Talk:Mumbai/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Skyline image

I understand that the lead image should either be of a recognizable skyline of the city or of a famous landmark. But what about image quality? The current image is unclear and is of low resolution. One can't make out much by looking at that image. Maybe a few ideas from the article on Delhi can be borrowed. Any thoughts? --Dilli Billi (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikpedia. The skyline ideally should be a panoramic image. See Toronto and San Diego for better examples. The Delhi image is not appropriate since it's a building. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nichalp--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 07:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC) _{(Cant stay away from Wikipedia Addicted to it :P)}

Largest Municipality in India

How can it be claimed that Mumbai is still India's largest municipality when the most recent estimates say that the municipality of Delhi is 13.7 million residents to Mumbai municipality's 13.6 million residents? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion with reliable sources. Be sure you have the latest estimates of both Delhi and Mumbai. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 09:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI There are three municipalities in Delhi. As Kenneth says, please do cite sources to back up any claims. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Delhi still seen as a municipality? Don't they have semi-state government with a Chief minister with move towards complete statehood? Mumbai is still just a city. --GPPande talk! 19:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Semi-state" is not technically correct. Delhi has a legislature. For all practical purposes, it is a union territory. As per the Constitution, the Union Government can create a legislative body for a UT. Delhi and Puducherry are the two UTs currently with a legislature. The Union Government can also deem fit assign powers to a UT. But for the creation of a state, a constitutional amendment is necessary. However Delhi and Mumbai should only be compared on context, and a lot of people who post on this page (and Delhi's & India's pages) do not realize the differences. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so it's a UT with a legislature. But this legislature has limited rights (like no control on police or no state home/finance ministry) as compared to usual state government. So Delhi's legislature must be controlling 3 municipal administrations as Maha government does for some 20+ in state. This uniqueness of Delhi as compared to the other 5 metros of India can be highlighted explicitly somewhere. But now I am going off-topic. Will work on this somewhere else. Definitely don't compare Mumbai and Delhi after you read all this. --GPPande talk! 20:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

True, there is a clearly defined power sharing in the case of Delhi. That is mentioned briefly here: Delhi#Government_and_politics. But what's really bugging are the number of cases on WP where I have to revert mention of Delhi as a *state*. Those Dilliwallas never learn! LOL =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to cite sources when they are readily available on each city's page, and you all didn't have to be so rude when asked a simple question. I have no agenda, here. I'm not from India; I am not Indian. I was asking a simple and honest question. From what I understand, the municipal corporation of Delhi has 13.7 million residents, now, no? No, you tell me why it's wrong. I asked the question. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey buddy, nobody is rude to you. Good you have shown some interest here and asked question. Nichalp and I was just having discussion, as you can see - even I being an Indian and Wikipedian for sometime, had something new to learn. Join in, all are invited - Indian or not doesn't matter as long as you listen to other. --GPPande talk! 09:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

CriticalThinker, just to clarify, my last comment was not directed at you. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess u r comparing the infobox on each page. u r right. I am sure someone who keeps good track of these numbers will reply. Docku:“what up?” 06:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

<reindent>I'm sorry if we appeared rude or jumped on you, but we get regular edits to the page that mention Delhi is more populous than Mumbai. Unfortunately, most of these edits or claims are attributed to non-reliable projected figures using methods and metrics that are questionable. For example, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi website claims an estimated population of 13.78 million residents. What that figure is (floating or actual), and how that is derived, is questionable since the municipality is not an authorized body to collect demographic data. It is also possible that the Delhi Municipal Corporation put up latest projected figures, while the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has not updated its population statistics. Nevertheless, both are unscientific. To resolve the issue, as per established Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, we need to only go by census data (albeit dated 2001) released by the Census of India that lists Mumbai as more populous than Delhi. Reference. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

Image:Hutatma chowk mumbai.jpg is released on the cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 licence. The non-commercial clause makes it unsuited for wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. [:pl:Bombaj] does not have the image. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I had nominated it for CSD - See this. But was shot down - maybe for wrong category. Now somebody else has nominated it again. --GPPande talk! 19:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have speedily deleted it. The licence clearly states non-commercial use, and that is not allowed by our policy. Yes, Gppande, you listed the wrong category. Those categories are meant for articles. Use IFD instead. =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist attack?

Just heard what happened on TV ah the horror of 9/11 --210.84.36.109 (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes see this26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 07:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not add aa link to it at the top of the page, saying something like :

Mumbai is currently under attack by terrorists... and so on Of course, we could make it milder. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Marathi Pronunciation?

The Marathi pronunciation given currently is:

[ˈmum.bəi]

With the last "i" long in the transliteration, should that be:

[ˈmum.bəi:] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.154.212 (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

History and language issue

I made a contribution on History of Mumbai section. The current description just logs down a series of events and dates. I changed the presentation of content to describe the growth in religious, regional and linguistic divide in the city. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mumbai&oldid=254027434. History is a story of change not a log of events and dates. Every edit I have made is backed with references. Yet I see unreasonable edits from Kensplanet and Docku, deleting the entire change. On grounds like "Hindi, Guj not considered local languages of Bombay although spoken"

Language is the issue of concern for Bombay. Monopolizing the article by one sided views about the city is a matter of concern. There are many different articles about other cities in Wikipedia in which multiple language references are provided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmedabad, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucknow. Why should article on Mumbai not include other language Wiki referenece? Specially Hindi and Gujrati which are widely spoken here?

Deleting someones factual contents without discussing is inappropriate. If some people monopolize the article like this then it will drive away interest in serious contributions. Please provide your views and support to improve the article on these lines.221.249.25.218 (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Hindi and Gujarathi transliterations of Mumbai on the grounds that other language scripts, in general, are intrinsically uninformative in an English encyclopedia. It makes the start of the article look ugly and will additionally encourage subsequent addition of other scripts in the future. Docku: What up? 17:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

221.249.25.218, there are a lot of conditions which need to be gratified before languages are declared local. The name which appears after Mumbai in the first line means the native name of the city in the native language. Hindi is out of question. Hindi was not spoken in Bombay during olden days. Association with just 40-50 years is not enough. Gujurati can be considered as a contender. The city has been receiving immmigrants from Gujarat from as early as the 13th century. The earlist settlers of Bombay, Pathare prabhus, had also migrated from Gujarat in 1298. But slowly they were assimilated into the Marathi stock and as of today they are Maharashtrians and not Gujaratis. This is the story of all immigrants from Gujarat in the olden days. Hence, even Gujarati cannot be considered as a local language of Mumbai. Hence, these two languages cannot be added. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 06:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• There are many different articles about other cities in Wikipedia in which multiple language references are provided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmedabad, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucknow. Why should article on Mumbai not include other language Wiki referenece? Specially Hindi and Gujrati which are widely spoken here?
  • Our article is independent of Delhi, Ahmedabad and Lucknow. As I have explained above, although widely spoken, Hindi and Gujrati are not considered local languages of the city. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 06:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Docku you had asked me a question that you later changed your mind about and removed from your message post. "Could you pls let us all know what historic information you want to add with references?". Sure I can provide. Please refer to the last two paragraphs of history section in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mumbai&oldid=254027434. As far as adding other language wiki is concerned look at the Wiki for 'India'. There is a link for other language wikis. Something similar can be done to keep the page clean if that is the concern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_names_of_India. There are always option of improvement. I disagree with deleting someones post like it was done today. It discourages people from adding content. Editing means improving not deleting 221.249.25.218 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The link to other language wikis on the left side of the article is good enough. Docku: What up? 19:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I made a contribution on History of Mumbai section. The current description just logs down a series of events and dates. I changed the presentation of content to describe the growth in religious, regional and linguistic divide in the city. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mumbai&oldid=254027434. History is a story of change not a log of events and dates. Every edit I have made is backed with references.
  • Please note that this is a Featured article. You cannot just make monumental changes like this without discussing. Thanks for discussing anyway. We'll analyze [1]

---

• City's unique demographics is a result of migration of people from other parts of the country. But since the middle of 80's the city has gone through linguistic and communal polarization, coupled by a rise in local sentiments.
• In August of 2008, a legislation was passed in the civic body to have all future documentation of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation(formerly Bombay Municipal Corporation) or BMC, in Marathi only . A similar legislation had failed to pass in 1986. Incidents of violence over name of the city (Bombay v/s Mumbai) and language of discourse (Marathi v/s others) have increased over the years.

---

• Your first point needs citation from reliable sources. Who says it is unique. Anyway in the Lead there's a sentence Mumbai's business opportunities, as well as its high standard of living, attract migrants from all over India and, in turn, make the city a potpourri of many communities and cultures. This is similar to your sentence. Hence, no need of mentioning it there
• Please no general statements like But since the middle of 80's the city has gone through linguistic and communal polarization, coupled by a rise in local sentiments.. Stick only to events like the North Indian attacks etc..
• How is the August 2008 legislation considered as a linguistic polarization. You may consider it as a linguistic polarization, I do not. Some people may, some people may not. Different people, different Point of views. Hence, better not include it here. 1986 legislation are all trivial details.
• I haven't heard many incidents of violence over name of the city (Bombay v/s Mumbai). There may be protests. (Marathi v/s others) - Which are these other languages? Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 07:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I an sorry but you are asking me to repeat what I have already cited in references. Please read those. There is citation of Bombay Dyeing incident. Others is not for language but for outsiders non-marathis. Attacks on other communities has occurred and has been cited. South Indians, North Indians, Muslims all have been targeted in past by certain people. Demographic of Mumbai is unique for any city in India and the world. Read the census report. There are people from many religious, linguistic, ethnic, national, racial groups living in the city. The section on demographic and people and culture in this article itself proves that. Read the changes in full (rather than mulling over each word). With an open mind one would understand what the intent is. You have not cited the reasons why Hindi is out of question very well it just sounds prejudice to me.221.249.25.218 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi IP 221*: There are several issues with your edits. First, the article is mean to be a summary. Next, the prose has several issues: "city's unique demographics" (unique is a Weasel term. Next this statement: In August of 2008, a legislation was passed in the civic body to have all future documentation of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation – has nothing to do with the city, its an internal matter of the BMC, and should be covered in that article. See Wikipedia:Main article fixation. Next, about the lead languages: To avoid disputes, we transliterate the name with only the official language of the state in which the city is located. Adding Gujarati would result in a subjective call. Adding Hindi is debatable, we have not achieved consensus for that. If you have any issues, or want to debate the policy, please raise it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cities =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Make Mumbai semi protacted People without Account should not edit this article.--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 09:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't do that unless there is protracted vandalism. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your concerns Mr. IP. But since no one agrees, better not to add it in the article. May we suggest creating an account. You have a good knowledge of Wikipedia. Thanks, Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 15:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion about using an account well taken. But there is good reason why I don't use my account before editing any Wiki first anonymously. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

All who have added comments to my post, thanks for the input. Using terms like Our article' does not help. Nor does it help to come to conclusion about “No one agrees” with just 3 peoples’ comments. No one owns an article on Wikipedia not even its creator. It is publicly owned. There are reasons for my views. Marathi speakers in Mumbai are the largest majority but still less than 50%. Hindi is understood by most citizens here. That makes it a major language. You can find road signs in the city in Gujarati and Hindi in several parts of the city. Hinduism is not awarded a greater status in India. All religions are equal even if Hindus number 80%. Acceptance of a fact by the constitution makes the country what it is today. Majority does not mean others have to be ignored. Marathi was made the official language of Municipal Goverment Of Mumbai in Aug 2008. Same legislation that was rejected in 86. Name of the city was changed in 95. Why after 48 years of independence did this name change happen? Why were there anti South-Indian sentiments in Bombay in 80s then anti-muslim and now anti north-indian. Are there events just dates and facts or is there a pattern of change.

Pickup any modern history book, the subject is made interesting read by prose explaining what change happened over the years, not by a bunch of dates and events. Most of the facts in the changes I did were already there in the article. Every fact I added was backed by references for leading media organization. My saying unique demographics of the city, is not a unique addition by me. There is another place in the article which says "unique topography". We saw nothing wrong with that. Demographics of Bombay are unique for India and for the world. What language is official is passed by legislation, which language is spoken and understood by a major population in the city is a fact. Bombay Stock Exchange has its website in Hindi and Gujarati along with English. BSE has done it because those are the major languages spoke by its traders. Such recognition is not have to be always a political decision passed in legislature it is just the recognition of a fact. VT is still called VT in spite of name change. Sahar airport is still called Sahar airport in spite of name change. Mumbai in Hindi and Marathi is written exactly the same way in Devanagari script. One may say Marathi another will say Hindi. Hindi move industry is in Bombay why Bombay why not some other city? Hindi is a major language spoken here, perhaps the largest second language spoken here if not first. It cannot be denied by legislation.

There have been attacks by activist of some political parties on businesses and people in the city. Bombay Dyeing was asked to stop using that name. The incidents are many.The narrow minded view shown on the streets should not be shown here on the article also. In the name of protecting the article from vandalism good faith edits should not simply be deleted all together. There is an alternative view to what some hold. I don’t intend to change the view of everyone. It is not possible to change peoples’ views in such a sort period of time. The intent here is to attract alternative, non-prejudiced view. Apologize for the long commentary. Please provide your suggestions and more importantly please spend some time thinking about these issues. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me where are Gujarati and Hindi sign boards in Mumbai can you add somwe pic of them? And Marathi and Hindi are written in diffrent way. Hindi dont have ळ in place of ळ they use ल for example कमळ this is marathi and Hindi its written as कमल. Got my point? Hindia and Marathi are diffrent --Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 02:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

One needs to travel a bit in the city to see. Go to Vile Parle west near the station. Go to Ghatkopar. I can add picture on a promise that the old boys here won't delete it out right. Don't want to go thru' the pain of clicking, just as I went thru' the effort of editing this article before. I know the ळ sound of Marathi just as I know the Gujarati and Hindi scripts. The point there was about the image of sign board in front of Taj which says मुंबई you are a Marathi so you will read it in Marathi. Someone else who reads Hindi will read the same as Mumbai in Hindi. There was someone who had once changed the title to say it is in Devanagri script a fact right and the old boys deleted it saying it is "Marathi only"(read article edit history). There was a news snippet in NDTV today about an SMS floating around " .... there are 200 NSG commandos in Mumbai helping people of Mumbai ... NSG commandos who are North-Indians and South-Indians.". Every one is participating in the City and its future but recently there has been polarization. People need to know facts. NDTV reporter Srinivasan Jain said the same( exact world polarization was used) just today reporting from in front of the Taj. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 15

58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear AnUr, That is long. I cant answer all your questions. Let me try some. I understand your concern that three people dont make up the whole wikipedia and certainly dont get to decide what rightfully belongs in this article. Believe me, that is pretty much the average response you will get in any page in wikipedia. In some pages, no one will even care to respond unless you write "penis" in the middle of some random sentence. The point is, consensus is decided by people who watch the pages and people who r willing to participae in the discussion.

This message is addressed to some one I don't know call me Mr IP I like that better. There is an opinion set up here amongst the people who are the old boys group here and have a set opinion. I am OK with edits to what I wrote(that is expected) my disagreement is with out right deletion. As if an alternative expression is completely being ignored. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The unique demographics of Mumbai is very well written down here in English in the Demographics section, According to the 1991 census, the linguistic groups' demographics are: Maharashtrians (53%), Gujaratis (22%), North Indians (17%), Tamils (3%), Sindhis (3%), Tuluvas/Kannadigas (2%) and others. Why do we need Hindi and Gujarathi scripts to convey the same message?

It is to recognize the importance. I know of at least one North Indian city for example. People editing its Wikipedia article recognize Marathi as an in important language and mention it just where I mentioned Hindi and Gujarati in this article. The old boy Kensplanet(and established reviewer) credited with the Wiki on Mangalore has no problem with the article giving 5 languages importance in a city with population of 4 Lakhs or so but Wiki of Mumbai with a population of 1 Crore 36 Lakhs... Is there something else for me left to say? 221.249.25.218 (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparenlty you have a taste for redundancy. You said, "Most of the facts in the changes I did were already there in the article." Why, in the first place, would you then add things which are already in the article? Pls read WP:SS which might explain why it is not elaborated. Docku: What up? 03:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

We are having a great discussion here. When I said most of the facts in the changes I did were already there in the article means I moved around(sequenced) the content in the history section to show a change in the city that has taken place over the years. Read the paragraph I wrote in the entirety and one gets the message. Rather than put together facts like log book an encyclopedia can reveal what is really happening. I think I have struck a good conversation with you guys perhaps we might get to understand each other better. Once we reach that stage I am already thinking of referring alternative reading material to you guys. Lets see how it goes. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned Mangalore in between. Please note that all the languages mentioned there are considered local by the people themselves. But in Mumbai, that is not so? Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 10:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you understand the irony in the argument you are making. If you say that Mangalore can have 5 languages considered local then Mangalore appears more cosmopolitan than Mumbai to me. Population difference itself is ironic 4 Lakhs v/s 1 Crore 36 Lakh. Language is what people in the City speak, that is what makes it local. As I said it is for people to think and ponder but the City is not made of one people speaking one language. The city is much more than that. Facts won't change by some people remaining stubborn. Can you please give a breakup in percentage of the people speaking the 5 'local' languages in Mangalore and the absolute number? Then please do that math with Mumbai. 221.249.25.218 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

First this is an English-language encyclopedia. Adding local scripts to the page was created more as a value-addition rather than for political posturing. It's not an anti Hindi bias or pro-Marathi bias. The issue is the limitation of the scripts to a minimum. As per consensus, we have restricted it to the local language only. A similar thread can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cities/archive1#City name in the local language. We should restrict the languages to a finite list rather than open it to everyone editing. Having unnecessary languages as ridiculous as having Preeti Zinta or Rithesh Deshmukh's name in Urdu, as Urdu was the lingua franca of Bollywood in the 1960s and 1970. Yes, this was debated by the Indian film Wikiproject. The best way to keep a finite list is by going by official government guidelines. Please raise any issues on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian cities, not here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Mumbai's "High Standard of Living"

This phrase "high standard of living" in the intro is very problematic, as if I'm not mistaken many or most of these migrants are living in shantytown slums:

"Mumbai's business opportunities, as well as its high standard of living, attract migrants from all over India and, in turn, make the city a potpourri of many communities and cultures."

In general the article seems to be portraying a false impression of a thoroughly modern and prosperous Western-style city -- rather than a teeming and desperate developing world megalopolis with a vast divide between rich and poor.

Could we see some slum photos as well instead of the travel brochure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.154.212 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently November 2008 Mumbai attacks is our prority Mumbai is at war we will work on your suggestion after the situation is under control--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 05:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well this is wikipedia, not Mumbai, and lets hope the terrible recent events encourage people to imporve the article. I agree about the standard of living issue and so have tweaked it to say "as well as its potential to offer a high standard of living". Thanks, SqueakBox 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean to say that Most of Editors are editing the above mention article.--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 05:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Article traffic

just like to say that since the recent events of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, the article has received 245,800 views on Nov 27, as compared to around usual 5,000 views. please take care of article.[2] -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.14.149 (talk • contribs)

I just want to note for our editors who can read and write in other languages that while the Hindi version is decent in length, the Gujarati one is woeful. There are wikis for other languages that could use a lot of help, especially for details on recent events. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also working on Marathi wiki and german wiki--Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 08:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Great work by Wikipedians

Just wanted to let you all know that the map Image:Mumbai_area_locator_map.svg was used by NDTV to cover the Mumbai terror attacks. Can be seen here: [3]. Another feather in the cap for Wikipedia. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Map is wrong btw. The locations are marked by people in Delhi. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What patience with anonymous editors!

I wonder, why Wikipedia administrators do not block this article from obnoxious "IP Number users" so as to end this frequent, troublesome, and anonymous foul editing? Take a look at this article's History— for example, shameless edits from "users" (in reality, vandals) like 209.155.27.147. In my opinion, "IP Number users" should not even have a talk page, as they are just occasional editors, mostly anonymous! If they don't care to register in Wikipedia, why should Wikipedia care about them? --AVM (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is preventive, not punitive. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I really think it is high time now to prevent IP users from adding nonsense to Mumbai page. Look at the page history. It is filled with IP users adding spams into the external link section, personal opinions across sections and even one newbie used it as a sandbox recently. --GPPande 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you I also had tough time over here November 2008 Mumbai attacks‎‎ Suyogaerospace^{talk to me!} 09:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Source for name change Bombay to Mumbai

I found the following source about the name change from Bombay to Mumbai:

• Kenny Easwaran: The Politics of Name Changes in India (2001)

If there are no objections, could this be added in the article? Indya1000 (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No it cannot be added http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~easwaran/papers/india.html has been written by http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~easwaran/

Kenny Easwaran is currently a Ph.D. student in the Program in Logic and Methodology of Science at UC Berkeley. Research by Students cannot be considered reliable. Only research by experts can be taken. Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 09:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It can be added. "Student" and "Expert" are not mutually exclusive. To suggest otherwise that a PhD student cannot also be an expert in his field is absurd. I'm an expert in my field and I'm a dropout.209.131.62.115 (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What Kensplanet is saying is that Easwaran is not necessarily an expert in the field. I can very well write an article about the etymology of the city. But what makes my work credible? =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

People and Culture section

Hey everyone, i have this great new picture of Hiranandani Complex in Mumbai i found it on Flickr Its a really great piture that shows how developed Mumbai has become and i recenlty tried to replace the introducting picture with this one...i hope you can use it thanks, light48 heres the picture that i uploaded

Mumbai - Skyline.jpg

HERES THE SITE THANKS!!

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/3199/hiraeirikvk0.jpg&imgrefurl=http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php%3Fp%3D3600552&usg=__j533r57RPHAEMK_rPjIQIi5vFMk=&h=900&w=1600&sz=210&hl=en&start=112&tbnid=K1xGjm89KqMpTM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3DHiranandani%26start%3D108%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7ADBS%26sa%3DN

I have replaced VT Image by Asiatic Society in the People and Culture section. VT Image is repeated and it appears in Transport. We cannot have the same images twice. Kensplanet^T_C 17:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

bollywood

mumbaiis where they shoot bollywood films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.65.94 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai Climate : Using a Chart for displaying weather

Can I add a weather chart as its in for New_York_City#Climate? Amol.Gaitonde 17:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amol.Gaitonde (talk • contribs)

Images

I count

• 7 images of expensive skyscrapers occupied by the richest.
• 0 images of ordinary people's buildings, where the remaining 99% of people live and work.

Some recommendations for a bit more balanced article can be found below.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 
  Children in Dharavi
• 
  Dabbawalas
• 
  Dhobi Ghat at Mahalaxmi in Mumbai

• Strong Oppose: May we know which 7 skyscrapers are you talking about? VT station, Airport, High Court are not skyscrapers. Which specific section please? Kensplanet^T_C 16:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: Sounds like 70s/80s movie story! Conflict between rich and poor!! By the way this reminds me that Mumbai article has less images compared to other citis do we add other images? or should have a gallery? or drop my Idea?--Suyog^{talk to me!} 16:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support: The article with current fancy images doesn't reflects true Mumbai. Manoj nav (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently the article has:

• 

These are rich-only areas.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand what you are trying to say:

• File:DowntownMumbai.jpg: The Skyline has to show skyscrapers or an important structure as per Wikiproject Indian Cities conventions.
• When did Nehru Cente, Stadiums become rich only areas. Anyone can go there, the Rich as well as the poor. Kensplanet^T_C 08:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since people are Strongly Opposing these Image changes, Please do not change the Images. The current combinations are excellent. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 08:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly support the dabbawala image. The Dabbawalas are an integral part of Mumbai's culture and unique to the city. The article needs images of the people who stay in it, not just buildings. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt File:Mumbai skyline B&W.jpg has anything to do with 1970s. The image though black and white, is taken in 2007. Thus the image is a misrepresentation. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The 1970's image is supposed to show the construction boom that has resulted from so many people migrating into Mumbai since the 1970's. Nikkul (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Dabbawallas are people who carry tiffin boxes to other locations. They have NO contribution to culture!!!! Please review what culture is before trying to add random images. Thanks! Nikkul (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the original poster of this section - we need to add more balanced pics - Dharavi or other chawls are impt. Dharavi is a 1bn dollar economy. We cant forget it. It is an impt part of mumbai, probably more impt than having two pics of Cuffe Parade. The BW pic seems out of place, and the caption and the pic are dissonant. No info from the pic. Can be removed or replaced with a better one. Sniperz11_@^CS 01:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusion between Nehru Center and Nehru Science Center

• 
  Nehru Science Center
• Nehru Center
  Nehru Center

This is third or fourth time that User:Nikkul Has reverted my Image from Nehru science center to Nehru center. What does he wants to conver from following Image and caption?--Suyog^{talk to me!} 02:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Nehru Science Centre in Mumbai is India's largest interactive science centre.
  The Nehru Science Centre in Mumbai is India's largest interactive science centre.

Why do Nikkul wants Image:Nehru c.jpg of a Art gallery/Exhibation center's pic to be under Education Section??

Its not Science Center or a planetarium. --Suyog^{talk to me!} 10:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The gallery is right, the second one is wrong. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Now it is corrected. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I still Support the Nehru Centre Image with modification of Caption. There is nothing special about the Nehru Science Centre building. It looks like an ordinary building. Nehru Centre building looks distinct and attractive. Kensplanet^T_C 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont have any problem with Nehru Centre Image if any one has to add it on article do it but Please also take efforts to change Caption. Secondly I pointed out that Nehru Centre Image is not of Science center But of Exhibation center/Art Gallery Nikkul changed Caption from Science center from Nehru Planetarium. This clearly Shows that Nikkul havent visited any of the three Buildings. Secondly If you want to keep Centers pic keep it But remove it from Education Section. By the way Nehru Sceience Center is a Biggest Science Museum in In India. --Suyog^{talk to me!} 14:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to too much confusion here: The Image:Nehru c.jpg is Nehru centre, which houses a museum, gallery, a restaurant, auditorium, and wedding venue (hall). Planetarium is the building opposite the Nehru centre. Nehru Science Centre is an educational centre, where seminars are held. I have gone to this place for an educational school picnic/trip as well as for a lecture on maths.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Though Nehru center is imposing, it is inappropriate in the education section. support Nehru Science Center img. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think the Nehru Science Centre building is not at all alluring. But currently, it should work. That means we should find some good and enticing images of educational institutions. Kensplanet^T_C 14:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Nehru Center (the image with the tall building) is part of the planetarium complex. And a planetarium is an educational institution and India's best planetarium. There is no need to change this image with an image of some obscure brown building which shows nothing. Nikkul (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Flora Fountain pic

Flora Fountain was renamed Hutatma Chowk ("Martyr's Square") as a memorial to the Samyukta Maharashtra movement. The Hutatma Chowk memorial with the Flora Fountain, on it's left in the background.]] The caption reads "Flora Fountain was renamed Hutatma Chowk ("Martyr's Square") as a memorial to the Samyukta Maharashtra movement" The Fountain was not renamed the "Flora Fountain Chowk or Square" was renamed. Also IMO, the Hutatma Chowk memorial is a better pic. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Should it not read "Hrutatma"? 164.164.104.137 (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You are Right thanks for pointing out  Great!--Suyog^{talk to me!} 13:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont think the image at night is good enough to relace the one there currently. I think we should find an image of the memorial during the day time. Nikkul (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The current image is NOT related to Sayukta Maharashtra movement so is inappropriate in history section, under the current title. Thus, Sayukta Maharashtra memorial pic should be used. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely related to the Sayukta Movement. This spot is where the people met during the movement. We need to get a better quality image (of the memorial in the day) before we can replace it. Nikkul (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Poll on People and culture

Please fill in your combinations with justified reasons. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 14:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kensplanet

or

File:Ganesh utsav.jpg

Vada Pav 1 or 2, Asiatic Society, and Ganesh Chaturthi festival

Above will Do Keep it all three are integral part of Mumbai--Suyog^{talk to me!} 14:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove Chowpatty img and put Dabbawala. Ganesh utsav img can be changed. If One illustrating the immersion at Chowpatty is found, it should be added. Will search commons and flickr. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we add Kolis They are Native people of Mumbai--Suyog^{talk to me!} 14:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kolis are found throughout Konkan area, not unique to Mumbai. Dabbawalas are.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We need Images unique to Mumbai. Kolis are unique to Konkan, not Mumbai. Kensplanet^T_C 14:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The People and culture does not shown any any images on the cuisine, I suggest to add an image of curried bombay duck, rather than the image of Vada Pavs or any other dish, as curried bombay duck is truly unique to Mumbai.--Sanfy^talk 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Vada Pav and Curried Bombay Duck are both unique to Bombay. Vada Pav is much much more popular than Curried Bombay Duck. Vada Pav is much more superlative (of course encyclopedically) than Curried Bombay Duck. Kensplanet^T_C 10:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I insisted on curried Bombay duck as Vada Pavs are native to the Maharashtra state and not Mumbai alone.--Sanfy^talk 10:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you need to read the Bombay duck article then. Bombay duck are found throughout the the west coast starting from Mumbai to Kutch in Gujarat. They are also found in the Bay of Bengal across Tamil Nadu, Andhra and West Bengal. So, Curried Bombay Duck may not be unique to Bombay. The name Bombay duck doesn't imply they are found in Bombay City only. They are not at all unique to Mumbai. We do not even have the Curried Bombay Duck article. A google search result on Curried Bombay Duck doesn't even seem incontrovertible and looks like WP:OR. Anyway, what is Curried Bombay Duck? Kensplanet^T_C 10:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I do'nt know, I found it on the Mumbai article, so I thought lets use the image of the dish.--Sanfy^talk 10:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What about using File:Mumbai Vada Pavs.jpg instead of File:Vada Pavs.jpg? It is more clear than the latter image.--Sanfy^talk 08:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabbawalls have nothing to do with Mumbai's culture. They are part of the economy. Their jobs are economic. Just like the stock traders or taxi drivers do not influence the culture of a city, the people who carry lunches do not influence the culture!

• Chowpatty Beach is a famous melting pot where people of all castes and creeds come to enjoy. It is also a place where Mumbai's tradtitional foods can be tasted
• Ganesh Chaturti is the largest festival celebrated in Mumbai. Celebrations of Ganesh Chaturti are the grandest in Mumbai.

There is no reason to change these images! Nikkul (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything special about the Chowpatty Beach Image. There are millions of beaches across the world. Chowpatty Beach has nothing special compared to the other beaches. The water is H20 only, not O2H. Even the sand is normal; it's not quicksand. Moreover, the Image is of very poor and dull quality; shot during sunset. Beaches also specifically belong to Geography, not in Culture. So try adding it there, not here. We should substitute such dull Images with brighter ones. 3 People are supporting, only you are opposing. A consensus has been established. We will change the Images in a few days, irrespective of whether you like it or no. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 10:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do agree with Nikkul on the Dabbawalla Image. Dabbawallas have more connection with Economy rather than Culture. They may influence Mumbai's culture; but however they deliver it for Money and it's their Job. Jobs strictly fall under Economy. But however Chowpatty Image has to vanish. Kensplanet^T_C 10:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are millions of beaches around the world. But this article is not about the world. Its about Mumbai. And in Mumbai, this beach is a prime cultural spot! Its a gathering spot for rich, poor, men women, Hindus Muslims, etc. Nikkul (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The current Chowpatty image shows only water and sand. I can't see any people, no hawkers, no Hindus, no Muslims on the Beach. Find an Image which shows Culture on the beach, some activity going on. This Image is a vey poor depiction of Culture and shows nothing. With water and sand, it Belongs in the Geography section, not Culture. And the permission for the Image is invalid. If Harrison Jaffe has given you the permission to use the Image, you need to forward the E-mail on the OTRS server. On a FA, we do not accept such potentailly copyrighted Images. Kensplanet^T_C 07:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Vada Pav - Mumbai cuisine is not just vada pav and duck, but other dishes also - Pav bhaji comes to mind as a quintessential Mumbai dish that has earned national (and global) recognition. Think of a dish that brings Bombay to mind when the name is mentioned - Pav bhaji and Vada Pav are some examples. Bombay duck is pretty rare to hear, and as pointed out, not really a native dish.

• Dabbawallahs - Dabbawallahs are impt to Mumbai economy - suggest to include in that section. There is absolutely no way in hell that you can forget to put a pic of a critical cog in the cities functioning. they are a six sigma rated, widely feted, and have attended Prince Charles' Shaadi.... please add!

• Ganesha Image - I suggest another image, preferable a clear one of the idols being immersed in Chowpatty - it will give a more all-round idea to the reader, and will include the social aspect of the festival in Mumbai. Till then, keep image. Sniperz11_@^CS 01:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabbawallahs are just another part of the service industry. Based on your arguement, I can say, stock brokers are a critical cog in Mumbais economy. They deal with most of the money in the city, they run the economy. The same can be said about the real estate guys, the retailers, the rich people like Anil Ambani, Ratan Tata, etc., Bollywood actors, etc. If you start adding images of one type of people, you have to include the rest. And that is not possible on Wikipedia. The dabbawalla image is perfect on the dabbawalla page. It has no place on this page since they do not run the economy whatsoever. And they do not have a major contribution to Mumbai's economy like the stock exchange and the world trade center does. Nikkul (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as you do point out. But please also point out to me what is uniquely mumbai about Realtors, Brokers and the other honorable professions you mentioned Nikkul?? Honestly, google for Dabbawallah and tell me how many link you find for non-Mumbai dabbawallahs. Just for curiosity what exactly do you have against the Dabbawallahs?? Sniperz11_@^CS 08:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against them whatsoever. I just think having an image of them in the economy section is undue and irrelevant. Nikkul (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nikkul, just wondering why having them on the economy section would be undue and irrelevant? If dabbawallahs can't find a place in the mumbai page, where can they find a place. Secondly, shouldn't we include a Dharavi pic in that section - after all, it is a 1 bn dollar economy in that slum. Sniperz11_@^CS 04:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Replacing Haji Ali Dargah Image

------>>>>>>>

Any cooments? Kensplanet^T_C 19:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep original as the new image shows the same thing as the original, but the original has better quality. Nikkul (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Original image is not tilted like the blue one! Nikkul (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• The first Image is very dull. Shot at sunset. The building colours are completely camouflaged by the shades of sunset. The blue Image has been shot in lambent daylight. The colours of the building are clearly visible. The colours of the red Image looks completely virtual. Not enough encyclopedic as compared to the brighter one. We require bright iamges, not dull images. Kensplanet^T_C 09:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• We also require images that are straight. The second image looks like the Haji Ali is going to slide down to the left.

Both pics have problems - 1st one is not enough detail. A good photo, but not for an encyclopedia. 2nd one has its own problems. Need a better, more detailed version of the 2nd pic to put on the page. This isn't a photo exhibition. Its an encyclopedia page. Sniperz11_@^CS 01:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Image Changes

It is Wikipedia policy that controversial or important edits be discussed on the talk page before they are added on the main page. Furthermore, for featured articles such as Mumbai, it is important to first discuss and gain consensus before changing an image. These images have been there for years and you need to gain consensus before you change them. Please take this advice and please do not participate in edit wars. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I would request everyone look at WP:FA in order to gain a better understanding of what a model article should look like. The Mumbai page as it is right now is a featured article and is a model for the perfect Wikipedia article. Please be mindful of this before you change important parts of it.

To new users like Suyog^{talk to me!}, I would request you to please understand this before making drastic changes and bold decisions. Your suggestion of adding an image gallery is a direct violation of WP:FA. Nikkul (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What Gallery did I added to Article? By the way I am not an new user any more I am a more than a year old. Now let me Clear my Point

• First you changed Image of Nehru Science Center to Nehru Center without changing its caption. Is common sense that any one will add image of a Nehru Science Center under Education Section.
• After changing image I posted it on talk page on 19 then you reverted my edits and didnt bother to comment on talk page until 21jan.
• Comming to WP:FA, Before it comes that we must put correct and true info what about your misleading captions? How will you justify your wrong captions?
• I am not against white Building I also want it on Article page, But My experiance editors please add this image to proper section with proper captions. Wikipedia is not for Eye Candy but for Information. So give right info and Relevent Images.(We are creating a encyclopedia not an Album)--Suyog^{talk to me!} 02:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that it was the wrong caption until you told me. After that, I corrected the caption. What else was I supposed to do-remove the image just because the caption was wrong? Nikkul (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Cut it out both of you.... Firstly, WP:Civility. Secondly, Nikkul, can you pass a link where FA has said no gallery... I'm not able to find it. I don't think Suyog committed a crime by suggesting so, so its not a good idea to whip him like he actually created a gallery. The only edit that I've seen him make is the Nehru image, nothing else. Have put my opinions on that fiasco below.

Third, the image caption hasn't been changed yet. I'll change it to the correct caption. Fourth, its best to stick to the wikipedia related stuff on talk pages... let the sermonizing be left to the talk pages, and even there, best to talk wrt edits. Thanks. Sniperz11_@^CS 07:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The white building is part of the Nehru Planetarium complex. My source is the website itself. As of now, there is nothing wrong with the caption of the image. A planetarium is an educational institution. You need to get a solid consensus before you can remove this image. Nikkul (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello sir I am not against that image indeed its a beautiful image and should be keept on main space. My point is that we should add a proper caption to proper image. I have check your site it says its a memorial complex and not a planetarium as a whole. This site clearly states that white Building is Nehru center This is interior of that white building where DoI is. Image of planetarium is diffrent which is shown here. The operations of planetarium are not influanced my Nehru center in any way. Also Nehru center do offer some educational Activaties but they not worth that to give Nehru Center a palce in Education section. Infact Nehru Science Centre and Nehru Planetarium organies educational activaties on a greater scale and up to greater extend, So their Images should be added in Education section or a image of Clock Tower Mumbai University should be added to Education because its Iconic to Mumbia University and Mumbai University as a whole can represent education system in mumbai. So Kindly move this image with nehru center caption to people and culture section or to Mumbai culture article.--Suyog^{talk to me!} 08:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The big circular bldg is Nehru CENTRE. Nothing on wikipedia excuses errors or wilful misrepresentation of facts. I suggest that the caption be changed to the proper name... put up pics of the other bldgs if need be, but if you are ashamed of them, then don't try to put this picture as that building. Stick to facts - one of the FA Criteria if I remember correctly. Even the website given as source above says that the bldg is Nehru Centre, and has a different bldg photo as teh planetarium, which is within the NEHRU CENTRE Campus. Sniperz11_@^CS 01:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh also, is there anything about FA that bans a gallery?? I'm not able to find any info on this... would be great if someone can provide a link. Given the number of good pics and their informativeness that we'd miss out, I think a gallery may be necessary, but definitely not as a place to put pics ad nauseum. Sniperz11_@^CS 01:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Convention is what bans galleries from FA's. FA's do not have galleries unless you're describing something that only photos can describe (such as a flower or the different types of bird feathers. Geographical places do not have galleries. You can upload your images to Wikicommons. There is a link to this gallery on the Mumbai page. Nikkul (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As discussed on this page, I have changed the Nehru Center image to the University of Mumbai image. It is always better to discuss and agree than to edit war. Thank you for being civil. Nikkul (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Image OR

File:Mumbai skyline B&W.jpg: The current caption gives an impression that the img is shot in 1970s. The img is not related to 1970s, the flickr page clearly says that the image was taken in 2007, NOT 1970s. This is a misreprsentation, so I insist we remove it OR reword the caption saying explicitly that the image is photographed in 2007. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The image in now way implies that it was shot in 1970's. It says "Since the 1970's." I dont see how that means the image was shot in 1970s. The caption is fine since it shows the huge population rise in Mumbai's demographics and the changes it has had on the city. Nikkul (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)