Jump to content

Talk:Mumbai/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Done with History section

Tremendous amount of High quality References have been added to the History section. Any suggestions, additions are welcomed. Thanks, KensplanetTC 05:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Alignment of Images

Images need to be aligned in all possible directions in an oscillatory serpentine fashion. KensplanetTC 06:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

rp template

It looks weird to me. I searched for it but could not find an FA that uses it. There was some discussion on in Wikipedia, but it does not look like a well-accepted stuff.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I myself am not comfortable with the template. But we cannot help it since we are not using the {{harvnb}} template for books. If you check REF23

Dwivedi, Sharada; Rahul Mehrotra (2001). Bombay: The Cities Within. Eminence Designs.
It has been referenced 6 times. All References have different page Numbers. How do we solve this then. The current rp template seems to solve this problem. Something different for Harvnb since all books go in a seperate section below References.
One solution could be including the citation just after the sentence : These islands, were in turn leased to the British East India Company in 1668 for a sum of £10 per annum by the Royal Charter of 27 March 1668 (Dwivedi & Mehrotra 2001, p. 21). The population quickly rose from 10,000 in 1661, to 60,000 in 1675.
Although scholarly, but not popular, wastes spaces and is embarassing and uncomfortable for many readers.
But for implementing HARVNB as in Mangalore FA, the entire article will have to be restructured. It will consume a lot of time and is not much required. Mysore uses this kind of template. KensplanetTC 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I can help in using Harvnb and associated templates, if this change sounds good. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The {{rp}} template look ugly to be too, and will look even worse if we need to cite a range of pages. I too can help with converting to Harvard referencing this weekend, unless there are any objections to using that scheme. One question: How do we use {{harvnb}} with websites/news reports athat don't have an author ? Or do, we we use the template only for books and journal papers ? Abecedare (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I am jsut picking one article from FAc: Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Its clear that Harvnb need to be used only or Books whose page nos go on varying depending on the statement. It need not be used for Online Websites/news etc...KensplanetTC 19:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
They seem to be using cite book (as against Harvard reference), which is usually good if a url like google book link is available. But, if Harvnb is used, it will show a link in notes section, but that link target will work only if Harvard reference is used. Else, if cite book is used, typically we can use ref like <ref>Writer, p. 150</ref> as this FAc is using. --GDibyendu (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Kens actually used Harvnb for a source. But then I told that if we use Harvnb, we have to use them in all book sources, in order to maintain regularity of ref style. Now, the article already has many cite book refs, and converting them to Harvnb will taks a lot of time. Given that we are in a FAR, my opinion was to try to improve the article overall and provide new references, rather than giving a lot of time to concert to Harvnb. However, Harvnb is definitely preferred choice. On the other hand, if we use cite book (with rp as needed), time needed will be much less. In case we decided to convert all present book refs to Harvnb, we can ask the FAR to give some more time than usual, as active work is going on. Still, it would take a lot of our time. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, as such I can spend time on doing this. But, there are issues. 1) Suketu Mehta's book has been cited twice, but the two use different publishers and isbns: if someone has access to this book, then please confirm that both citations appear in that or not. 2) Typically, the link generated by harvnb reads as 'lastname, year'. What should it be for Manorama yearbook?--GDibyendu (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not compulsory that HARVNB should always have the (last name Year, p. xyz) format. For Manorama yearbook, it should be, (Malyalam Manorama 2003, p. 21). HARVNB sometimes can also have title of the book, instead of the preferred last name style. This is preferred for Government sources and PDFs, who do not have authors. In such cases, we can just mention title of the PDF, (Crime statistics 2004, p. 5). We can adjust HARVNB as per our convenience. KensplanetTC 08:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I think Dwapayanc, its better to continue with harvnb. Readers reading our articles may not be interested in Page nos. For them only the Prose and text matters. As already mentioned by Abecadare, for citing a range of pages : pp. 213-215 , it looks ugly KensplanetTC 08:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I am now done with the cite books except that I left out 5-6 links from Maharashtra Gazetteer links, which I believe should be cite web (though I did not change them to cite web).--GDibyendu (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Great work GDibyendu!!!. Gazetters also have to be in the Reference section since they are high quality published books not ordinary low quality web pages. I'll soon move it. Anyway, do books without Page nos constitute as valid references. Some books do not have Page nos KensplanetTC 13:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that some books do not have page numbers mentioned. But, I do not have copies or those are accessible in google books. I tried to check if a copy of Manorama yearbook can be procured or downloaded, but did not succeed in either. Maybe I should move to computer related projects, where I have books and ebooks :) --GDibyendu (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FARC update ?

Does anyone know what sections or aspects of the article still need work ? I am going to be busy till mid-week, but can put in some hours after that. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some new 'citation needed' tag has been added. We need ref for those. I think that's all for now. BTW, someone change the pic in Infobox today. Personally, I think it is not a better pic than previous one.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to address that later this week (unless someone beats me to it :) )
As for the infobox image: I would prefer using a Gateway of India image there since that seems to most common symbol of the city; but I don't really have a strong opinion on the issue. Most of the images in the article are pretty poor, and it would be good if we can look for alternatives at some point. Abecedare (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous Reverts

This is with reference to [1]

How could you remove 11 Citations and 2,440 bytes? Please do not revert to previous revisions henceforth thisway.

Regarding your statement reverted img edits. please discuss on talk page before making such drastic edits to a featured article

There is no need to discuss anything now. This is on a FAR. Break the rules. But save the article from being delisted. KensplanetTC 10:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry. This page is not going to get delisted! If you look at the WP:FA guidelines, this page is one of the best featured articles out there!
Some images are gone again. How often does this happen! Hometech (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that User:Nikkul has done similar mass reversions of sourced content before and been warned about it. I suggest that if he repeats his disruptive editing, we propose that he be topic ban from this (and possibly other Indian city) pages. Abecedare (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm sorry the mass revert was an honest mistake. There is no need to get upset. I have put a lot of effort into making this page the best article it could-- it would be stupid for me to make disruptive edits on this article! (And I don't intend to).
I have left a message on User:Hometechs page asking him to please discuss his image additons on the talk page before he inserts them on the main page. The addition of undiscussed images to this article by new users will only decrease the quality of the article, especially when it is under Featured Article Review. Nikkul (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the need to discuss the ancient statue images. There's none so i added 2. Hometech (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


There is a need to discuss important changes here before you make them on the page. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be complete chaos if everyone added whatever they like! Thanks for discussing on the talk page. Happy editing! Nikkul (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree. But If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. In this case, the rule is the discussion. Ignore it if it prevents you from improving the page atleast for now in this FAR. KensplanetTC 07:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

One more Image in the History section

I think we need one more image in the History section showing the development of the city. I would suggest the following images. However, any image showing some development will do. KensplanetTC 18:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason being the Gateway Image is already present in the montage. Repeating it cannot be tolerated. Secondly, we haven't mentioned anything about GOI in the History section. So, having it is violation of policies. The GOI doesn't have extreme historical significance. It was just built to commemorate the arrival of King George V and Queen Mary in India in 1911. I strictly suggest removal. KensplanetTC 19:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
GOI is the place from where the last British troops ceremoniously exited India. What is not so "extreme historic(ally) significant" about that?
Pizzadeliveryboy (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter anyway. GOI already appears in the Montage. So, it cannot be repeated again. KensplanetTC 09:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dharavi image

Before the adding/removal thing kicks off again, how about a discussion? I think the image is appropriate - it adds to the text and covers an internationally important aspect of Mumbai. Khcf6971 (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I, as a reviewer at the recent FAC had pointed out that this page lacked an image of Mumbai slums, where 60% of the population lives, while having several generic shots of Mumbai highrises/skyline. The File:Dharavi Slum in Mumbai.jpg seems to be a good addition to me, since it is not just a bland image of a row of shacks, but depicts depicts bustling life and activity. Of course, if somebody has other image(s) to propose, we can discuss them too, but I am not sure why the image is being repeatedly removed from this page. Given User:Nikkul's long term disruption at this page, is it time to implement a page ban ? See earlier discussions: 1, 2. Abecedare (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict):Yes, an image of Dharavi was identified as important at FAC review, and the image was initially added per that. And I concur with the addition, I was going to report User:Nikkul for 3RR but decided not to, as I wasn't aware of any history. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 20:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
And to add on, I would support a topic ban related to Indian cities + India. The same thing happened on Talk:Chennai too. First it was open a TP discussion, now he ignores this and reverts again. This is the second 3RR vio in three days. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Support the inclusion of the image, but would go further and suggest consideration of its inclusion in the montage, in place of one of the two skyline shots, if technically feasible. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


First of all, I have been a productive member on Wikipedia for the last three years. AT-LEAST 50 percent of images on the Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, New Delhi, Bangalore, Hydrabad, etc. were added by ME. I have contacted hundreds of Flickr users and brought their images to Wikipedia. So DO NOT tell me I'm a "disruptive user" when no one else has bothered to bring decent images to Wikipedia India City pages.
Secondly, I agree that we should include a Dharavi image. BUT you can't just add any random image on here without discussion about THAT SPECIFIC image. This is pure Wikipedia rules.
We have always discussed SPECIFIC images before adding them. Why not do the same for this one?
My opposition to this specific image: What does a alley in Dharavi with people wandering around show? Is there anything unique about that? This image could just as well be a slum in Sao Paulo or Johannesburg, or Rio or Bogota, or Karachi or Mexico City...
Nikkul (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly the reason you are disruptive, despite some good contributions. You act as if you own the articles, you belittle other people's contributions and finally top it off with sanctimonious prattle about being the only one on Wikipedia who is concerned with the betterment of the project. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 13:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh Really? When have I acted as if I "own" the article? I have always insisted that things be discussed specifically before they are added to the page. And if you have a problem with that, please discuss that at Village Pump because that is purely Wikipedia policy.
If you would like to continue arguing, please post it on my talk page and I'd be happy to reply to you. Otherwise, please help find better photos of Dharavi. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
support the inclusion. agree with Hamiltonstone that it should be included in the montage. would support similar images for all Indian cities. dont understand this perpetual denial from some. --L I C 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dharavi Image Poll

Please add your opinion here. Let's get consensus here about the best image for the Demographics section instead of edit waring on the main page.

Please wait for consensus here before adding any images on the main page.

  • Image #1
    Image #1
  • Image #2
    Image #2

For Image 1

For Image 2

Another option

Image 1 in the Montage, Image 2 in the article

Comments

I personally support Image 1 because:

  • Shows Dharavi, an important township in Mumbai
  • shows Dharavi's economic nature. Dharavi is not just a slum. It's a business hub as well, generating more than a billion dollars in GDP
  • shows the disparities in Mumbai's demographics
  • shows "blue collar" economy...the economy and the livelihood of the poor
  • shows Indian culture- pottery.

I personally oppose Image 2 because:

Comments 2

I personally support a combination of both or Image 2 alone:

  • Image 1 does not work on its own because:
    • It doesn't show Dharavi, it shows a couple of shops in Dharavi, and therefore a very small aspect of it.
    • Doesn't show any disparity, this could be any place from Mumbai to Jhansi to Chittoor to Malgudi.
    • It shows blue collar economy, but not Dharavi/Mumbai
  • Image 2 is better because:
    • The subject is Dharavi, the bustling streets and alleyways
    • If it gets confused with Sao Paolo, then there's just the parallel for similar slums in multiple cities
    • It shows Dharavi.

However, Image 1 is visually pleasing and shows another aspect of Mumbai - small shops and traders, therefore, it is a good picture to have in the Montage as suggested by both Hamiltonstone and L I C. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

1995 or 96?

Seems to be a disagreement within the article on when the renaming took place (toponymy para 1 vs. article heading para 2); other sources tend to indicate the official rename was late 1995 but the heading section shows 1996. StrontiumDogs (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

The article is plagued by some anti-marathi editors who are putting up nonsense like Bhimdev brought Pathare prabhus from Gujrat to Mumbai. That is not true. Pathare prabhus are not gujjus. The language used on board near Gateway is Marathi, devnagari is the name of script which Marathi uses. Thirdly, Hutatma chowk is itself a iconic landmark,it doesnt need to be supplemented by flora fountain.

Lastly Marathi is the sole official language of state and widely spoken.Its speakers make the biggest chunk of the city. Putting sentences like 16 major indian languages are spoken and clubbing them with Marathi is foolish. Thats not unique to Mumbai. Major cities of India like Delhi, Kolkata, Bengaluru all have speakers of all major indian languages residing in them. Please keep these marathi haters out of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.20.44 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My Request

Do not encourage the above person's request

Pathare prabhus came from Gujarat - http://theory.tifr.res.in/bombay/history/ethnic/pathare-prabhu.html

flora fountain is very important becuase the shootings took place there and not at hutatma chowk

http://www.lingref.com/isb/4/141ISB4.PDF page 1804 the pai 2005 ref clearly states "Sixteen major languages spoken in Mumbai are: Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, Telugu, Tulu, Kannada, Malayalam, Bengali, Oriya, Sindhi, Assamese, Punjabi, Kashmiri, and Konkani."

We must rely on references not on orals statements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.59.3 (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there are many books which shall prove the 'theory of pathare prabhus from gujrat' wrong. I shall provide the reference. In history of Mumbai, flora fountain as such is not important. Samyukta Maharashtra movement martyrs were gunned down in this square (which is named after them). The Samyukta Maharashtra memorial is important than flora fountain as far as history is concerned.

All the metropolitan cities have speakers have all major languages of india. Many foreign languages are also spoken. Mumbai is not unique in that sense. So this statement is not relavent. i request to remove it asap. It hurts sensibilities of natives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.3.186 (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is pushpa pai? a amateur case study is not enough to force this nonsense of 16 languages in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.3.186 (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

get references and books then speak..pathare prabhus migrated from gujarat to bombay..

both flora fountain and hutatma chowk square are very very important. the protests and procession took place at flora fountain. maybe the gunning took place at chowk.. both should be included..during the firings, memorial didnt exist...it was buils later..only fountain existed that time

wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia.. we donot care about natives, americans , australians, tamils, sindhis, guaratis, marathis or anyone. we mention facts w/o bias.

read something about Dr. pushpa pai before commenting. she is the head of department of applied linguistics in SNDT univ. in bombay check here http://books.google.co.in/books?id=I7n75tb1vI8C&pg=PR10&lpg=PR10&dq=pushpa+pai+SNDT&source=bl&ots=p8IxIwv2HV&sig=OXvE3XTpfXzAgvPLvfF6I8BUxVc&hl=en&ei=WzPKSsGVCcPIkAW58P3bBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=pushpa%20pai%20SNDT&f=false

she is an expert on languages. hence her research on languages is very very very very reliable, and scholarly. the paper has been reviewed by experts like Cohen, James; McAlister, Kara T.; Rolstad, Kellie; MacSwan, Jeff. it was presented at Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism. it was published by worldfamous Cascadilla Press. one of the best sorce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.28.53 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Use common sense please. Its obvious that metropolitans like mumbai would have speakers of all indian languages. thats is not unique or significant to Mumbai alone. The source ur quoting is not a book. Case study and university research papers are not really best source to quote. I can show umpteen sources where only 3 languages are mentioned, of course Marathi is the most widely spoken and understood language.

The picture of Hutatma chowk displayed is representing Samyukta Maharashtra movement. U may think flora fountain or dharavi a prominent spot, but in the context of history of Mumbai city, the movement and that monument is important. Thanks.

I agree that Pathare prabhus may be natives of Gujarat, but they were all Marathi speaking (pathari-dialect of Marathi with kathiawari and gujju words in it). But there are other views in minds of historians. I saw the source u mentioned. I will get others too.thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.23.144 (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It may not be unique in having many languages spoken there. It is also not unique in this being mentioned in it's Wikipedia entry. From the lede of London "London has a wide range of peoples, cultures, and religions, and more than 300 languages are spoken within its boundaries." I don't see the problem. Thehalfone (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Transport photo (rather poor)

I have noticed the new addition made to the transport section. The image of the bridge at night is a rather poor image and was added in poor judgement. I would like to discuss removal of this as it was added without any consensus whatsoever ***Adam*** (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, the previous image was no better in terms of picture quality. I suggest that all images of the sea link be removed from the page until a good-quality picture of it is uploaded. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the new picture is probably even worse than the old one (and its addition does seem to follow the familiar trend on this page of unilateral decision-making on picture choices...) but would agree that neither image is ideal. Khcf6971 (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Both pictures are equally bad, although the first one had a little bit more clarity, until something better is found, I agree it's better to not have a picture. -SpacemanSpiff 13:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This image seems to be a lot better quality. Nikkul (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree - I would stick with having no picture until a better one can be found. Khcf6971 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Khcf6971. This image is no better; not having an image is currently a better option. -SpacemanSpiff 21:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on this new image. It's a LOT better than all the previous ones. Nikkul (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

.nothing to comment. picture is very poor and dull quality. plz wait for some time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.32.91 (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree once more, getting a decent image for this seems to be plain trouble; all images so far don't offer any clarity to the viewer. -SpacemanSpiff 14:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Editorial decisions

Some things that need to be fixed:

  • Alpha city listing is unnecessary in the lede, especially when it's covered in better format in the economy section. (I reverted once, but it was added with a ref, so I'll wait for consensus).
  • Economy section, Mumbai's GDP is incorrect per the ref cited (curr ref 129). The value is for Mumbai metro area including Thane and other suburbs. Either that has to be mentioned explicitly (since we have Mumbai metropolitan area, I don't think that's right) or changed back to the Mumbai GDP value.

-SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Even I am against the mention of Alpha World City listing in the Lead. The primary reason being many people may not be aware of what is an Alpha World city. It is much better covered in the Economy section, with proper explanation. Secondly, how can a listing by the Loughborough University be given so much importance, so as to feature in the Lead. I am not challenging the reputation of the institution, but for such titles to feature in the Lead, we require a much global organization such as the United Nations.
Regarding that GDP thing, I find nothing wrong with it. It says According to Indicus Analytics, the current price GDP for the fiscal year 2006-07 stood at Rs 2,00,483 crore for Mumbai region, including suburban Mumbai and Thane, and contributed. It says suburban Mumbai, which means the Bombay suburbs like Andheri, Mulund, which are a part of Greater Bombay. It doesn't say it is the Bombay metropolitan region. KensplanetTC 07:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Including it is fine, don't mention metro, but it needs to be noted that suburbs and Thane are included because Thane for sure isn't counted in Greater Bombay. I'm not hung up on terminology, just needs to be noted that it isn't exactly per the definition of Mumbai in the rest of the article. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 15:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The terminology "Mumbai" might be confusing and can have many meanings. But for this article,
MUMBAI as an urban entity = Mumbai city district + Mumbai suburban district + Borivali National Park + Defence lands + Mumbai Port Trust lands + Forest lands + ....
The bold terms indicates Greater Bombay under the BMC, while others indicate areas under Indian Navy, Forest Department, out of the jurisdiction of the BMC. Anyway, Suburban Bombay is very much and a vital part of Bombay. The problem is only with Thane, which is not a part of Greater Bombay. Do you suggest adding a seperate section like Notes as in Europe article, where we can mention that even Thane is included. KensplanetTC 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Yup, anything like that should suffice, either a consistent definition or a note explaining the inconsistencies would be good. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 21:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
By 'Mumbai Port Trust lands', I guess we mean just the 'port area' and not the other properties it owns like the big housing society at Wadala, the housing colony at Worli including the seafront, the housing colony at Colaba, the Radio club at Colaba, huge chunk of land at Govandi, the Taj mahal hotel (not exactly sure about this but i think its owned by MBPT) and others. For all you know, half of Colaba's eastern side must be owned by MbPT but on lease to others. Just my $0.02. Ninadhardikar (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

plz include

can you guys plz include heads of all major departments of mumbai govt. it is always good to see them included. and if marathi is official language then plz. do not fight over it. i would like to see some major sections to be written in marathi though i'm from delhi but i like marathi language too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.143.92.115 (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Population

Population statement in first paragraph clashes with List of cities proper by population. JBarta (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

List of cities proper by population needs to be updated as it uses the same source (World Gazetteer) for everything but Shanghai. According to WG, Shanghai has a population of 15,968,867. -SpacemanSpiff 15:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dharavi Image

Please add your opinion here. Let's get consensus here about the best image for the Demographics section instead of edit waring on the main page.

Please wait for consensus here before adding any images on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.185.149 (talk • contribs)

Image #1 Image #2 (current image)

Image #1 that you proposed is copyrighted and will soon be deleted as a copyvio. Abecedare (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Guess it's a moot point, but Image #2 (current image) is an obvious better choice for this article. The discussion is about Dharavi and not the plight of slum children. -SpacemanSpiff 05:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think everyone needs a proper introduction on Bo Yu or 70.62.185.149. He's had quite a history with the India related pages. Ofcourse his real user name is By78 and he has received his fair share of warnings for personal and racist attacks against other users as well as numerous blocks for sockpuppetry and disruptive edits. See [2][3][4] for a wealth of information and why I don't believe said user acts in good faith or in the best interests of Wikipedia.Vedant (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mecca of Indian Cricket

Would it be appropriate to say "Mumbai is popularly called the Mecca of Indian Cricket" by Indian journalists ? There are many articles on Cricinfo and other sites which refer to it that way. Just a thought, as it's quite important to show the importance of Cricket as a sport on the life of the city for atleast the past 4 or 5 decades. Ninadhardikar (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

True. However, I'd be hesitant to use the views of Indian journalists on that particular topic. There are a lot more quality books that document Bombay (and subsequently Mumbai) as the hub of Indian cricket and that could help the article. The article is currently extremely light on sport in general and cricket in particular and has too listy a feel to it. Funnily enough, as listy as it is, the article has no mention of the Bombay Quadrangular. The Guha book, if you have access to it, can help in getting some text on the history of cricket in Bombay and all that, which is quite important. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More Data

Found some data on crime. maybe of some interest. Check it out by Mumbai Mirror Bureau --Swaminworld (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Mumbai is written in Hindi and not marathi

Mumbai is written in Hindi and not in Marathi, as has been stated explicitly in the above comments appended to the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniishmehta (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you thinks this way. Mumbai is infact written in marathi. BTW, both marathi and hindi use Devanagari script of sanskrit when written on paper. --Swaminworld (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion Mumbai is written in Devanagari but the Name is in Marathi. KuwarOnline (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It is Marathi as the anusvara (dot) is used, in Hindi, usually a half ma is used. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Red, that's not really true. While मुम्बई is used in some Hindi sources, मुंबई is far more common. (compare google news hits for example.) That cavil aside, I do agree that the aim of BMC (which probably put up the board) would be to spell out the name in Marathi, since that is the language used on BEST buses, train stations etc.
More importantly: I have never understood what information the image in the name section is supposed to convey. If it is supposed to show what the city name spelled in Marathi looks like, that is already shown in the lead sentence; if it supposed to show the Taj Mahal hotel, we can find better images; if it is supposed to show that one can find boards with Mumbai spelled out in Mumbai, well duh! :-) A better idea for this section would be to have an image of the Mumbadevi temple since that deity/temple are the source of the city name. I don't think appropriate images should be that hard to find (for example this is probably free). Abecedare (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
From what I understand the image was meant to convey that Mumbai is Marathi(The ownership thingy, the Maharashtrians v/s outsiders thing).--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I have heard about the backwardness mentality many Mumbai citizens have, not considering themselves Indians. They are pretty amusing but nonetheless are influenced by extremist illiterate group like Shiv Sena and likes. Shouldn't Shiv Sena be included in Mumbai article since many Mumbai citizens consider them as Gods and their masters? --Cr!mson K!ng (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mumbai is a special city in India and everything about it is somehow special. I think your point to include Shiv Sena is relevant. Political activities and political parties like Shiv Sena and others should find significant place in here. --Swaminworld (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I m agree with Swaminworld, well wikipedia articles should be written in neutral way. Should not favor for anybody. Yes Shiv Sena have lots of influence in Mumbai and people livin there...

Cr!mson K!ng@ buddy none of Mumbai citizens think that they are not Indians,,,yes its Media hype to some sentence and then manipulate the sentence to gain TRP's because this kind of issue's people really love to see on TV.

Proposal

To end the whole dispute: just remove the image. As Abecdare suggested a better replacement can be found. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the addition. I don't think that temple image is a better replacement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.3.134 (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Complete support. There's no value addition provided by the current image, just remove it and the associated wall of hidden text. —SpacemanSpiff 17:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Undoubtedly an improvement in terms of encyclopedic value. While I hope we can find a prettier image, at least the Mumbadevi temple image is relevant to the subject of etymology of Bombay and Mumbai. Nice find, Red. Abecedare (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we should find new nice image instead of current image. If we dont have prettier image. Please remove it doesnt look good in such highly accessed article. KuwarOnline (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I support what Abecedare has said. Image of temple is definitely relevant to the said section. No need to remove it unless we find alternative. --Swaminworld (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the replacement - the new image is of far greater relevance to the topic than the earlier one, and although not the best in terms of quality, I guess it'll have to do till a better on is found. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the replacement - the hotel in the previous image is also in the info box (this is against guidelines, I think?), and having a picture of the name of the city doesn't add much. The temple seems much more appropriate. Khcf6971 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. We need to find better pictures before we change the image. That temple image has terrible quality! Nikkul (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The Taj with Mumbai in Devanagari plaque is repetition. As discussed here, temple image is relevant. We can have no image in the section if the image is so objectionable. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The temple image is ok until we find a better quality image. It's a definite improvement over the earlier image of the signboard. —SpacemanSpiff 05:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Then we should have no image there until we find an image of suitable quality. Nikkul (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The image is not as bad as not to have it. The image is relevant to the section content, and if any issues with the content of the section itself then that can be contested. Doorvery far (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Population

In the article on Mumbai it says it has a population of approximately 14 million, making it the 2nd largest city in the world. In the article on Shanghai, it says it has a population of approximately 13 million, making it the largest city in the world. In a ranking of cities on wikipedia, Shanghai is about 1,000 people ahead of Mumbai (they both have about 13.8 million) which in cities of about that size is basically a tie (it's about a .007% difference). Should the intros of the pages of both cities be changed to reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardtospell (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Gujaratis call it mumbai

Gujaratis are second only to marathis in Mumbai. Mumbai was capital when Gujarat and Maharashtra were single undivided state. Even now they account to 22% of population according to Mumbai#Demographics. So adding that they call Mumbai as Mumbai and not Bombay, should not cause any harm. Only what I'm adding is "and Gujaratis" [5]. And this is important as outside people are unaware of this, that both Marathis and Gujaratis call it as Mumbai together makes for majority there. Doorvery far (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, when the same sentence mentions about what minority people of Hindi, Persian, and Urdu call the city, removing Gujarati from the same sentence clearly misleads any reader. Doorvery far (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
This problem keeps happenign all the time. Todya you inist on adding Gujarati to the list becasue they make up 22% of the population. Next someone will come along and insist on adding their language becasue it is the next largest linguistic group.Before you know it the list willhave swelled into 10-20 languages because everyone wants their language represented in this article. That is why it was decided to do away with all other languages except the native language. As far as Hindi and Persian is concerend it comes from the source so it has been quoted as such. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
But here is question of majority. If we add only languages that are more than 20%, then there is no chance of 10-20 languages by maths. Not exactly languages here, it is about Gujarati people who make for 22% that may not be people speaking Gujarati language, with Gujarati being a disambig page. When there is Persian, why not gujarati? And also your "decided" thing was about lead section note you are pointing out, that has nothing to with below sections. Also, the refs mention Gujarati with a reason, and refs dont mention 20 languages. Doorvery far (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
A few points:
  • The demographics section had incorrect statistics earlier (don't take anything on wikipedia on faith!). According to the cited source Gujaratis compose 19% of Mumbai's population, and I have corrected that now.
  • Deepak is right that listing the "main" languages for each name is a slippery slope and undue (especially considering that there is no real clear demarcation of what name is used in what language). I am not sure whether Urdu and Persian need to be listed either, but not having looked up the context in the cited sources, I won't change that.
  • The source you cited for your edit is not reliable by a long shot and almost certainly has copied content from wikipedia itself without giving the required credit. Be careful not to use such unreliable and circular references on wikipedia.
Abecedare (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh c'mon, there is hardly any difference between 19% and 22%. If we mention 19%+ languages it still can be max 5 languages, not 10-20 languages as unfairly mentioned by Deepak D'Souza Christians prefer Bombay -WP:COI. I can give you as many sources from google news "marathi gujarati bombay mumbai", you just ask![6][7] [8] Marathi + Gujarati makes more than 50%, while not alone marathi, so mentioning gujarati is crucial here and most outsiders unaware of this - and outsiders blame only marathis. I think Urdu is required here as it will make 13% of national population. Doorvery far (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly the attitude that has caused many edit battles in the past which resulted in the decision to only use the native language. Can you explain what you mean by COI and how it applies here? Please talk about the subject, dont pass judgements about other editors. Just because you found a blog that says Christians prefer to call Mumbai as Bombai, how does it become WP:COI? Did you even bother to read COI in detail? Please read policies properly before throwing them at other users. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

::No need of lecturing on attitude. You talk more about issue at hand, I have given more sources than just one blog. I see no substance in your words regarding issue, if Abecedare doesn't reply i am inserting what 19% gujaratis of mumbai call the city. Doorvery far (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC) - Struck by Deepak D'Souza

Yes you do need to learn how to behave on Wikipedia. Be polite and do not issue ultimatums to other editors. As yopu already know, blogs are not considered as reliable sources by Wikipedia policy. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
You started talking about attitude, since you have no justification for your revert. Talking about attitude is not advisable in real life too, not just on wikipedia. I still see you not talking on the subject. Doorvery far (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Doorvery. There's no harm in mentioning what Gujaratis call Bombay in the Toponymy section. The Toponymy section is supposed to include the various names used by various people who have made a major mark on the city. Please note that Gujaratis are the natives of Bombay. If you check the article's history section, it clearly states that Pathare Prabhus, one of the earliest known settlers of the city, were brought to Mahikawati from Saurashtra in Gujarat by Bhimdev.. Even the earliest settlers of Bombay were Gujaratis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.69.73 (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
People should consider checking articles like Mangalore, which has names in 4 languages mentioned in the Lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.69.73 (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Here we are not even talking about lead section, but in a below section, addition of two words "and gujaratis". Doorvery far (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
First of all Doorvery far, you aren't fooling anyone by pretending to be an anon IP :-). Not that it will help ,in anyway; Wikipedia has strong rules against sockpuppetry. When I mentioned attitude I was specifically talking about your "my language must be mentioned" attitude. Mumbai may be known as "Mumbai" in a hundred languages. Mentioning the official language is sufficient. Wikipedia is not the place to put honourable mentions for every language in which Mumbai is known as "Mumbai" just one reader feels his community makes an important chunk of the city's population and deserves to have their language mentioned. Today you will insist on adding Gujarati because it is you mother tongue, tomorrow someone will insist on adding Tamil or Kashmiri to honour his community. Forget it. And please dont compare it with Mangalore(again a snide reference to me!) All four languages are established languages in that region, Kannada being the state language and the other three having Sahitya Akademies in Mangalore. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have mastered wikiTactics, including accusing of sockpuppetry. The ip is from Mumbai city, and made good contributions here. But definitely better to see you finally talking on the subject. Let us take the demographics, 40% marathis call mumbai, 20% gujaratis call mumbai, and most others call it bombay. Mumbai has 100 languages, but all cant have 20% chunk, only 5 languages can have 20% by theory, and in case here of mumbai - only 2 Marathi and Gujarati have more than 20% strength. Tamil and kashmiri mentioned by you dont have even 5% strength in mumbai. I am inserting it since only 1 vote of you opposing and 2 supports for the inclusion, also your argument clearly lacks substance. Doorvery far (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Support the inclusion of "Gujarati". They are a major part of the Mumbai population, the second largest group after Marathis. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Gujaratis may be second in population, but they are second to none when it comes to economy of Mumbai, starting with Ambani. Doorvery far (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, Doorvery, Wikipedia is not a democracy where you "vote". Discussions are meant to generate consensus and voting is used as a last resort( only after discussions fail and with the consent of all involved parties); not the first, as you have done. Second even if it were a vote, you should declare it first and then wait till all parties, including others who may be interested have been given sufficient time to make their opinion heard. You don't suddenly declare a vote closed when you feel that you have a majority without even declaring it open!! and not when you feel you have a majority out of just three votes!!! That was really funny! Third, assuming the vote was closed you have conveniently ignored Abecedare's opposition to make your majority, when , in fact it would be an indecisive 2:2 vote. Lastly I would not have pressed on with my sockpuppetry accusation had you not insisted on making this a "vote", but since I now have good reason to suspect malicious intent, I am asking for a sockpuupetry investigation [9]. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I know it is not exactly vote, but I see no substance in your argument where you are repeating the same thing even after the issue being addressed. Consensus is not required when there is lone oppose, if either of 122.170.69.73 and Redtigerxyz revert your edit, I can stop you reverting using WP:3RR. Provided Abecedare is happy with new sources. But the main point here is you are not open minded to reach consensus with edit summaries like Forget it! Doorvery far (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I am the same IP from the western suburbs of Mumbai. Please investigate my IP for sockpuppetry. 122.169.52.144 (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not support the addition of "and Gujaratis" to the sentence. Only what the natives of Mumbai call it should be mentioned. The addition of these two words "and Gujaratis" does not add anything to the article save to say that Gujaratis call Mumbai by the same name that Maharashtrian people do. If what Gujratis call Mumbai should be mentioned then what other communities call it(e.g. Bombai etc.) should also be added to the article. --Belasd (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Belasd, we are discussing this edit[10], in a below section of the article. Who call it Bombai is already there including small numbered Urdu and Persian in that sentence, while much bigger community of Gujaratis is omitted. Dont you think it is unfair? Doorvery far (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I ask you guys to change sentence which directly finger-points Urdu and Persian calling mumbai as bombay. You are accusing a particular community and unknowingly spreading a "word of hate" against them. It is very common for residents of mumbai to call it bombay. you can't finger-point any community like this. --Swaminworld (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Targeting a particular community? What to do, the world is unfair, very much :) Doorvery far (talk) 06:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, life is unfair! So why not make it fair by cheating[11], right Doorvery? You were lucky you didnt earn a block because the admins were a bit late to react. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What nonsense is going on here. I am the same IP from Mumbai. Please investigate my IP. I am no sockpuppet of Doorvey. 122.169.11.56 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
What is a problem with all you guys. If you say that all marathi call mumbai as mumbai then you surely have some fantasy. Many marathi residents of mumbai call it bombay in day to day talk. Now it makes me wonder if you know anything about mumbai at all ?? --Onef9day (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
We have no doubts whatsoever that you are more wise and knowledgeable than anyone else here but can you tell us how whatever you have said is it relevant to the main point of discussion here: the desire of a particular editor to include his particular community name in a sentence based on a self fulfilling criteria. And also how is it justified as per Wikipedia's policies? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

That the Gujaratis too call the city as Mumbai be added in Toponymy section? Doorvery far (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The current sentence in the article reads:

The city was known as Mumbai or Mambai to Marathi speakers and as Bambai in Hindi, Persian and Urdu.

But from Mumbai#Demographics, "The linguistic/ethnic demographics are: Maharashtrians (42%), Gujaratis (19%), with the rest hailing from other parts of India", and historically Gujaratis were part of Mumbai. And Gujaratis call it as Mumbai, not as Bambai per sources [12][13] [14]. So adding The city was known as Mumbai or Mambai to Marathi "and Gujarati" speakers would make it majority calling it so with 42+19%. While we mention while minorities such as Persian and Urdu in same sentence, while not mentioning Gujarati is nothing but cheating the reader. Objected by Deepak, who says adding Gujarati will attract to add 10-20 more languages, which doesn't make any sense. Doorvery far (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  • Oppose For reasons already stated above. Wikipedia is not a memorial to honour any community for what one editor perceives as a "contribution" to the city. Mentioning just the official language is sufficient, which Gujarathi is defenietly not. This page has seen enough lingo wars and we dont want to provide another excuse to start a new one --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
If we mention only official language then can we remove Hindi, Urdu and Persian from that sentence? As per your argument only marathi should be there. Doorvery far (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per Deepak D'Souza. --Belasd (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support If we can mention what Hindi and Urdu call mumbai then why not Gujarati?? what is your obsession not to include it?? Or is it Hindi and Urdu are so important that this article will reduce to nothing if not included. And Gujarati is so useless that its inclusion will make this article a horrible piece. If not Gujarati then we can't include even Hindi, persian or urdu. Simple and straightforward. --Onef9day (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It would be more relevant and simpler if you ask "What is your obsession to include it", by any means, fair or foul[15]? especially when the word Gujarati appears no less than five times throughout this article? This RfC is about adding Gujarati and not "removing Hindi and Urdu" so lets stick to the point. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
humm, you are right i must ask to not remove something but add. so i ask add Gujarati. Why??? because of the close historical association. It makes sense. Gujaratis were integral part of a piece of land known as "Maharashtra". It's there in History of India and nothing is coming out of thin air. You see! you talk about "stick to topic" and in the same breath you give ref of [16]. Should we consider it an attempt of pushing us out of track by throwing such things to us. First you decide whether you want to discuss sock puppetry or the main said matter. --Onef9day (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

:::Onef9day, it is not just about Deepak's behaviour or obsession, he looks childish to me. There are many other people who sit back and watch him play, for example Abecedare dropped few points and disappeared, Belasd doesnt bother to reply even in his own talk page. Possible, something might be wrong on my side and nobody cares to point out. Doorvery far (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Deepak's behavior makes me wonder whether he has any interest in bringing facts to light or he has some sort of fantasy. I can't say much about him right now as we all have some fantasies/preferences/obsessions. after all we are humans. And Abecedare prefers to do some hight level administrative work. He never directly interferes in disputes unless asked to. Moreover he puts forward only general idea and waits until things settle down. He seems to be a good administrator to me. I can't say much about others for the fact that all of us are busy in real life. And never take information on Wikipedia as 100% correct (not even 50%). People stretch and strain wherever they like. Even data from state governments is twisted and then presented in an overly sweetened form. --Onef9day (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Its good to know that you have become friends but let me remind you that article talk pages are not meant for idle chat. Please take your chatter elsewhere. Also please see No personal attacks. You are both new to Wikipedia and have a lot to learn. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

good to know simple talk is personal attack. :) this is your attitude not others. MAY GOD BLESS YOU. :)--Onef9day (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumbai/Archive_11&oldid=1232548746"