Talk:Mumbai/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

area of Mumbai

I dont know the exact figure, but if it were 436 km², this would mean the city is a small patch of square (well almost!!!) land 20 km across on either side....thats BS!!!Pizzadeliveryboy 13:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Mumbai Municipal Corporation does indeed have an area of 436 sq. km. The Greater Mumbai urban agglomeration is about 10 times larger.

I changed the infobox figures to reflect those on the Municipal website at [1]. I know it sounds small, but the city does cover 437.71 km² and the population is about 11 million. Green Giant 02:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

name change

When was the name changed and where is a reference to when it was officially changed? This article says 1995 (with no attribution) and the timeline says 1996 (with no attribution). — BozoTheScary 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It was late 1995 when the name was changed. [2] =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the redirect from Bombay appropriate? Constantinople is maintained as a seperate node from Istanbul... --belg4mit 18.124.2.224 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup it is. Only the name has changed. In Constantinople's case the city was an ancient one and the character differs from that of Istanbul. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a (brief) reference to the fact that the choice of name used by inhabitants (Mumbai vs. Bombay) is somewhat politicised, AIUI being to an extent an indication of support or oposition to the party (Shiv Sena, according to Wikipedia) that changed the name. If someone with more local knowledge than I would care to add something, that would be great, otherwise I will attempt to do so Roy Badami 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mumbai Marathon

Why is there no mention of the annual Mumbai Marathon in the sports section? - Aksi_great 13:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

origin of name?

Was the "Mumba"-derived name the original name and the Portuguese adapted it, or did the Portguese describe the island as having a good bay, "Bom Bahia" and that's what the cities collectively were called, and then changed into the local language? The article seems to imply that both or either happened. JesseRafe 01:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll break up your question as per my knowledge:

• Bombay was one of the seven islands (most prominent). I don't have any knowledge or source on the name of the island before the arrival of the Portuguese.
• Mumbadevi is the patron goddess of the city. The temple was built in 1675. I doubt if the name of the island was Mumbai before the Portuguese landed there.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Mumbai written in Urdu?There is no significant urdu speaking in Mumbai.

---

Does anyone have citations for the origins of Mumbai and Bombay? The are phonetically quite similar. AjaxSmack 04:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Urdu name

An anon User:59.95.12.175 keeps removing the the Urdu spelling of the the name, quoting that there are not many Urdu speakers in Mumbai so it is not required. I would appreciate any outside intervention. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 11:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be only in Marathi, the official language of the state. Urdu is not the official language. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Namaste. Mumbai is noted for its film industry, Bollywood, which produces films in Hindustani (Hindi-Urdu). Many films created in Mumbai are viewed by Urdu speakers who probably inquire about Bollywood and Mumbai. Also, Urdu is one of the many languages of India (see Official Indian Languages). Mumbai also does have a significant number of Urdu speakers. This is elucidated in the Bollywood film Bombay. Many Urdu newspapers such as [Inquilab Urdu Daily] are published there as well. As a result, the Urdu name of the city should remain there and not be removed. Thank you for your understanding. --Zulfikkur

Hi Zulfikkur! I don't dispute the fact that there are speakers of Urdu inMumbai, or that Urdu used to be the lingua franca of Bollywood. But here in wikipedia we go according to established conventions, (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities) and the convention for adding the local script says that only the official language of the state should be added. (This is a universal guideline) Similarly, we don't have Hindi scripts for South Indian, Bengali, Punjabi and Gujarati locations. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Most major cities of India actually have the Hindi translation as it is the national language of India. In this case I would say it is alright to leave the Urdu name because Bombay is so often associated with Bollywood which produces films for both Hindi and Urdu speakers.Regards. --Ahmed27

Bollywood is not Mumbai, it's an industry. Urdu is not the official language of the state. Urdu has as much a claim to be here as Gujarati. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bollywood and urdu

The movies made in Mumbai Film Industry are in Hindi and not Urdu.No doubt considerable words used in Hindi nowadays are also of Sanskrit origin(but of arabic,turkish and persian) that does not mean movies are in Hindustani or Urdu. Please see Pakizah,which is an pure Urdu movie.You will note the differnece.

Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement

The history of creation of Maharashtra state(Sanyukta Maharashtra movement)is an important chapter in Mumbai's history.The monument of Hutatma Chowk where 105 ppl will shot dead is an important landmark in Mumbai and its pic/information should also added.

Jambhekar,Jagannath Shankarshet,Tata,Nariman are the important personalities of Mumbai city,but unfortunately their is no information about them here.I would request to exxpand the history section.

Bambaiya language does not have any official existance.This lingo is mostly used by underworld or illiterate gundas.Perhaps 'language with a strange mixture of Marathi,Hindi and Urdu words' would suffice instead of terming it as Bambaiya. Thanks.

Why don't you create a draft on the suggested expansion of the history section here: /expansion. Bambaiya Hindi is a dialect. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hyderabad has Telugu, Hindi and Urdu. So the rule quoted ( that only state language to be used for a capital)does not seem to be uniform. Removing Urdu and Hindi from Hyderabad is not the solution for it seems to be a bit of cultural policing in play here. Also the convention is not a Wikipedia global one but one made for India, by Indians users and with debate can be evolved. I think being inclusive is better and using a national rather than a state language should be allowed, I think the agenda get's a bit communalised and support or opposition seems to be based on religion rather than logic. Haphar 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is not communal, but simply that it's not a good style to have too many languages in brackets in the lead section. For the same reason, I didn't demand that Tamil and Telugu be included in Bangalore. Let's stick to one language where either a) there's a clear majority language with only small percentages of other language speakers, say, Malayalam in Trivandrum or b) there's a slender majority for the state's official language, but a number of other languages are significantly present as in , say, Bangalore. When there are just *two* major languages spoken in a city, we might include both, but I only weakly support this. What do you say? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Largely agree, but will lead to a lot of conflict, for I do not know if there are accurate figures about languages spoken in cities. ie- Bangalore, is Telugu spoken more than Malayalam ? It might be but may not appear so to someone from Kerala. I think we should look to have a cap, ie max of two languages, the state language and 1 second language IF required. (Do not even know if Urdu has more speakers than Gujrati in Mumbai). Overall should there not be a preference for a national language as a second language rather than a regional one ? ( ie Hindi/Urdu above a Punjabi or Tamil)? Haphar 07:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely because of the problem that I said with cities like Bangalore, we'll stick to one-language, Kannada. Let's continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic) or WP:INWNB. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As for your question about preference for a national language, I'm not for it. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Jammu has nothing in Kashmiri, and Srinagar has both Urdu and Kashmiri. Haphar 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bhopal has Urdu and so has Lucknow. Haphar 20:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Jaipur and Aurangabad (Maharashtra Aurangabad) have Urdu Haphar 21:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahmedabad has Gujrati AND Hindi. Haphar 21:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. These are clearly non-standard and they need to be standardised. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we really need some kind of standardization on such issues: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)--Dangerous-Boy 22:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Lucknow and Bhopal

In Lucknow,Hyderabad and perhaps in Bhopal too,there are significant no. of Urdu speakers,which is not in the case in Mumbai.I strongly feel that Mumbai should be written in Marathi only. I am sure writing Chennai in Hindi will not be allowed by Chennaites and so writing a city's name in its official language (only) should be allowed.Morever Hindi is not the ONLY national language but all the languages authorized by Indian constitution are national languages.

Please read earlier discussions in total, Point has been raised in earlier discussion that Mumbai has significant Urdu speaking population, which was disallowed saying the convention is for state script to be used only. No one is raising Chennai in Hindi issue here, but Urdu for Mumbai has been raised. So the examples have been shown to say that other cities allow this so why not Mumbai ? (And the Urdu spoken in Hyderabad would not be recognised as Urdu by anyone who speaks the language.) So the Bambaiya dialect too is a bastard form of Hindustanti and has elements of Hindi and Urdu. Haphar 06:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please include details of Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement

Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement: After independence,several states were formed on the basis of language.Maharashtrians also demanded the same but Congress was not in mood to form a seperate state.Congress had also objected about inclusion of Mumbai in Marathi state.A lobby of Gujarati industrialists were in favour of making Mumbai a Union territory. Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement was sparked by famour writer Acharya Atre,Senapti Bapat,Prabodhankar Thackray,Annabhau Sathe,Shahir Shaikh and others.Acharya Atre wrote frank and fire brand editorials in 'Maratha'.His primary preys were Nehru,Morarji Desai and Sa.Ka.Patil who were opposing Maharashtra state.Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement got an drastic turn when 105 people were gunned in Hutatma Chowk(formerly known as Flora Fountain) In Mumbai.This created a lot of unrest between Maharashtrians. On 1st May,1960 the state of Maharashtra was formed with Mumbai as its capital and official announcement was made by Nehru in Shivaji Park.However Gomantak(Goa) and Belgaum was not included in new state.Yeshwantrao Chavan was the first chief-minister of Maharashtra state.

Goa did not join India till 1961, so there was not much chance of it joining Maharashtra in 1960. ! Also Flora fountain was renamed Hutatma chowk with a plaque as a memorial to all agitationists who were killed in the movement for Maharashtra and Mumbai as a part of it, the 105 dead were not all killed in a single firing at Flora fountain ( or Hutatma chowk as it is known today ) but over many places and days.Haphar 07:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Map of India

It is shocking to see that the Indian map used to show Mumbai's location,contains shades which show PoK and AkshaiChin.As Kashmir is an offical state of India,a normal map should be used.No need to elaborate about disputed region of Kashmir.

Nothing shocking about it. See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Goa and Hutatma smarak

When Maharashtra was formed Goa wasnt a part of India but when it was reclaimed it should have been included in Maharashtra but Nehru denied that by claiming that Konkani is the main language in Goa hence it should not be a part of Marathi state which was not accepted Sanyukta Maharashtra Samiti. Yes 105 martyrs also include those who lost life in Belgaum,Karwar regions and also other incidents in Mumbai. Why isnt Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement still not included in article?

NPOV does matter but Kashmir is very much a part of India.All political maps show Kashmir as part of India.I respect wiki's policies;I feel very displeased about the shading as an Indian though.. Arunachal Pradesh,I suppose is undisputed land and still it appears to be shaded.Lakswadeep islands are also ignored.Are we being too considerate? And I would like to draw your attention towards wiki's article on Pakistan.NPOV is missing there...

The movement had little bearing on the specific history of Mumbai and hence it is not included in detail. A more appropropriate place to add this would be in the Maharashtra article. Before you add please remember to Cite your sources, else it is liable to be reverted.

However a single line on the movement in the Mumbai article can't hurt, so feel free to add a sentence on the movement that fought to integrate Mumbai with Maharashtra.

About Kashmir: India does not control the entire state. We have to document the situation on the ground. No person can dispute the fact that India, Pakistan and China claims and administers portions of Kashmir. It's a fact and we can't ignore that. Arunachal Pradesh is claimed by China (NDTV), and Chinese maps show AP as a part of south Tibet. I agree about maps on Pakistan. Somebody needs to draw NPOV maps.

About Lakshadweep: It is included in the map. These islands are small and won't appear in this low resolution map which is drawn to scale. Click on the map to download the map in full resolution, you'll get to see the islands. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sanyukta Maharashtra movement

I am very sad to hear ur views about Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement.Mumbai isnt a seperate entity,the city is very much a part of Maharashtra state.Its a matter of pride and an emotional issue for about 10 crore Maharashtrians.Mumbai was a ground zero for Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement.History of Maharashtra cannot be seperated from Mumbai.Perhaps not a complete section,but atleast a paragraph should be devoted to this topic.I request you to please consider ur views.

It is sad that u are being considerate about 'disputed regions' of our country but dont feel to include the history of creation of Maharashtra state..My sources are the books which I have read and speeched of Acharya Atre,but I dont recall its names.If u feel u can verify the details from any well-informed Mumbaikar. Raajiv

Raajiv, can you do me a favour? Search on Wikipedia for an article on the Samyukta Maharashtra movement. Go ahead and try it. All you will find is this: Samyukta Maharashtra Samiti. It is some 2 paragraphs long and does no justice at all to an important historical movement that gave birth to a state of India. Why is it in such a state? Because none of the 10 crore Maharashtrians for whom the movement is so important, including you, have bothered to put their hearts and souls into an article that should be a "matter of pride" and an "emotional issue" for all of you. It is a big Wikipedia. There is a whole article waiting to be written and all you do is put senti and complain that others are not giving the correct amount of importance to the issue on an article about a different subject. Instead of putting energy into fighting over whether one sentence should be devoted or one paragraph, why don't you do some research and write the article that is waiting to be written? — Ravikiran 07:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I second Ravikiran's statement. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement

I agree that Wiki's Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement article is incomplete and not comprehensive. But dear friend,this does not mean that its mention in Mumbai article is not essential.I would request you to allow the details of Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement in Mumbai article too. I sincerely think that u r not honouring our emotions.I think Indian wikis are a bit insensitive.. Raajiv

No encyclopedia is "emotionally" written. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. People trust encyclopedia as they are written with NPOV. If we start writing it emotionally, it would be hardly different from newspapers of political parties. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, this whole episode made me realise that the section on the history of the city did not adequately cover the city's role as capital of various regions of India, so I rewrote the Samyukta Maharashtra thing to make it relevant as the history of the city than as the history of the movement. — Ravikiran 17:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I read a bit more about the movement and I now realise that it the fight was actually about the status of Mumbai - whether it should be a part of Maharashtra or an independent union territory. I had not realised this earlier. So I agree with Raajiv now. It deserves the 3-4 lines that it is getting in the History section. — Ravikiran 09:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say,its very painful to see Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir shaded as disputed region.Pakistanis dont give a damn about NPOV.(mahawiki 16:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

It is akin to saying that since your neighbours have jumped into a well, you too should. I think you need to consider the reason why there are 32 India related Featured Articles and only 5 Pakistan related (3 out of them relating to pre-independence era). BTW, we are not saying that Kashmir is Pakistan's territory and Arunachal Pradesh is China's. We are saying that the territory is disputed. I can claim that your car is mine, but this doesn't make it mine. We can only say there is dispute - howsoever minor or major. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A good explanation, and something I have been telling Mahawiki (and his IP) on various other pages. Regarding Pakistan, there is no cause for smugness. Considering that the population of Pakistan is not quite a sixth of India's, we seem to hardly be pulling our weight. Look at Category:Australian Wikipedians as a reference, and consider that they have an FAC regarding the history of a suburb of Adelaide, which isn't exactly Rome. Whether Australian or Pakistani, they are doing better because they collaborate, rather than expend effort in all this kind of thing. ImpuMozhi 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I forgot to mention this in my post. Having said all the things, I sincerely do not believe in Mahawiki's allegations about Pakistanis. I believe that they are doing their bit but since their numbers aren't as much as that of Indians, they are lagging behind. The NPOV maps are also quite recent phenomenon (thanks to Nichalp) and it would be too much expect from the editors across the borders to have it done by now. Looking at the page of Pakistan, one can see that they are doing their bit by giving nuetral perspective on PoK/Azad Kashmir. One of the founding principles of Wikipedia is Assume Good Faith, and my experience with it tells that it works. Mahawiki, you should also understand these principles and practice them in Wikipedia life. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

People are free to claim whatever they want,so perhaps when others will claim our whole nation u r gonna show the Indian map completely shaded! (mahawiki 07:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

You're getting the point. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Touché. ImpuMozhi 20:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I think there needs to be a sub-section on Mumbai in popular culture. For example we could mention that the novel shantaram is set in mumbai or we could mention famous songs about mumbai, and foreign made films shot in mumbai.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitganguli (talk • contribs)

No, it should not be made a subsection, it's just trivia and is more of a list. It should be linked from the Culture of Mumbai. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Skyscraper link

External links should pertain to the city as a whole, or be something rare. Linking to a forum/blog is that is hardly notable, or verifiable reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Besides, if there is a good resource for buildings it should be put in Tallest buildings in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The link does pertain to the city as a whole. It catalogues most of the notable high rise buildings in Mumbai. I'm not sure where the 'rare' requirement comes in. A link only need be useful, which this is. - Gyan 19:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Rare, as in the aerial photo of the city. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You gave an example, but didn't give a reason for why rarity is important. The aerial photo is worthy of inclusion because it is an aerial photo, not because it is a rare aerial photo. Anyway, I'll reinsert my link. - Gyan 22:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the link to the forum. See WP:EL for guidelines. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Call to Mumbai buffs

Since all Mumbai buffs converge here, its a good idea to petition a review of all tags posted on Wikimapia. I saw a few errors, like the one on Eros Cinema!!! One more are the islands off Mumbai harbor - that requires checking.....

Pizzadeliveryboy 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Slightly off topic and off context, but still.....proud moment for Mumbai fans in Wiki

Mumbai (1335) is now the fifth most tagged place in Wikimapia, after Portland (1427), Bucharest (1869), Taipei (2030) and Moscow (3892).....Last night it beat Seattle and Bangalore!!!Pizzadeliveryboy 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Landmarks

How come there is no section on landmarks, wanted to add these pics i took recently somewhere -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• 
• 

Paragraph on name change

We have:

In 1995, the Shiv Sena, a Hindu nationalist party, which was the ruling party in the government of the state of Maharashtra (of which Bombay was capital) decided to change Bombay's official name into its Marathi name, Mumbai, claiming that the name Bombay is a corrupted form of the original name Mumbai connoting the pre-independence British influence. The opposing argument is that the city was created by the Portuguese and the British from a clump of islands, so they should get the naming rights. The opposing argument is that the Portuguese and the British should not have presumptively assumed the naming rights to a city in other people's country.

Question: Why do we have two sentences saying "the opposing argument is". Second, do we have any evidence than anyone actually believes that the Portuguese and British "should get naming rights"? I would think the argument is that the city has been known as Bombay for centuries, including for several decades after independence, with nobody particularly complaining, and that the name change is nationalist posturing. The second "the opposing argument is" sentence is self-evidently stupid. john k 10:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed John the whole para feels very clumsy. Presumably the basic arguments are that the name has been that for centuries and that it is common for the English language name not to be the same as the local language name in any event. The English names for each European capital and the country are pretty far off the actual names. (e.g. Magyarország -v- Hungary or even the much simpler Munchen -v- Munich. On a more general point do we have any basis to argue that the Mumbai/Bambai are not simply names derived from previous invasions in previous centuries. Alci12 15:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Bom Bahia

I wonder if anyone can provide a reliable source proving that the name "Bombay" actually derives from "bom bahia". The problem with this expression is that it is ungrammatical in Portuguese, as bahia (which would be "baia" in modern spelling) is a femenine noun, so "good bay" would be "boa baia". I don't think the noun "baia" has ever been masculine, so it is impossible for native speakers of Portuguese to have named the town or the original island "bom bahia", with a masculine adjective followed by a feminine noun. Furthermore, the traditional Portuguese name of the city is Bombaim, which also seems difficult to explain as an evolution of "bom bahia". Because of these considerations, I feel very sceptical about the credibility of the "bom bahia" theory. Although it seems to be quite common on the Internet and in other versions of Wikipedia, that may well be because of this Wikipedia article. So, can anyone confirm that the "bom bahia" theory has been proved? And, if so, what is the explanation for the incorrect grammar of such a name? AngelRiesgo 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not Portuguese, but I tried to use Google's automated translater to translate Bom Baía, to english, it turned out as Good Bay. Where as Good Bay's Portuguese turned out as Baía boa or if transliterated other ways, Boa Baía. So for sure, it does not rule out Bom Baía.

Chirag 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Somebody removed the section about the origin of the word Mumbai. It was not my opinion, but a well researched historic reference compiled by noted Bombay historian Sharada Dwivedi. Why the removal ? The word 'Mumbai' has actually been around longer than Bom-bahia or Bombay. At least the Mumbadevi temple was constructed before the Potuguese came to India. IAF
  • Unfortunately, the wikipedia maintains history of changes (and also of who does it, if they login). So almost everyone knows who did it. 1534 is the year Mumbai was aquired from Mughals by Portuguese. As per Mumbadevi article, 1675 is when the temple was built. If you have access to latest research, please update the article with the links. Chirag 18:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oh so it was you (judging by your sarcasm, and confirmed by hist page). I saw it only a few days back and did not bother to go through the morass of edits since my last edit. Besides if you'd bothered to have checked my first edit on this page, I have provided the reference and URL to Sharada Dwivedi's article in the Indian Express "Goddess Island".

I removed the stuff of Bom Baia and Bombay coz most of that stuff is repeated in the sub-section "History" (xcept the corruption part). Besides it concentrated only on the Portuguese/British name's history with little mention of Mumbai or its origin which is equally important.

Also, I dont think its still known today as Bombaim by Portugal. They have probably accpted the name Mumbai. Case in point : Abu Salem's extradition to Mumbai from a court order of Portugal. I dont think the CBI lawyers in court there said "Your honour, please extradite Salem to Bombaim ". IAF

Please check

http://dn.sapo.pt/tools/imprimir.html?file=/2006/07/15/internacional/atentados_levam_singh_a_apontar_o_de.html. It uses Bombaim, just to prove the point. Name for the city in Portuguese, is part of the history. There is no issue against using Mumbai in current context. If the city name is Mumbai today, it should be called as Mumbai. But, if the city is name is changed, does not alter its history, just extends it. If someone changes name of Mumbai to something else tomorrow, as per the theory, they should invent NEW history, refute everything that is known.Chirag 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you even check this one? If not, please do. http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombaim

Mumbai in Hindi

I am not sure why someone removed word Hindi from term Mumbai? Are they trying to agree to the fact that Mumbai name is only for Marathi, and Hindi language speakers are free to call it Bambai? Chirag 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but they have removed the word more than once. I reverted and re-inserted 'Hindi'; please discuss here why you would want it removed, before changing.

No hindi plz

As mentioned in Wiki T&C,name of city has to be in OFFICIAL language in that city.In case of Mumbai its Marathi and there's no need of mention of it in Hindi.If you want then plz apply the rule for all Indian cities.eg:bangalore,kolkata n chennai

Mahawiki, Is this a rule of Wikipedia? If it not, then it does not apply. If you still wish to implement the rule, why not convert entire article to marathi and update it in marathi wikipedia, why should someone even read this article without knowledge of marathi? Why do you even bother to update the article or even maintain the article here in first place?

Chirag 18:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:No hindi plz!

Yes this is a rule of Wikipedia.Plz check it urself at bangalore , kolkata and chennai I am thankful for ur suggestion but I did read Kolkata's page without knowing Bangla..so Mumbai's name in Marathi has to be displayed.

And u dont need to tell me why or why not I should maintain this article.I am a Maharashtrian and I am a Mumbaikar is sufficient to this argument.I am sorry but ur being offensive.

Keep the local language only... having too many languages clutters the lead in. I don't see the need for having the Hindi translation across all wikipedia namespaces. And this has been discussed before in the Indian cities wikiproject. --Nichalp 18:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not with having Marathi on the page. The issue is with removing other languages from the page. The title of the talk itself is discriminatory, no hindi Chirag 15:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In Mumbai, the boards at railway station were having names in Gujarati, which was changed in recent years. You could change the boards but not remove that from history. Check Delhi page, it has name in Hindi, Gurumukhi and Urdu scripts. Chirag 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That is because Punjabi and Urdu are second official languages of Delhi. If Mumbai has officially recognised Hindi as a second or co-official language with Marathi (and, I'd guess it probably has, although not sure) then it should be there. If it isn't recognised, then it shouldn't. Simple! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for some reason on Maharashtra page, it appears as Devnagari and not Marathi. Perhaps, Maharashtrians are wiser then Mumbaikars, and want to embrace larger audiance.Chirag 02:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think labelling it using a script is unnecessary PC-ness. Names often vary between languages even when written in the same script. Also, names written using Latin script are more often than not labelled "English" and not "Latin" or "Roman" which would confuse the reader. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember this is the English wikipedia. If the addition of Hindi language runs into sentiment, you could divert some of the efforts to the hi: encyclopedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Marathi is the only official language of Maharashtra

No,Hindi has not being recognised as second offical language of Mumbai.Its only Marathi (~~).

What about the regular riots and terrorism acts?

I think it's greatly important to mention the past riots and regular terrorism acts that happened in the city. We need to highlight this information for the safety of the tourists and other visitors who come here. Thank you. August 16, 2006

See the last paragraph of the history section where some information is mentioned. Secondly, this article is an encyclopedia, and is not supposed to be a tourist guide. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much Burrppp

Hi,

Please check WP:NOT. This is not a place to advt. I could tell you that, you are driving users from your site, by forcing your ad on this page, and not attracting them. Burrp!!!

Chirag 06:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)