate industry, A History of Indian Literature, Min of culture, India

Taramati, mahalaqa bai chanda, Taramati baradari.

Montage Image

Someone recently replaced the original montage with a relatively less-clarity and less summarizing image.I searched commons and added an image which looked suitable to me.Please comment on the change so that we can reach a new consensus on the image.PS:I'm opposed to add the original montage which contains only four images.
Links
my edit to replace the image with a better clarity one Regards TheStrikeΣagle 16:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• The montage that you added had some pages which are deleted due to copyright issue, here which is against the WP policy, and the article will get rejected in FAC due to this minor negligence. Because of this reason only I had created the montage with valid pages, and applied.

• The montage what I created contains 5 images, and all the images have copy right licence, I'll workout and do some polish for bright resilience, I agree it's not bright as it should be in FA article.

• Do you oppose due to any WP policy or you just don't like the earlier montage-? If we do not like/oppose some thing legal, it does not mean that any image with licencing issue can be replaced. In the montage what you are requesting to apply, if you can help to replace those with common licence then it is perfect montage I believe too. I searched earlier but could not find the proper images of those deleted images to replace in the montage what you applied.

• As per earlier consensus here the montage what you applied is ok, but again it will have license issue, thus I am replacing it now, other wise probably there will be a licence issue tag on the article. Once the proper montage is created, there is no issue we shall replace the one which I applied.

• Thanks for your enthusiasm to edit at Hyderabad, India, hope you will co-operate to make it a FA. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the image I placed had a copy-right issue :) Thanks for pointing it out.

BTW...I don't personally think the inclusion of Novotel is necessary.There are many five star hotels in hyderabad, and Novotel just being one of them.:) If required, I will upload a better version of the same pic.Please inform me in my talk of what you think should replace Novotel.Regards TheStrikeΣagle 08:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi strike, any update about the new montage image. --Omer123hussain (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops you retired.. --Omer123hussain (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Slums

is it required to have a seperate section about slums? There are many slums in Mumbai but I do not see any such section --sarvajna (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

well, it is not "required" to have a section on slums. However, this article has a detail level which needs a good discussion on slums. The main contributor created a subsection on slums under the section Demographics for the ease of read, just like Architecture or Literatuee subsections under the section Culture. With the level,of detailing this article has, it is acceptable to have such a subsection.

In case Mumbai has a similar level of detailing, that article can also make use of a separate subsection on slums. Hyderabad is currently being prepared for Featured article candidacy. So it needs to be comprehensive. From the perspective of being comprehensive, with appropriate and proportionate weight to significant aspects of the city, it definitely needs a good discussion about the slums, as it needs good discussion on cuisine or architecture. --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Expansion, moved

Please see here, explanation given for my removal of expansion information. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I further removed the sentence related to fiancial matters related to subsidiary alliance. That info already exists in subsidiary alliance article. Ramcrk (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Restoring with minor correction, to specify the purpose of stationing the army. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If we include rent, we have to include the statement that tells Hyderabad state becoming bankrupt because of the subsidiary alliance. Otherwise it will appear that Hyderabad state financially benefited from subsidiary alliance. Which is further from truth. Subsidiary alliance virtually made Hyderabad state the client state of the Company. Company forced all kinds of things on Nizam. I included the statement that refers to Hyderabad state becoming bankrupt because of the British policies. Ramcrk (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but we can discuss that in main article rather than in this article. As I informed you here, If we include that sentence then again we have to specify how they become richest state and 'how they became the world richest monarch/person. This all will again make the article lengthy.

• Other option is we can discuss and finalize here a suitable sentence of 1-2 lines which could cover the situation in very few words and then place it in the article.
• Exactly it was not due to subsidiary alliance, even the source which you attest does not specifically reads that, but it was due to inability and policies of the rulers the state went in to bankruptcy (there are many RS to prove this claim), the successor Nizam changed the situation and scenario with his policies, as being the subsidiary state. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the need to include that British paid rent. Why Hyderabad state become banrupt even after they got rent. It means rent is not enough to maintain the British armies. Here I quoting from source British archives ..

"In 1802 the British government deprived the Nizam of his share of Tippu's dominions, which now forms what is known as the Ceded districts. In return, however, for this cession, the Nizain was In the following years relieved from the presence of the Mahrattas on his SW frontiers; and at a later period, when the Pindarrie war brought Lord Hastings into collision with the Peishwa, the greater Mahratta confederacy on the N was also destroyed. By the subjugation of this formidable people on either extremity of the Deccan, the Nizam ceased to have any foreign enemies to be protected against; and it is argued by some parties, the utility of the subsidiary force, which had taken its fair share in the transactions of both periods, was, as far as he was concerned, at an end. Our resident at Hyderabad, however, induced the Nizam to accept and pay for another army called the Hyderabad contingent, which might be regarded as a contribution to the grand army of India in finding the officers and the Nizam the pay. The subsidiary force was to be used against external attacks only. At first it was composed of barely 3,000 men; but gradually it has grown to a strength equal to that of the other body; and, unlike it,is scattered through the Deccan in several cantonments. It is called the Nizam's army, though his highness cannot command even an escort from it Its cost was an additional charge on the revenues of the Nizam of nearly £350,000 perann.; and still remains so. There is thus altogether in the Deccan a British force of some 15,000 or 20,000 soldiers; much more highly officered by Europeans than the Company's troops; and its complete disposition is confided to the resident The Nizam, although bound to pay for both, has no real power over either army; and it is represented that the pretence on which the contingent was raised and Increased, and is still paid, has never been carried out; for it never did, and does not effectually assist in enabling the Nizam to carry on his government; while the presence of this immense foreign army has deprived him of the respect of his subjects, without supplying him with the means of collecting his revenue or insuring their obedience. Unable to carry on his government by means of the contingent the Nizam has been obliged to take into his service bands of Arab, Sikh, Kohilla, Beluchis, and Patan mercenaries; and thus he has no fewer than three armies to provide for, viz., the subsidiary force; tha H. contingent, intended to enable him to conduct his internal administration; and the Arab troops. Can we then wonder, it is asked, "that his treasury is empty and his finances embarrassed that he is £850,000 in arrear to the British government; that he is £1,000,000 sterling in debt to Parsi capitalists for money borrowed to keep up his payments to our government; that the Arabs, being unpaid, arc disorderly, audacious, and rebellious; and that the country Is somewhat disorganized? " That the effects of our military connexion with the Deccan have been so disastrous to the Nizam, Is by no means evident. "

Hyderabad state bankrupt because British forced Nizam to maintain 3 armies. That increased the burden on the Hyderabad state. It means rent British paying is much lower than actual expense to Hyderabad state. Hyderabad state is loosing on this financially. How Hyderabad state recovered from this? May be it increased the taxes on people. But if we include the rent, we have to include tha fact that Hyderabad state become bankrupt because of the subsidary alliance. Ramcrk (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding or confused between the(1)-Treaty of Masulipatnam and (2)-Subsidiary alliance, In case (1) the british agreed to pay rent for obtaining the coastal region, and it is important to discuss in the article because later the british went into errors, case was filed which later went into the favor of the nizam, and in retion of those errors the british had to give the accession of Berrar region to the Nizams, but this all we cannot discusses in the article related to city. and in Case (2) the nizam have to pay the maintenance of british troops, which later due to there inability and discrepancies of there ministers became defaulter, any how they recovered from those debts, due to renovation of there policies.

Any way I had specified both "the treaty of masulipatnam" and "subsidary alliance" in the paragraph, with minimum words to avoid over burden on the article, for further expansion we may use main article. Retards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This new version looks ok to me mostly, except that (1) Nizam paid all the expenses for the maintenance of troops. (2)you removed the development of modern facilities in Hyderabad starting 19century. I have correct (1). I restored (2). I have put (2) in only one sentence because I also don't want the article to become big. Hyderabad became modern city with modern facilities like infrastructure (railways, roads, under ground drainage, running water, electricity, airport), universities, other modern industries established in late 19th century early 20th century. More importantly, Hyderabad became modern city during the Nizam times. We need to mention that fact in this section. Economic history of the city also part of the history. If you are not sure, please look at articles related to any of the major cities in the world like LA, New York, London, Tokyo etc. Ramcrk (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)