Jump to content

Talk:Mumbai/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Blood Banks

Is info on Blood banks a trivia for this article -------- Kensplanet (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, like other such nuggets of information, it should be deleted. Could you please delete trivia from this article? Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai is not Metropolitan.

Mumbai is metropolitan city having headquarters of Reserve Bank, Stock Exchange and multinational corporations. It is home to Bollywood and economic hub of country.

However seats are reserved for state legislative assembly and municipality which has no reference means insult to word Encyclopedia and particularly to Wikipedia. vkvora2001 (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai is Metropolitan......Kensplanet (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ignore the above user. He is known for his rants. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A Vada Pav Image in the Culture Section

Can we have a Vada Pav Image in the Culture Section? Since Vada Pav is a unique fast food of Mumbai. and Cuisines is merged with Culture in this article.========Kensplanet (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Add pav instead of vada pav I like the idea of adding a vada pav image to this page in food section. Vada pav is undoubtedly the staple food of Mumbai. But I think I should say pav instead of Vada pav because of so many pav based dishes - pav bhaji, vada pav, bhajiya pav and pav accompanies everything from anda bhurji to kachi dabeli. I think I would support an image of just "pav" instead of "vada pav". I must appreciate you have come up a very nice suggestion. My strong support gppande (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please change caption

Please change the unlikely caption for the Gateway of India picture (created no doubt by some well-intentioned teenager). The caption currently reads, "India won its independence when the last British soldiers left through the Gateway of India on August 14, 1947."

The last British troops, the First Battalion of the Somerset Light Infantry, passed through the Gateway of India on 28 February 1948, many months after India became independent. Either say something to that effect, or say, "The Gateway of India was built to commemorate the arrival in India, on 2nd December 1911, of the King George V and Queen Mary and completed on 4th December, 1924." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and just do the edits. If someone feels it's wrong they will revert you.---->>>Kensplanet (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I know I am right and I'm not interested in making the change. I'm trying to make the point that both user:Nikkul and you have made a mess of the prose in this article. You fix it, or wait for user:Nichalp to revert your shabby changes when the article comes up for Feature Article review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To the eager beavers who apparently can't write either

During the last year, the prose in this article has plummeted to a level below that of middle-school. How far below is still not clear.

Here are three random examples:

  • Handiwork of user:Nikkul.(Lead) "Located off the west coast of India, on the Indian Ocean, Mumbai has a deep natural sea harbour." (When you say "off the west coast of India" you mean set off at a reasonable distance relative to the length of the coast. You could say that, for example, about the Laccadives, but not about an island like Salsette), which, relatively speaking, is on the coast.) Contrast this now with Nichalp's version of a year ago, "Mumbai is located on Salsette Island, off the west coast of Maharashtra." He is referring to a smaller length of the coast (i.e.the Konkan coast in Maharashtra), and Salsette Island would reasonably be considered "off" that coast.)
  • Handiwork of user:Nikkul. Caption: "Since the 1970s, Mumbai saw a population boom that has made it the 5th most populous city in the world and led to a construction boom." . "Since the 1970s?" With "since" you need to be more precise, "Since the early/late 1970s ..." "Mumbai saw a population boom ...?" No, "Mumbai has seen a population boom ..." etc.

user:Kensplanet: it is not "apart from," it is "in addition to." Also, you don't repeat "Municipal Corporation" over and over again. This is elementary middle-school English grammar. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

UR elementary middle-school English teachers must have taught you Actions speak louder than Words

Why don't U yourself do the modifications instead of just chattering here?====Kensplanet (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it that bad? In that case, this article's FA status needs to be re-evaluated at WP:FAR. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, the article still meets all FA criteria. No need to revaluate.----Kensplanet (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
To Nishkid64, I will defer to user:Nichalp on the decision to re-evaluate at WP:FAR. He is the main author of this page and the architect of its FA drive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
PS For comparison, I have reproduced in the section below the lead from a year ago. You can see how much damage has been done by editors who lack both the language skills and photographic judgement that befit a featured article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, Fowler, if you dont like the way the english is written, change it yourself. There is this thing called the edit button and if you press it, you can change the words!!! Stop complaining and wasting our time. We dont purposely edit the page to make it worse Nikkul (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Before and After: the havoc wreaked in one year

Here is the what lead looked like on February 22, 2007:

And, here is the disaster it has become today, February 22, 2008:

And this is just the lead .... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand these issues, but I fail to see why there is any need to point at people for reducing the article's quality of prose. Remember, not everyone here is an expert in English. I feel the encyclopedia would benefit as a whole if you would instead guide Kensplanet and Nikkul on becoming better writers, by offering constructive criticism or suggestions, instead of saying that they have wreaked havoc on the article. If they made a grammatical error while writing the article, I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't know how to fix this mistake. So, I ask you to either make the changes yourself, or instruct Nikkul and Kensplanet (and whoever else may be involved) on how they can improve their grammar and writing style. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The only reason why I am doing this is because each time, during the last year, Nichalp has tried to copyedit the article, both Nikkul and Kensplanet have edit-warred with him, or, more correctly, reverted everything he has attempted. Here are some examples:
Fine, I'll copy edit this one time, but users Nikkul and Kensplace also need to learn to not edit war with people, like Nichalp, who know a lot more both about Bombay and the English language than they do. They need to come down a few notches on their grandiosity totem pole. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


Who are you to tell me that Nichalp knows more about Mumbai and about English than I? Please DO NOT make offensive comments. Nichalp might be your god, but he is just another editor and deserves no more respect than any other contributor to wiki does. The content of the article is much better now than it has been ever before. Yes there are some minor mistakes, but the page is much more informative now.

Also, your image additions are pointless. The Unesco picture is of fake quality. You are always complaining about how an image is to purple or whatever and then you add your own images that are of worse quality!

I dont know who in the right mind would add an image of recycling in dharavi in the economy section. Atleast, when we add images, they make sense. Discuss the images you wish to add here before adding them to the page. Nikkul (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of English, it is not "who in the right mind," but rather "who in their right mind." It's not "The content of this article is much better now than it has been ever before," but rather, "The content of this article is better now than it has ever been before." It is not, "You are always complaining about how an image is to (sic) purple," but rather, "You are always complaining that an image is too purple." (In any case, I'm not complaining that they are too purple, but that they have purple fringing, a no-no in digital photography.) Also, it's not a UNESCO picture, but rather a UNICEF one and it is taken by a professional photographer and printed in sepia-tone. As for Nichalp, he is not my god, but simply someone I respect. He thinks clearly and writes succinctly. Speaking of discussion, you might want to discuss your images first before you distribute them so freely on the Mumbai page. Apparently, more than a few people are concerned that you don't discuss them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please! you have still not explained how your addition of the supposed "recycling" photo pertains to Mumbai's economy. Is it such a big part of Mumbais economy? How does the trash image show Mumbai's demographics? Dont be a hypocrite. Nikkul (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The two Dharavi images were added to accompany text in the two respective sections. The recycling image to accompany this text in the economy section, "Mumbai also has a large unskilled and semi-skilled labour population, who primarily earn their livelihood as hawkers, taxi drivers, mechanics and other such blue collar professions. The port and shipping industry, too, employs many residents, directly or indirectly. In the district of Dharavi, in central Mumbai, there is an increasingly large recycling industry, processing recyclable waste from other parts of the city; the district has an estimated 15,000 single-room factories." It is a $1.4 billion a year industry and cited in Waste not, want not in the £700m slum. The second image, in the demographic section, accompanies this text,

"Like other metropolises in the developing world, Mumbai suffers from the same major urbanisation problems seen in many fast growing cities in developing countries — widespread poverty and unemployment, poor public health, civic and educational standards for a large section of the population. With available space at a premium, Mumbai residents often reside in cramped, relatively expensive housing, usually far from workplaces, and therefore requiring long commutes on crowded mass transit, or clogged roadways. According to 2001 census of India, about 54% of the city's population lives in slums."

Don't you think it is a little ludicrous that, with 54% of the city's population living in slums, the image in the demographics section is of a suburb with high-rises? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
PS I have now replaced the UNICEF image with a better image from Wadala (for the demographics section). Again, in a city, with 54% of its population living in slums, you can't only have generic glossy enhanced pictures of anonymous airport terminals. Visually, Mumbai is much richer than that. It's variety, including its seemingly unseemly side, is a part of that richness. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The only reason why I am doing this is because each time, during the last year, Nichalp has tried to copyedit the article, both Nikkul and Kensplanet have edit-warred with him, or, more correctly, reverted everything he has attempted.
You are just trying to crap around. Lemme tell you I started editing this page this year. You'll not see me before 2008 or if you see me those were edits too. minor to talk about. I just have encountered Nichalp 2 times( excluding the talk page). The first time he deleted trivia from the Utility Service Section. The second time he deleted all the Images. I haven't reverted Nichap till now. Can you show me when did I revert Nichalp. If you can't then stop you groundless and baseless talks._________________________Kensplanet (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Some things that need to be clarified:

  • To answer Fowler: I did not edit-war with Kensplanet, just a few changes.
  • The prose is awful. It has redundant phrases and trivia. It needs a heavy copyedit. I do not endorse an old or new version. The entire article needs to be pushed through a washer.
  • To Nikkul: The less said, the better. Raises a lot of hot air about trivial issues, and goes against popular consensus.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to both user:Kensplanet and user:Nichalp for the insinuation. I should have read the history more carefully. As, for the copy-edit, why don't you take a stab at it, Nichalp? (I copy edited (only) the lead, one section which I replaced with an older version, and a few picture captions.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
PS. Forgot to add that I agree with the trivia part. I am certainly not in a position to evaluate what is trivia and what is not. For example, I left the statistic about the tenth ranked center of global financial flow in the lead, but I'm not sure if it is really important, or merely a fly by night statistic that newspapers throw out every now and then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Addition of Mumbai metropolitan area template

Hi Nichalp, Fowler&amp,Kensplanet, Nikkul & all other users who regularly maintain this article
, I had noticed that there was no single template for all the various localities of Mumbai and its neighboring areas. As you know Mumbai metropolitan area is quite big. Other cities on wikipedia do have similar templates - for example check out Template:Chicagoland.

I thought its time even Mumbai gets one similar template and created Template:Mumbai metropolitan area. Check it out. I have added as many localities of Mumbai to this template as I could. Surprisingly ALL of them have articles already present on Wikipedia. Even though in bad condition. But adding such navigation box will certainly divert traffic to these stubs and people will help enrich their information. I expect that you guys will not have any problem with this new addition page Mumbai. You are invited to do any correction to this template as suits you. If you have any suggestions/comments please scribble at my talk page. I will ad this navigation box tomorrow to page. gppande (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose there is no opposition to this proposed addition and so I am adding it to Mumbai page. gppande (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
SUPPORT----Since Mumbai is a metropolian city, mentioning metropolitan areas are fine---Kensplanet (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's stop the edit warring

Okay, it seems this revert warring won't come to a close anytime soon, so I will try to resolve the issues currently in contention. Fowler, you just reverted Nikkul's edits. Could you explain why Nikkul's edits were unsuitable (both prose-wise and image-wise)? I can see some of the "tourist brochure" edits that you referred to, but I would like to hear more from your side.

Nikkul, could you explain why you swapped images here and here? Also from the previous highlighted diff, could you explain why you added the material regarding hovercraft, bus, rickshaw and taxi services to this article instead of at the main article, Public transport in Mumbai? Those are all the questions I have for now. Please address these. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont see how any of the edits are "tourist brochure" edits. The images are of great quality, but that doesnt mean they are banned from Wiki. The images I have inserted are perfectly relevant to the content. The fact that Fowler just plain reverts any of my edits goes against everything Wikipedia is about. It is unacceptable. I take the time to write and make this article better. It is unfair to just revert the edits calling them tourist brochure edits! Mumbais population boom and construction boom are a huge part of the city's history and they play a huge role in what the city is today. The Quit India picture isnt that clear anyway. And the hovercraft, taxi, rickshaw are all part of Transport in Mumbai. The point of an encyclopedia is to inform people about the topic. How can you leave out info about taxis or rickshaws? Nikkul (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I only just saw this. Will reply in a few minutes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Here are examples of user:Nikkul poor prose edits. Actually, consider just one edit as an example.
  • The original version of the first edited sentence was, "With an estimated 2006 population of thirteen million, it is the most populous city in India and by some measures the most populous in the world." In spite of my explaining patiently (both robustly on the talk page and benignly in an edit summary), some IP(s) changed it to: "With an estimated 2006 population of thirteen million, it is the most populous city in India and the most populous city in the world." (In other words, "city" is now being repeated in the sentence and the qualification that only some references confer the "most populous in the world" status on Mumbai, is done away with.) Well, that was the work of the IPs. What did user:Nikkul do with it? He changed it to, "With an estimated population of thirteen million, it is the most populous city in India and the world." He has done away with "2006," thereby misleading the reader into thinking that it could even be the 2008 population, but more importantly he has made the sentence both ungrammatical and tautological. If it really is the most populous city in the world, then ipso facto, it must also be the most populous in India. Also, the tautology aside, in English one usually uses "both" in such a construction, i.e., "With an estimated population of thirteen million, it is the most populous city both in India and in the world." Consequently, in an instant, the sentence has been changed from a carefully worded (and qualified) sentence to one that is not only unprofessional, but also ungrammatical. Were this a stub article, such edits would be routinely improved; but this is an FA, where the hard work of improving the prose has already been done, sometimes multiple times. The least a person can do is to discuss a proposed edit, especially to the lead, on the talk page first. Notice, I did precisely that before I copy edited the lead.
  • What about the second edited set of sentences? Here are the original sentences, "Mumbai city, some of it below sea-level and flanked to the east and west by ridges, consisted originally of seven islands, separated only during high tide, and all barely separated from the Konkan coast of Maharashtra; to the north of Mumbai city is Salsette Island and Greater Mumbai. The city has a deep natural harbour and its port handles over half of India's seagoing passenger traffic and a large proportion of her maritime cargo." The text described the geography of the city (with some precision) and then, once the reader was so informed, made a smooth transition—using the harbor—to the more important topics of the traffic and the trade. What text has user:Nikkul replaced it with? It now reads, "Mumbai lies on the west coast of India and has a deep natural harbour." In other words, the "deep natural harbor," which was used as a transition device to talk about the more important things, has now been given equal status with Mumbai's location on the west coast of India. This coupling of two things of unequal status is of course standard routine in comedy, and user:Nikkul has unwittingly turned the sentence into a slightly comedic one. (Compare with "Mumbai is India's preeminent city and economic center and has the largest fish market." etc)
  • Next edits. Original sentences: ".. it is also the world's tenth ranked center of commerce when measured by global financial flow." This has been changed by user:Nikkul to, "Mumbai is one of the world's top 10 centers of commerce by global financial flow." "top 10" is not encyclopedic language; it is imprecise. Mumbai (according to the reference) is ranked precisely tenth. There is no reason to replace it with "in the top 10." (Incidentally, that is what I meant by "tourist brochure edits" in my edit summary.) Also, what is "by global financial flow?" I have already pointed out in these talk pages, that it is incorrect, but user:Nikkul has chosen to repeat that edit. Why?
  • Next. Original sentence: "The city is home to India's Hindi film and television industry, known as Bollywood." This has been changed to, "The city houses India's Hindi film and television industry, known as Bollywood." When one uses "home to," one implies that the industry is not only located there, but has a history there, is entrenched there, etc. (the various things we associate with "home"). To replace "home" with "house" (verb) is not only incorrect, but bizarre. Again, why? What clarity has user:Nikkul achieved?
I have to run now, but let me just say that these edits are not only incorrect, but also bizarre. Even if one were to ignore the poor prose, what vaunted clarity have they added? What does a competent and reasonable editor do? Write a detailed critique like this each time? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fowler's Rediculious Reverts

I am getting increasingly upset over Fowler's blunt reverts to anything I add to this page. For example, I took out any images that were disagreed upon and went on to add to this page. Fowler simply reverted all of my edits back to his version!

I am an editor on Wikipedia who spends a lot of time make this article better. I understand there is some disagreement about some content, but even when I do not include any disagreed upon images and even when I try to improve the page, Fowler quickly reverts all of my edits back to his version. This is unacceptable! It is unfair to have someone revert your edits for no reason and call them "tourist brochure edits".

I understand that there is disagreement about content of this page and I am open to discuss this here like a civil editor. But even when I try to add information to this page that doesnt involve anything that was controversial, Fowler just reverts my edits This is unacceptable. Fowler does not own this page and has no right to revert any beneficial edit for no reason. Nikkul (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

BMC seal in Mumbai's infobox.

Friends,

Seal of Mumbai

I see, an image is already available of BMC seal(thanks to some good wikipedian). Indian cities do not have their own Coat of arms or flags like European and American cities. Our template has parameter "seal =" mentioned in it already. Shall we go ahead and populate the value for it with this image?
Also read: Coat of arms of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai gppande «talk» 13:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a great Idea. It's just a seal of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. If U can provide a reference from anywhere on the InterNet that it is the seal of the city, you can proceed.-- Kensplanet (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Indian cities do not have any administration by their name. It is only the Municipal Corporations that go by city name and represent the city at all levels. Since they are the real modern day rulers the seal of corporation is defacto seal of city. Agree? gppande «talk» 14:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Top Left: The Gateway of India, one of Mumbai’s most prominent landmarks, signifies the position of Mumbai as a veritable gateway to India.
Top Right: A symbolic factory inscribed in a cog wheel signifies the industrial importance of Mumbai.
Bottom Left: The three sailing ships in outline denote Mumbai’s pre-eminence as a port and commercial centre.
Bottom Right: A symbolized diagram of the Corporation building depicting the seat of Local Self Government in Mumbai.
At the base of the shield, the motto in Sanskrit यतो धर्मस्ततो जय (Sanskrit: Where there is Righteousness, there shall be Victory) is inscribed in gold.
After analyzing the Image, I found that it does represent Mumbai.
You have my support. But since this is a major step, you should consult more editors.,,,,,Kensplanet (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Looks good. Can we have the description as given by kensplanet above too.. Anshuk (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Its been 4 days now since this thread began - If anyone feels this seal & page should not be united in "Holy Matrimony"..speak now..or forever hold your peace gppande «talk» 06:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Image added gppande «talk» 06:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont think its a good idea at all. It doesnt represent the city. It represents the corporation. Nikkul (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See my reply above ↑ gppande «talk» 12:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Nikkul, It seems you edit pages without any discussion on the talk page. You recently reverted the seal on Mumbai page without contributing to discussion here. Please dont do this buddy. gppande «talk» 10:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just too many images added - is this is a photo gallery???

I just noticed some new additions been made to article and all are of images. Wikipedia advices 1 image per section. But after today's new additions section People and Culture has 3 images, transport has 3, economy has 2 and so does history. Wow !!! Looks like a photo exhibition in Jehangir Art Gallery :-))
All images are brilliant but count seems too big for this page. Better start a new page Image gallery of Mumbai. gppande «talk» 12:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Do you want to take a stab? Or should I go ahead and remove the pics myself.. Anshuk (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not want any single person to remove images and so I too didn't attempt it. Let there be a discussion on which picture of the above 2-3 best represents each section. If a single person removes one image and keeps another it will always incite some editor group to put it back starting an edit war. Lets have a poll (if possible). gppande «talk» 13:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Creat a new page Image gallery of Mumbai and redirect people to this page who want to see more pic of Mumbai it is that simple. --Suyogaerospacetalk to me! 15:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we have such image galleries of other cities? Is it a norm? Anshuk (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
see Gallery of Birmingham city centre images. Commons would be final resting place of the images moved out. gppande «talk» 15:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See Baku city they have also added a gallery sectionSuyogaerospacetalk to me! 14:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Poll(Everybody is invited)

User History Economy Transport People & Culture
User:gppande
File:Ganesh utsav.jpg
User:Anshuk
File:Ganesh utsav.jpg

I dont think there are too many images. According to WikiProject Indian cities, there should be at most 2 or 3 images (depending on the length of the section) per section. I think this page has just the right amount of images. All of them are necessary. Nikkul (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not advise 1 image per section. MOST featured artciles have more than 1 image per section (depending on length of course) Nikkul (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Concern About Mumbai

If you all are really concern about Mumbai then also try to improve following articles Mumbai Policeand Mumbai Fire Brigade. I want to make these article as that of NYPD and NYFDSuyogaerospacetalk to me! 15:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

bad geography of metropolitan area template

Byculla comes in south mumbai. it is well known fact. person who put byculla in east suburbs should refresh their geography. similarly chinchpokli also comes in south. byculla and chickpokli are very near to CST.


Dharavi lies between sion and mahim. matunga lies below dharavi. how can anybody put dharavi in south mumbai and and matunga/wadala in eastern suburbs.

please refer proper map and experts from govt. This template is made my some layman who dont know where is what in Mumbai.

Bala 207 (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This template is made by me. Any place that lies below Dadar should be considered south Mumbai. Matunga & Mahim lie to the west part. Similarly, Sion and Dharavi lie to east along with Kurla. Chinckpokli lies in south Mumbai. Do not refer to railways eastern western line maps. This template is of Mumbai metro region and tells "geographical" position of suburbs. Refer to Google Maps. I have done the necessary corrections to template. --gppande «talk» 13:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


i agree with u. that railway map should not be considered. i am also not considering it. but when u define suburbs. look into the google maps again. the suburbs should be part of suburban district. now sion,mahim,matunga,dharavi all lie in city district of mumbai,not suburban district.

change the name of south mumbai to island city. also mention that the autos are not allowed in island city. please research little more.

thanks 202.75.200.19 (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A template is used for Navigational purpose. It helps people jump from one page to another which are related to each other by a common topic. Terms like "Island city" or any other are Wikipedia:Peacock terms and should be avoided. This is Wikipedia policy. People who live in India or know Mumbai will understand it but general Wikipedian from across globe will be confused. Mentioning "auto rickshaw not allowed" and this kind of information should be in article and not the navigational template. It defeats the purpose of template to direct people QUICKLY to pages they want. Too much text should be avoided. --gppande «talk» 09:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think i should volunterlaly handel this geographical problem. I am born and bought up in Mumbai and have detail knowledge of MumbaiSuyogaerospacetalk to me! 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Area of Mumbai

The administrative district that is Mumbai is said to be 434 square kilometers when you go to the administrative page concerning how the city is administered. Yet, the infobox gives it an area of 603 square kilometers. Why the discrepency? And, if this is a page about Mumbai as an administrative unit, shouldn't we use the 434 square kilometer number? --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

603 is more like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.26.229 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you just saying that, or do you know that to be the case? We need to get this official, and not have it be some guess. The numbers on both the administrative governments page and this page should be the same. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The official area is somewhere around 603 sq kms, 110 sq kms out of which is the Borivali national park. I am not sure why that site says the administrative area is 434 sq kms, but we are not concerned with who is administering what area. The size of the city remains at 603 sq kms. Ninadhardikar (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Population of Mumbai and Delhi

Recently there was an edit inserted that sourced references that Delhi was more populous than Mumbai. Please note that these are approximations conducted by parties that are using several criteria to determine the population, that is not in use by the Census Commission of India. We on Wikipedia go by the figures of the Census Bureau, the only organization competent enough to define and conduct a population census. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Population Table in Demographics

Mumbai Population
YearPop.±%
19715,970,575—    
19818,243,405+38.1%
19919,925,891+20.4%
200111,914,398+20.0%
Source : www.mmrdamumbai.org
Data is based on
Government of India Census.

User:Gppande has added this table. I don't think it's suited for the Mumbai page because:

  • ALL Featured Indian city articles do not have this table and have not had this table when they became featured
  • This table would work better on the Mumbai statistics page
  • The average reader doesnt really care about how many people lived in the city 20 years ago and 30 years ago
  • The demographics section is supposed to reflect the current demographics including religion, ethnicity, etc.
  • This table contains very auxiliary information. It not important

Nikkul (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the discussion to here as this involves discussion on 2 pages. Better to have centralized discussion. --gppande «talk» 09:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think stats about population growth are needed in this article.Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Bombay

The name was "officially changed" to Mumbai in India but when was it "officially changed" in the English language? Stutley (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That same day. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
IMO, the name isn't changed in the English language. It's still Bombay in English, Bambai in Hindi and Mumbai in Marathi. We just use the marathi name as the official one. So the word "Bombay" still remains, it wont be replaced in the Oxford dictionary. Ninadhardikar (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The name change is applicable for all official purposes. All major news channels such as BBC now refer to it as Mumbai. Even Hindi news broadcasts say Mumbai not Bambai. B.t.w , since when did dictionaries start listing proper nouns? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The name has changed in the English language. Renaming means changing the name in all languages across the globe. It's no longer Bombay in English, Bambai in Hindi, Bombaim in Portuguese. Although no one can force the English, Hindi and the Portuguese speaking world to use Mumbai officially or in general speech, but it is expected that they use Mumbai.--->>>Kensplanet (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, different languages have different words for countries as well as cities. When you rename a city or a country, the words in different languages might/might not change. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_names_of_India . Though Mumbai might have just one official name, it can still have different names in different languages. Bombay is a word in English which refers to Mumbai so it doesnt get renamed. However Mumbai gets added to the English dictionary. Btw i think dictionaries always had proper nouns of significance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninadhardikar (talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Different languages do have different words for countries as well as cities. When you rename a city or a country, the words in different languages may not change. But for fostering good relations between countries, it is expected that the other countries and languages use the renamed name. Mustafa Kemala Ataturk renamed Konstantinopolis or Konstantiniyee to Istanbul in the Turkish langauge. Even after the renaming the Britishers used Constantinople, the Portuguese uses Constantinopla and the Greeks till today use Konstantinuopolis. But after Ataturk requested all foreign countries to quit all foreign variants, the foreign countries as a sign of goodwill, did start using Istanbul. There is no force involved at all. However in English it is now Istanbul. In Greek, it is still Konstantinuopolis. Any case, in English it is officially Mumbai not Bombay. In some languages, it may not be Mumbai. Since we mostly deal with English since it is the International language, there's no Bombay now; only Mumbai. Bombay now would mean Bombay, New York City, United States and not the financial capital of India.-->>Kensplanet (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel the question if it has been officially changed in the English language is challenging. I do not think there is any one authority to do that. Most popular dictionaries still list Bombay as the financial capital of India and not the Bombay in Newyork. It would remain so for many more years to come (it's been just a few years since the name change). English itself is made up of words from different languages so I guess the official name Mumbai which is actually a Marathi word would also be the only official English word in the future. As for the moment and probably for next many years atleast, the word Bombay is surely going to float around in the dictionaries and in people's vocabulary. So i think its safe to say the official word in English is now Mumbai, but the word Bombay in english also refers to the same city. Ninadhardikar (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
(Yawn!) So, finally what is the point you wish to make?: Is Mumbai still Bombay? Oxford dictionaly doesn't think so[1]. Neither does MCGM:[2]. So let us stop beating round the mulberry bush. Shal We?--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Neither the word, "Bombay," nor "Mumbai," as proper nouns (like "John" and "Mary"), are words in the English language, so looking to the OED or any other dictionary is not useful. The only reason why "Bombay" occurs in the OED is because it is used attributively in other English language common nouns like Bombay-duck etc. Here is OED's entry for Bombay (requires subscription): "The name of a city in India, used attrib. in: Bombay chair (cf. Bombay furniture); Bombay duck (see DUCK n.1 10); Bombay furniture, a style of furniture combining European forms with Indian ornamentation; Bombay hemp (see HEMP 5); Bombay pearl (see quot.); Bombay shell, the bull's-mouth shell, Cassis rufa, used for cutting shell cameos." Obviously, "Mumbai," because it is a new name, has not resulted in a common noun yet; it might someday, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's naming convention for cities. Neither "Calcutta" nor "Kolakata" occur in the OED, in part, because the words have too many syllables to inspire other constructions. "Delhi" occurs only because of "Delhi belly." It seems that OED's policy on listing these names has not only to do with compound common nouns inspired by these proper nouns, but also on how common these words are. So, although "Bangalore" occurs in the compound "Bangalore torpedo" it does not have its own entry.

The preeminent Indian city name, as far as its legacy in the English language is concerned, is, of course, "Madras," which has inspired many English constructions. Its linguistic preeminence, as far as I can tell, has as much to do with it being the oldest large British outpost in India, as it does with the word itself being short and snappy (like "Bombay"). The OED entry for "Madras," incidentally, has 10 sub-entries, none of which is the city. It is only when you look at the etymology that it says, "From: Madras, the name of a seaport on the east coast of India (first recorded as Madrazpatam (1640)), now capital of Tamil Nadu (formerly also the name of a province; since 1995 known as Chennai)." So, obviously, the OED editors are aware that the city that was Madras is now called Chennai. (The word "Chennai," of course does not occur in the OED.) I hope this will put an end to this discussion. If you are debating what the city should be called in Wikipedia, look at Wikipedia's naming conventions, look to other encyclopedias, look to newspapers and news magazines, but not to dictionaries. (Some dictionaries, of course, do have geographical names in their appendices, but that is different.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The point I wish to make was that the official name of the city is now Mumbai and the word in the English language would also be Mumbai. But there is no such single authority to rename words in English, so for the time being and many years to come the word Bombay in the English language would also refer to Mumbai, until it fades away. Ninadhardikar (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry Deepak, but your writing style represents rudeness when you are trying to discuss a topic. Learning some manners would be helpful while posting on Wikipedia. Ninadhardikar (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Take it any way you please. I cannot stop people from reading wrong meanings from my message. And it is so easy to attribute soe sinister motive to anything that is typed in text as compared to what is said in speech. All I said was that this debate can carry on endlessly(especcialy when people are more interested in proving a point than in looking at facts) about the sematnics of naming cities. That does not change the fact that the city has been renamed. Period! This is my last message on this topic. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, since you do not seem to be understanding the topic. Ninadhardikar (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumbai/Archive_6&oldid=1112833236"