Talk:Technopark, Trivandrum

Title

Shouldnt the title of the page use a comma to separate Technopark and Kerala? Or is "Technopark Kerala" the official name?--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 14:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The official name is just Technopark. So a comma should be introduced to seperate the words. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me...)} :-) 22:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The official name has now changed to Technopark, Trivandrum, India. I have posted the latest logo of Technopark which reflects this change in nomenclature. I think we should reflect the same for the article. What say? Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 21:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the present title is fine. Adding Trivandrum and India would make it too long, and is IMHO unnecessary.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• We could convert it to "Technopark" alone but that may make it too generic, I agree. However, the info box can still refer to it as "Technopark, Trivandrum, India" to reflect the new logo and branfing. What say? Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 19:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest that we keep the article under the current name itself (for disambiguation with other possible technoparks elsewhere), and mention the full name in the infobox. I am confused about the actual name as the website's current logo is different from the one in the article as it does not have "Trivendrum" in it. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 19:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Since the official name of Technopark has been "Technopark, Trivandrum, India" for over three years now, I propose that the title be changed to "Technopark, Trivandrum". Technopark is setting up a satellite facility in a nearby city, hence it is essential that the city association be given. - Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 19:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Technocity

is technocity and technopark different projects..or just technocity(phase 4) as written in the article?? Naveenpf 10:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Technocity is a different project, in which some new places near Pallipuram will be acquired for the development purpose. But this project is now planned under the Phase 4 expansion of Technopark (as of now). The Technocity will be under the TP management initially, and will be under a different CEO later. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 15:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Logo

Should be updated: http://www.technopark.org/images/logo.gif 86.44.29.187 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made a new logo. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I have replaced "currently" with "as of 2007", if there is a 2008 source, then this should be "as of 2008". "currently" should be avoided for obvious reasons. I also cut down on excessive detail and jargon that in my opinion make the lead not very readable. And I removed a sourced statement that "Over 70% of Kerala's IT exports are from Technopark" because I could not understand how the sources given supported this statement. 86.44.16.79 (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added that statement back with proof from a November 2007 article which conclusively states that 69.33% of Kerala's IT exports came from Technopark. Hope that settles it. - Ajaypp (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FAR possible

Article has problems with promotional content and lack of referencing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well if you could point it out, it would be helpful. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 04:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Flaws in the Socio-Economic Impact section

Largest Employer - This is confusing. Is Technopark the largest employer in Kerala or just Thiruvananthapuram? The links provided do not talk about being the largest and especially the 2nd link is not to be considered reliable. Please provide valid links to cite the information provided and reinstate. Four Lane High Speed Corridor - the link provided only mentions Kiran Karnik urging the Government to consider a high-speed link between Cochin and Trivandrum. The link provided is also outdated in the sense a lot has happened negatively w.r.t highway development in the Cherthala-Trivandrum stretch in the past few years. Please provide a valid link to correct this or it should stay removed.

Suggestions invited - MountainWhiskey - talk 13:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

First you suggest here, then make changes in the article. Also, wait for 3-7 days for other editors to pitch in. This is not your forum to expect an instant reply and solution. --Samaleks (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, waiting 3-7 days...:-) - MountainWhiskey - talk 04:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, still awaiting Senior Editors to pitch in as suggested by User:Samaleks. Anyone? - MountainWhiskey - talk 04:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Four lane high speed corridor - as mentioned above, there has only been a request by a prominent business leader to the Government to build a high speed connection between Kochi and Trivandrum. This should be removed as it gives the wrong impression that a High Speed corridor is under construction on the stretch. - MountainWhiskey - talk 04:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Total Area of Buildings

In the table, the total area shown is incorrect.

Thejaswini is 40060sqft per floor. 9 floors excluding car parking = 360540sqft, as per http://www.technopark.org/infrastructure/thejaswini-mtf

Bhavani is 3,30,000 sqft as per http://www.technopark.org/infrastructure/bhavani-mtf

TCS Peepul Park is 3,25,00 sqft as per the builder http://www.vagroup.com/c1-c-p10/c1-c-p10.html

Leela Infopark : 4,60,000 sqft as per the builder http://siproperty.in/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=76:leelainfopark&Itemid=137&tids=1

IBS is correct. 4,50,000 sqft as per the company: http://www.ibsplc.com/images/presspdfs/ibs_pressrelease_campusinauguration_oct07.pdf

All info is sourced. Will edit after a few days.

DileepKS(talk) 08:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Cable Landing at Trivandrum connects only to Sri Lanka and Maldives

The cable landing at TVM only connects to Sri Lanka and Maldives. It does not connect to any other node. Hence the entire section on the FALCON cable is baseless assertion, and it will be removed.

Cable map by reliance, the owner: http://www.relianceglobalcom.com/images/All_Cables-Flat_Label.jpg

Global cable map from PCCW Global, Hong Kong: http://pccwglobal.com/images/stories/brochures/PCCW_Global_Infrastructure_Map.pdf

News clip clarifying the connectivity: http://sundaytimes.lk/061217/FinancialTimes/ft328.html http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=114644

The map clearly shows that Sri Lanka and Male are the only nodes connected to TVM. The newsclip clarifies that the TVM node connects to the terrestrial network of reliance, and international connectivity is from Mumbai.

Hence, the entire section on FALCON is baseless assertion. It will be removed.

DileepKS(talk) 02:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

IP Editor 192.193.164.9 has reverted the removal, possibly without reading the talk page, but the comment was to discuss. Unfortunately, he didn't make his views here to discuss. No discussion is needed when solid proof is brought against a blatantly baseless assertion. Still I shall wait a few days for comments. DileepKS(talk) 09:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

IP Editor 192.193.160.10 reverted the edit, with the note its only baseless for you. you mean to say there is no cable landing in tvm?. That is a Straw man argument. The reason for the edit is clearly explained above in this section. If there is contention, it should be discussed here. Edit reverted. Do not use IP edits to avoid discussion.

DileepKS(talk) 04:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Better decide whether Srilanka & Maldives are separate countries or location within India Republic.As far as I along with others believe that these two are separate countries and thus considered international.Don't remove this as it contains valid reference too which says In India, the cable connects in Mumbai and soon it would include Thiruvananthapuram, which will connect with Maldives and Sri Lanka.ie; it will land at Mumbai in India & again connects to Srilanka & Maldives from Trivandrum.Apparantly it is understood that it again connects to other countries from SL & MD too.What else proof you need?Is it mandatory to connect the cable each and every country from a place itself.In that case how you classify the connectivity to Mumbai by FALCON?Won't it be international or it connects from some other place located in India itself??

Thanks --59.92.124.202 (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to talk page, IP Editor.

Let us see what is claimed in the article:

FLAG Telecom—a subsidiary of Reliance Infocomm—has landed its FALCON global cable system at Thiruvananthapuram.

This is correct. It can remain in the article.

This provides up to 2.56 Terabits of connectivity with the Middle East, South East Asia, Far East, Europe and North America (in conjunction with the rest of the FLAG network).

This is a false claim. The international link DOES NOT connect to any of those locations. It connects only to Sri Lanka and Maldives. FLAG have no other connectivity to those countries. The international connectivity to TVM comes from the terrestrial networks, not this cable station.

Thiruvananthapuram will also have direct connectivity to the Maldives and Sri Lanka within the FLAG network.

This is correct. It can remain in the article.

The direct access to the international cable network provides lower bandwidth rates to companies operating at Technopark, compared to elsewhere in the country.

This is not correct, unless the connectivity sought is to Sri Lanka and Maldives.

So, the admissible portions of the text are:

FLAG Telecom—a subsidiary of Reliance Infocomm—has landed its FALCON global cable system at Thiruvananthapuram. It gives direct connectivity to Maldives and Sri Lanka within the FLAG network. The direct access to the international cable network provides lower bandwidth rates to Sri Lanka and Maldives for companies operating at Technopark, compared to elsewhere in the country.

The notion that the cable landing provides better international connectivity to any country other than Maldives and Sri Lanka are false. It can not remain on the article.

DileepKS(talk) 05:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the companies which are operating from Technopark are from these two countries alone or dealing with these two alone?Why you want to degrade always which are positive towards Technopark.What do you mean by connectivity?Shall it remain through submarine only.You cannot blindly interpret anything.International Connectivity means International Connectivity only,whether it is via SL or MD or even directly to US or UK and so on.It is very clear that you want to defame this page by using the fancy baseless claim.Of course you may remove the country names mentioned only for your satisfaction for the time being but cannot simply mention SL & MD.Better use International not only two countries.

Thanks --59.92.112.229 (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It is you, sir, trying to make a pathetic attempt of retaining a baseless hype about the park. You are trying to make an impression that there is cheap international connectivity because of the cable, but the irrefutable fact is that it is not true.

No. You can not claim better international connectivity because SL and MD are international locations. When it suited well, a full list of countries that were not really connected was given. When it doesn't suit you, you want the countries removed. What kind of a stance is that? You, my dear sir, want to show a positive POV on this article. I am perfectly fine with that, provided it is done based on verifiable facts. You have none here. In the four references you added, nowhere it talks about giving better connectivity to Trivandrum. Not even the page from Technopark.

Bottom line, any unqualified claim of better internatioal connectivity is false, and hence inadmissible.

DileepKS(talk) 06:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha funny argument..Without better International connectivity how the largest IT park in India will sustain by dear boss??Just use common sense.How can't it be claimed an international connectivity?Is it mandatory to list out all the countries in this world where Technopark is connected?Common man.It is not listed all the countries in the page but the main locations where the Technopark have business more.Whats wrong in that?It is understood your intention to edit ONLY some selected pages in wiki and defame, THAT pages.It is you boss trying to make a pathetic attempt of defaming with the help of a fancy baseless argument about the park.Leave cheap..The park is very much connected internationally through FALCON and other means..It is a fact boss..

Thanks --59.92.112.229 (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude. As working in Technopark, I am aware that the connectivity we enjoy from FALCON is not only to Srilanka and Maldives, but to the entire world. Infact, the companies working here are not seeking any discounts to Srilanka and Maldives, as there are no companies with their business relying on these countries. Through the Falcon International connectivity, business is enjoying a cheaper connectivity to all countries. --Tpakguy (talk) 07:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Also,please read this carefully in the page "This provides up to 2.56 Terabits of connectivity with the Middle East, South East Asia, Far East, Europe and North America (in conjunction with the rest of the FLAG network).Nothing wrongly mentioned.Right?Nothing hyped too.

Thanks --59.92.112.229 (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not raise strawmen. I never said Technopark lacks connectivity. The connectivity is via the terrestrial network by various providers. It is NOT by the FALCON cable.

Tpakguy, If you have verifiable evidence that the connectivity you enjoy is via FALCON, please provide the same. We have evidence from the owner of the cable that the FALCON segment landing at Trivandrum connects only to SL and MD, and there is no evidence of an onward connection from those countries. The Technopark webpage cited clearly says that the connectivity is to Mumbai.

The basic point here is that the FALCON cable does practically nothing to the connectivity of Technopark. Technopark enjoys excellent connectivity via the various links, but FALCON has no contribution to that. What I object is to the allusion that FALCON contributes greatly to the connectivity, which is completely false.

59.92.112.229, no, it doesn't provide the connectivity. The terrestrial link to Mumbai provides the link to those countries. FALCON landing plays no part in it.

DileepKS(talk) 07:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes,Technopark enjoys the connectivity through FALCON cable network.Do you think the communication through FALCON from Technopark will STOP' at Mumbai and won't go beyond Mumbai? And from FLAG network will STOP at Mumbai?Nobody told its the FALCON alone..Right?What you want to prove here?

Thanks, --59.96.27.117 (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not through FALCON that Technopark connects, and that dear sir, is the point. The FALCON cable, landing at Trivandrum connects SL and MD, and nowhere else. It doesn't connect to Mumbai, or any other landing point. Technopark is connected to Mumbai via the terrestrial network, not via the submarine cable.

So, you can not claim that Technopark have better connectivity because of the cable landing point. Any allusion to that effect is inadmissible on the article.

DileepKS(talk) 10:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the cable connects only to SL and MD notwithstanding, you should also admit that the two references that is cited for the assertions doesn't have anything supporting the assertions. They do not even talk about the cable landing.

The technopark page talks in detail about the connectivity provided by reliance, but it specifically says Technopark is connected through fiber link extending from Technopark buildings, in self-healing redundant ring architecture to Reliance Internet Data Center and Gateway at Mumbai, directly connecting to FLAG.. It does not talk about the FALCON link.

There is no verifiable source for any of the claims, so the text must be removed. The two given sources clearly do not support the assertions. Please bring in sources supporting the statements, or agree to the proposed edit sourced from the Technopark webpage as follows:

Technopark is connected through fiber link, in self-healing redundant ring architecture to Reliance Internet Data Center and Gateway at Mumbai, directly connecting to FLAG, the undersea cable system backbone that connects 134 countries including U.S, U.K, Middle East and Asia Pacific.

I believe this would satisfy the points, without using the fictional FALCON.

DileepKS(talk) 07:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

FALCON is not fictional, it is well cited, and should stay. Even the internal link about [FALCON global cable system]] states that it is indirectly landing in Trivandrum. Please dont hang on silly things. I wonder why dont you have some better things to do? --Samaleks (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well cited? My sear Sir, please point out where in the references it says or implies This provides up to 2.56 Terabits of connectivity with the Middle East, South East Asia, Far East, Europe and North America (in conjunction with the rest of the FLAG network). and The direct access to the international cable network provides lower bandwidth rates to companies operating at Technopark, compared to elsewhere in the country.?

I am sorry to say that your views seems to be very skewed when assessing the references, based on which geographical location that refers to.

Those two statements must go. Period. And about having better things to do, no, I haven't any, and I don't understand why that should concern you.

DileepKS(talk) 00:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dileep, i guess you are out of your mind. Before reverting check the a-Z listing of companies in technopark : [1]. 219 companies are listed there. Also, no need of providing the ref of its official site in the lead. --Samaleks (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@DileepKS :

I don't understand why you are talking like a thug, under the thinly veiled pretense of speaking for wikipedia.Such as :

Liberally using "hate"

"converting a featured article into your hate blog"

"maintains a forum for planning organized wiki vandalism"

"personal hatred in a sneaky fashion against a city and its related articles"

"creating a stressful environment by vicious, provocative edits and language on a city you hate"

"demanding everyone to take on your side by painting a contrary view as bogus, despite evidence"

"discouraging neutral parties with strong-arm behaviour"

"waving off documents that do not suit your personal POV influenced facts"

"acting like an imperial Lord of all Wiki"

These can be seen from above statements of yours, the usage of must,unacceptable,will make changes and so on...

So I am reminding you again, You are NOT The Imperial LORD of all Wiki...

Hope you got the points.. Happy EDITING

--Bonoslack7 (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Now to the topic : FALCON; which is a part of FLAG network; lands in Trivandrum gives connectivity to Maldives and Srilanka. That means with this, these two places gets connected to the world of Internet. Does it mean Trivandrum is connected only to these two countries or Maldives is connected only to Trivandrum?. The cable that lands in Trivandrum is very much part of the international connectivity and it gives the same connectivity as any other place in the globe the cable passes through.

Also, it is a wrong notion to think if the cable passes through land, it carries less data than the under sea cables.

No where in the world any company gets direct connectivity to International Network unless it is part of the cable network like Reliance is. Any company that operates any where in the world have to take separate connections with a service provider.

--Bonoslack7 (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bonoslack, I agree with you on all points, but the statement This provides up to 2.56 Terabits of connectivity with the Middle East, South East Asia, Far East, Europe and North America (in conjunction with the rest of the FLAG network). and The direct access to the international cable network provides lower bandwidth rates to companies operating at Technopark, compared to elsewhere in the country.? is absolutely false. Wikipedia is not the forum to propagate false information hyping a place.

The statement says this provides. Now, it means the cable landing at TVM does. You would agree that it is false.

The statement says 2.56 TB capacity. This is also incorrect. That is the theoretical maximum of the laid cable. The reference clearly says the unlit capacity is 90GB.

The statement lists countries that are not connected by that cable. Of course Technopark is well connected with all those places, but not through this cable.

The statement says this cable reduces the cost of bandwidth. There is no proof for this. There is no proof for Technopark getting cheaper connectivity by any means, let alone this cable.

I have proposed an edit as follows, which should completely serve all the purposes, except the ego of editor Samaleks, which no one can satisfy.

Technopark is connected through fiber link, in self-healing redundant ring architecture to Reliance Internet Data Center and Gateway at Mumbai, directly connecting to FLAG, the undersea cable system backbone that connects 134 countries including U.S, U.K, Middle East and Asia Pacific.

The two existing statements mentioned above are completely false, and falls into the category of WP:SOAP. They must be replaced with statements based on fact.

DileepKS(talk) 10:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why Innoz is mentioned?

The section on T-BIC contains this statement: One of the latest companies started at T-BIC is Innoz, which specialises in rich mobile & web applications. Though properly referenced, there is no encyclopediac value in that statement. Is there anything special about that company? If so, that should be mentioned to make it clear. Otherwise, the statement could only be taken as a promotion. I have removed it.

IP Editor 59.98.83.248, who had been religiously objecting to almost every edit I do, have reverted the edit, with a comment Who are you to decide the qualification??are you the admin??. Being a senior editor, he should know that admins do not make a call on edit choices. Editors do. The talk page is the place to discuss the merits/demerits of such choices. I am an editor, and my reason for removing the statement is given above. Refute that please, rather than questioning my right to do the edit. As an editor, I have every right to edit any article, and you, sir, have all the right to challenge them. All in due form, property and etiquette please.

DileepKS(talk) 06:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It was included as one of the latest company to be included in T-BIC..If any other one is included,this will be repleced with that one.Don't worry.

Also,as an editor you CANNOT edit ANY article as per your WISH.Such edits will be challenged NOT ONLY me..

Thank You, --59.98.83.248 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to educate yourself how Wikipedia works. Please read the WP:Tutorial to understand the basics. You are wrong to say I can not edit as I wish. However, you got it right that the edits can be challenged by anyone. It is a good beginning.

Being the last entry is not something special about a company, making it a need to mention on the article page.

First of all, the reference doesn't even mention that the company is in T-BIC. The list of companies on the Technopark website shows 13 other companies to be in TBIC. Innoz claim to have started in 2008, and the article mentioned dates from an year ago. According to [[2]], the latest company, incorporated in 2011, is Alokin Software.

Though I do not believe the last company needs to be mentioned, I am willing to compromise. I will replace Innox with Alokin. Hope you are satisfied.

DileepKS(talk) 09:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Update on software exports

State planning board have confirmed that the 75% of IT exports information is provided by Technopark. Technopark has provided the updated information by RTI [[3]] which says the correct number is 70%.

The reference to the economic review is removed, because the information is proven to be incorrect. The updated number 70% must replace the current 75% on all relevant pages as well.

This number does not consider the exports from SEZs, which is available separately. The calculated percentage will be around 60%, but I am not asserting that, because I anticipate it to be called original research. The 70% number comes directly from Technopark, hence is valid reference.

DileepKS(talk) 14:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

P. Kishore has provided the exact figures for 2010-11 in Manorama. It clearly shows the % is 47%. The % is calculated by the rule Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine calculations. The article is updated. Other ref will also be updated.

DileepKS(talk) 01:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dileep,
This was already discussed earlier here : [4]. The report from Planning board and IT mission carries more weightage than Manorama report. I hope you will not ignite another edit war. Cheers,

No, it doesn't. Already the RTI is used as reference for the 70% claim, and the planning commission report is no longer in the picture. The Manorama report gives EXACT and DETAILED figures of the current year. You are trying to hang onto that because of your positive POV.

The manorama report satisfies all requirements of a reliable source. Challenge it if you can. Do not bring in the already disproven planning commission report. I request you to see reason and allow my edit to stay.

DileepKS(talk) 10:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Dileep, Your RTI is not a valid one, as I am not sure if it is original, as you are a strong POV pusher. As far as the IT exports, the KERALA STATE PLANNING BOARD REPORT and KERALA IT MISSION REPORT claim that "Technopark is having more than 70% of the total IT exports in Kerala".
Some LOCAL NEWSPAPER CLIPPING is not enough to override the validity of REPORTS FROM GOVERNMENT. If you are still adamant on adding your LOCAL PAPER CLIPPING, let us go for a THIRD OPINION. I am sure that any neutral person would state that GOVERNMENT REPORTS CARRY MORE AUTHENTICITY than a LOCAL/REGIONAL NEWSPAPER. Please dont ignite another edit war, as you always do. Thanks in advance, Samaleks (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Samaleks, it is a fundamental principle that you assume good faith. By that the RTI is valid. It is verifiable. All you need is to file your own RTI, seeking a copy of the same.

You should realize that the newspaper report DOES NOT simply override the economic review. The news report gives data for a later year than the economic review. So, the comparison of validity doesn't even arise. The article gives exact numbers for the latest year, and it is a valid reference.

Your accusing me of POV pushing is ridiculous. It is YOU who are trying to boost Technopark, by trying to push outdated and incorrect information. I request you to see reason and allow my edit to stand.

I would be glad to go for 3PO on this, because my past experience in engaging you shows that you are unlikely to see reason. If you don't respond within a reasonable time, I shall move the process.

DileepKS(talk) 03:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Dileep, The economic review is clearly about 2010. Your POV pushing is a vain attempt. I wish you could stop this long long edit wars.--Samaleks (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Samaleks, Economic Review 2010 is for the financial year of 2009-2010, that got published in Oct 2010. The updated information from the news report is for financial year 2010-2011, got published in July 2011. I am sure you are knowledgeable enough to recognize that.

The definition of WP:Edit War is An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion.. You are accusing me of something I haven't done, even when forced upon me. I am trying to resolve the disagreement.

DileepKS(talk) 00:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A report from Government of Kerala's Planning Board should be considered as a reliable source rather than Manorama Report. The report says about 2010-2011, which is not yet officially announced. So, please dont go by speculations by the media. In this scenario, the government reports are more reliable. Also, the report is not in English. Giving English citations in English wikipedia is more apt, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpakguy (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Tpakguy, let me repeat. The Economic Review document is accepted to be incorrect by the planning board itself. It is no longer in consideration. The current reference is a report from STPI. Even that report is also incorrect because the SEZ exports are not considered. The Manorama Report is the latest and most accurate.

There is no rule that says English need to be used. A report in Malayalam is perfectly fine, especially in an article about a concern within Kerala. The ONLY problem with that is, it significantly reduces the % which many editors don't like.

DileepKS(talk) 09:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Dileep, Why cant you stop this kind of arguments which make no sense? How can you say that Manorama report is MOST ACCURATE? Who says so? What is the measurement? Do not simply PUSH things that alligns with your thinking. Samaleks (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The manorama report considers both STPI and SEZ exports, and it gives the precise numbers. Hence it is more accurate. The economic review statement lacks backup and is proven incorrect. That is the reason why the manorama report is considered more accurate. You have run out of arguments here my friend.

DileepKS(talk) 15:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Newspaper Report as Reference

Editor Samaleks, As suggested by you, let us go WP:3O on this little disagreement of ours. The previous section have old content, and cluttered, hence I start this section. Since the other two editors' views perfectly aligns with that of Mr. Samaleks, I request them to stay away from this section to help the 3O process to go smoothly.

I have only three arguments to make.

1. The Economic Review document is disproven by the RTI. 2. The economic review and the RTI pertains to the financial year 2009-2010. 3. The news report gives precise figures for the year 2010-11.

Since the news report gives updated figures, the article must be updated accordingly.

Mr. Samaleks, could you please list your arguments please, so that I can raise 3O request. Thanks

DileepKS(talk) 15:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no question of "disproof" here. By any measurements, a Government report is more reliable than a regional news paper. The Planning Board report is a responsible one, which is meant for the whole state. The IT exports for the year 2010-2011 is not Published yet by Kerala IT Mission, and nothing related to the 2010-2011 is uploaded in their Website. I wonder how the newspaper will get the figures so accurately. I am sure that they might have got the figures from some beurocrats in IT Mission, but not officially. I think the newspaper report is not carrying enough weightage to over come a Report from State Government. --Tpakguy (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The planning board, in reply to an RTI query, informed that the statement in their document is copied from a writeup given by Technopark, and gave copy of the writeup itself. I have it with me. Technopark, in reply to an RTI query, admitted that the statement is baseless. They produced a report from STPI that says 70% (remember, the planning board document had said 75%). This RTI is the one used as reference before the latest edit. Hence the 75% number from the planning board document is proven incorrect by their own admission.

The IT department, IT Mission, or Technopark DOES NOT track the IT Exports, as per their own admission. The only two agencies that track IT Exports are STPI and SEZ. Technopark and Planning Board used to use STPI data (by their own admission) and not SEZ data.

Manorama would have obtained the figures by RTI. Anyone could have done that. There is no history of any agency declaring the numbers.

Hope it is clear how the planning board document is disproven. It is disproven by their own admission. See [[5]]

DileepKS(talk) 08:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, going by any yardstick, a government Report is more valid in wikipedia than a newspaper report. What I understand from my short life in wiki is that there is no place for Original Research. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. So, you need not bother about how the local news paper have obtained the figure or to do any calculations to arrive at the percentage of exports. Since there is a valid Report from planning board available, you can use that in wikipedia. I also understand that Wikipedia is not about TRUTH, but about VALID CITATIONS. And the Planning Board report from the state government is valid under any yardstick. Thank you, --Tpakguy (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say that your understanding is incorrect. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable_references. Original research BY THE EDITOR is not acceptable. Original research by another source is perfectly acceptable.

I am also sorry to say that you are harping on the planning board report again. Let me repeat. The RTI report linked above proves that the planning board report is baseless, and the planning board and technopark has admitted this. What else you want?

So, the question comes down to the RTI from Technopark and STPI Vs Manorama report. The former is for year 2009-10. The latter is for year 2010-11. Newspaper reports are an accepted reference by convention. If you claim that newspaper reports are not reliable, then a lot of the content of many pages will have to be removed.

DileepKS(talk) 08:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not telling the newspaper reference cannot be used. My point is that we have a more valid reference, from the government itself which should clearly overweight a newspaper repport. Also, my point is that the figures for 2011 is not published yet. So, asking to believe a newspaper article makes no sense. --Tpakguy's talk page 02:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( A Right To Information report provides the percentage of IT Exports for the year 2009-2010 as 70%. A Newspaper report provides the number for 2010-11 as 47%. Should the article be changed based on the new number, since it is significantly different than the older number? ):

As for the question of content, I propose that since the validity of the regional paper is in question, that the old information be left with the date which the year in it was published, then the new data can be added with who is reporting it, and the year it was published with an inline dispute tag placed behind it, all referenced of course. Both sources have what, if we assume good faith, are reliable sources. From what I can tell the question that is really here is, is the regional paper a reliable source? For that question I would like to refer the involved editors to WP:RSN. Often someone who is use to evaluating sources, will leave a comment as to whether they believe the source is from a reliable source. If a comment is not left before it is archived, then I would, in this case AGF and presume that it is. Most regional/local papers are published, and editorially reviewed for accuracy. Of course one can ask for multiple reliable sources on content that can be considered dubious or controversial, at which point the content can be tagged as dubious again, and if there is not multiple reliable sources that are not reproductions of the same content (i.e. re-posting of the same AP article in multiple papers), and there is a consensus for removal, then the content can be removed.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanx RightCowLeftCoast. Based on the 3O, I propose the following edit:

As of financial year 2009-10, Technopark accounts for about 70% of IT exports from Kerala. In financial year 2010-11, the contribution was 47%{{Check}}

DileepKS(talk) 11:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Subsection:Validity

The article says that "As of late 2010, Technopark accounts for about 70% of IT exports from Kerala"; which is CORRECT as per the Government Report on IT exports. The 2011 reports are not published officially by the government yet. So, going by a regional news paper reference is not needed. We should wait till the government officially announces the export figure. The editor DileepKS69, is trying to push his POV since long. Why can't we wait till official figures are out, rather than going with newspaper reports, which are not accurate. I am pasting below some of the inaccuracies from some news papers in export figure (copied from talk archive of Trivandrum, replied earlier by User:RajithMohan):

"The news paper report can be used for reference in wikipedia articles. However if there is a better reference, we should not stick on the newspaper reports. Please see the figures reported by various news papers. Even Hindu is contradicting with Hindu business.

Publication	Dated	2007-2008	2008-2009	2009-2010
The Hindu	Aug 17, 2010	1,387.8 crore	2,192.26 crore	2,412 crore
Times of India	Nov 3, 2009		1,853 crore
Hindu Business Line	Jun 24, 2008	1,568 crore
Thaindian - report from IANS	March 27, 2009	1,750 crore
Kaumudi online	Oct 22, 2010			2,930 crore

Even the report from Hindu (the reference you provided) is not matching with the IT exports published by Kerala IT mission.

Publication	Technopark: 2007-2008	Infopark: 2007-2008
The Hindu	896.75 cr	247.05 cr
IT mission	1,200 cr	368.55 cr

Since we have the information from Kerala Planning board, which says 75% of the software exports of the state is from Technopark, why are you insisting to go with inconsistent newspaper reports? The report from the government planning board supersedes all other references. I hope you too concur and go in harmony with this."

See, this was discussed and closed out earlier. I wonder why you(Dieelp) are so consistently worried about this. You need not do any ORIGINAL RESEARCH as per wiki policy. YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE EXPORT FIGURE AS PER YOUR WISH. IF SO ADAMANT, PLEASE WAIT TILL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALLY PUBLISH THE REPORT. (Sorry to use capital letters here, but I am repeating this for the umpteenth time). --Samaleks (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Samaleks, I had invited your views for 3O and you kept quiet. Now the 3O is against you, you are renewing the same old arguments. If you have forgotten, you yourself had agreed for 3O, and now you are backtracking.

I request you to honour your own words and in the highest traditions of Wikipedia, honour the 3O response.

DileepKS(talk) 15:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What!! May I know in what sense you are telling that the 3O is against me? This is not a war for something against me or in favour of me. I have read your case presentation for 30. You asked whether the newspaper reference can be used or not. You did not mention that there is already a government report available for 2010, and the government has not published the figures for 2010. The credibility of the RTI is also questionable, as it is sought, prepared and uploaded by you; who is having a clear biased POV in this.
My point is very straight forward and simple:

• The Newspaper article(which is not in English) prepared by a journalist named Kishore, says that the IT exports from Kerala is low. The article also gave some figures regarding the IT exports and claims that it was the export amount during 2011. The article says nothing about the source of these figures.
• Government IT Department has not published the IT export figure of the state for 2011 till now. Why cant you wait till the figures are out?
• Government reports are available which clearly states that 75% of the exports are from Technopark during 2008, 2009 and 2010. So, we should use these reports as the valid references; not the newspaper article which might be based on some speculations (since figures are not announced by gov).
• Also, different newspaper articles/reports shows different figures regarding the IT exports (please read the table I pasted above). So, the credibility of newspaper reports is in question.

Thank you, --Samaleks (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The 3O has clearly suggested having BOTH information, so I don't know what your problem is. You have proposed 3O, we went through it, and it suggest to use both figures and references. You are just trying to filibuster the edit that your strong bias doesn't make you like.

The 3O is provided after reading through the entire thread of discussion, so raising the same arguments AFTER settling it with a 3O isn't valid. If you have a problem with the editor who gave the 3O, please say so. Nothing else would be admissible as an argument against the 3O

DileepKS(talk) 04:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr.Dileep, Try to answer the points raised by me; if you are able to do so. I am sure that you dont have any good points for your backup. Also read my reply in full to understand the 3O response. --Samaleks (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

So, what is your point? The editor who gave the 3O is biased? Or he didn't consider all the facts? ALL the arguments are presented on the talk pages, and I am sure the editor has considered them before giving the opinion. He has suggested to have BOTH information to be appropriately used.

What exactly is the problem with accepting the 3O? Please be clear, rather than repeating arguments that has already been made, and considered for the 3O.

Why you do not accept the 3O?

DileepKS(talk) 11:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that you are not having any valid points with you to reason yourself. I have replied many many times here. Let me repeat, BOTH information cannot be used. The reason is simple, that a local newspaper article (which has not mention the source of information) cannot be believed because a Government report is available.
Also see the reply to the query posted in Reliable Sources Notice Board here : Comment
It is clearly suggested to use the citation from the goverment, and not the local newspaper in local language.
Now, may I ask whether you are willing to go in harmony with that suggestion in the "Reliable Sources Notice Board"? --Samaleks (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://natana.in/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. GabrielF (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification Needed - Technopark Largest IT park on what parameters?

Clarifying on what parameters Technopark is said to be the largest - Built Up area or Total Geographical area of the park and its surroundings? The Technopark website claims to have about 4million sft of built up space.. However, there are IT parks like the Embassy Golf Links in Bangalore which claim more than 6million sft of built up area which is a good 2 million more than Technopark. Would appreciate if someone would clarify? - MountainWhiskey - talk 10:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Technopark, Trivandrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100823002321/http://www.thehindubusinessline.com:80/2007/10/25/stories/2007102551222300.htm to http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/10/25/stories/2007102551222300.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Technopark, Trivandrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110607121729/http://www.business-standard.com/iceworld/storypage.php?leftnm=8&subLeft=1&chklogin=Y&autono=302127&tab=r to http://www.business-standard.com/iceworld/storypage.php?leftnm=8&subLeft=1&chklogin=Y&autono=302127&tab=r
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110523082117/http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/06/10/stories/2008061052152100.htm to http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/06/10/stories/2008061052152100.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110523082153/http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/07/23/stories/2008072352282100.htm to http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/07/23/stories/2008072352282100.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090808024500/http://www.newindpress.com:80/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEO20080701235607&Page=O&Title=Thiruvananthapuram&Topic=0& to http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IEO20080701235607&Page=O&Title=Thiruvananthapuram&Topic=0&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Technopark, Trivandrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.technopark.org/campusnote.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070506194443/http://www.iiitmk.ac.in:80/iiitmk/theinstitution.htm to http://iiitmk.ac.in/iiitmk/theinstitution.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928180950/http://iiitmk.ac.in/iiitmk/rnd/rndmain.htm to http://iiitmk.ac.in/iiitmk/rnd/rndmain.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070331095156/http://www.asb.edu.in:80/about.htm to http://www.asb.edu.in/about.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070331100300/http://www.asb.edu.in:80/brd.htm to http://www.asb.edu.in/brd.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519052553/http://www.technopark.org/infrastructure/connectivity to http://www.technopark.org/infrastructure/connectivity
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/10/25/stories/2007102551222300.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.technopark.org/campusnote.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://technopark.org/campusnote.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.technopark.org/tpclub.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Technopark, Trivandrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806145132/http://www.keralaplanningboard.org/html/eco_2009/2009_ch_21.pdf to http://www.keralaplanningboard.org/html/eco_2009/2009_ch_21.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721160020/http://www.spb.kerala.gov.in/~spbuser/old/html/Economic%20Review%202010/CHAPTER%20-%2021.pdf to http://www.spb.kerala.gov.in/~spbuser/old/html/Economic%20Review%202010/CHAPTER%20-%2021.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://iiitmk.ac.in/iiitmk/theinstitution.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asb.edu.in/about.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asb.edu.in/brd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)