Talk:Mumbai/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

hitherto largely peaceful city

I would propose the removal of the sentence "The past two decades have seen an increase in violence in the hitherto largely peaceful city." in the Independent India (History) section. Bombay has never been peaceful. There have been several riots, strikes, Great Bombay Textile Strike, 1984 Bombay-Bhiwandi Riots, organized crime, gang wars. Xavier449 (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

support. this is true. --Onef9day ^Talk! 13:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is one of the reasons why this is a GA and nothing more. I feel it has to be removed. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 14:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither. No need to make either of the sweeping statements. An accurate portrayal would be to give periods of generally increasing and decreasing crime rates. Nshuks7 (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

this paragraph is completely unnecessary

A widespread popular etymology of Bombay holds that it was derived from a Portuguese name meaning "good bay". This is based on the facts that bom is Portuguese for "good" and baía (or the archaic spelling bahia) means "bay". However, this literal translation would have been incorrect in grammatical gender, as bom is masculine, while baia is feminine; a correct Portuguese rendering of "good bay" would be boa ba(h)ia. Having said this, baim is an archaic, masculine word for "little bay".[17]

Two paragraphs earlier, when talking about the Portuguese name (from the 16th century), the translation is given as "good little bay". Since that is the literal translation, why would you write a whole paragraph about how it's technically "incorrect"? You're not really adding anything to the article other than excess information. I'm removing this because bloated articles are one of the biggest problems of this wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.101.221 (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This is necessary because this is the "popular" perception. Therefore an explanation in detail seems relevant. Whether it should be reworded is quite legitimate, but I don't think the two paragraphs are redundant, the first gives the brief and the second the rebuttal. —SpacemanSpiff 11:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I recently edited the second paragraph of introduction which says "Mumbai is the commercial and entertainment capital of India, generating ... 70% of maritime trade in India (Mumbai Port Trust & JNPT" which is actually not true. Maritime cargo is divided into two broad categories - bulk and containerized. Mumbai ports account for only 20% of bulk cargo and 60% of containerized cargo of India in 2010. Mumbai ports handled 115 million tonnes of the total 561 million tonnes in 2010 and 4120 thousand TEU's of the total 6865 thousand TEU's. These figures are authoritative and released by Indian Ports Association. The same are used in the Wikipedia page for "ports in India" too. I edited the data citing the Wikipedia page a few days ago. I was today surprised to find that the page has reverted back to the erroneous data citing a unscientific press article. I wonder whether Wikipedia is a encyclopedia or a forum to just satisfy individual's ego. I dont know whether this change was automatic or done manually but I request the administrators to correct the mistake and give the reliable references (Wikipedia article "Ports in India"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadapalani (talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Khairnar

I have created an article G R Khairnar. Please read and provide inputs. Nshuks7 (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

I propose to change the current Image of the BSE with either [1] or [2] both of which give a view of the Jeejebhoy Tower along with Rotunda and the Screen outside.

I futher propose to add a Ganesh Visarjan pic, given that its one of the largest public gatherings on a particular day in Mumbai (and on a beachfront) - I have shortlisted possible images [3], [4], [5], [6]. As these are possibly controversial changes (major class GA article, former FA) I thought it may be better to see if there are any objections/suggestions on the matter. Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 16:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Changed BSE img as proposed by you (WP:BOLD), but the Ganesh Visarjan pics do not look good in smaller thumbnails as only the crowd is visible and ganeshas are not so visible. IMO, the Lalbaugcha Raja Ganesha is the best img for the section as he is most popular Ganesha icon in Mumbai. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand your views re WP:BOLD, I was just wanting to keep out of another unwanted controversy (maybe I was a bit too cautious). Tend to agree with you there - I dint realise that the small image would blur the idols. Thought of a couple of more changes, Il take it by the year by being bold :) If there are any objections we can always have a discussion here! Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 18:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be certain issues with this. Iv been reverted twice (as well as Redtigerxyz's change of the BSE image being reverted). I propose to change the BSE image (per above. Strangely none of those who reverted the changes has actually objected on the talk page, hence I do not know the issue with this!). I further propose to add an image of a Portuguese built church in the history part (thereby showing Portuguese influence) and change the image in the demographics to a recent one of Malabar Hill (to show the change the city has undergone since the time it was 7 islands). The current image is of a suburb that dint exist until the 20th century. Further, if you see articles of cities in developed countries like New York City, London or developing countries like Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, Moscow or even neighbour country cities like Karachi or Dhaka nowhere do we see pictures of slums or dirty underbellies of the city. Every city has its own underbellies, however none of the above articles have an image of anything like, why have it on the Mumbai page? The images included are historic ones and those of the best parts of the city today, whiles Mumbai page does not even have an image of the Worli-Bandra Sea Link, an important recent architectural feat! Dharavi has its own page, the image is already present there, so I see no need for it here. If there is no objection, I will 1. Change the BSE image per above, 2. Add an image of a Portuguese built church 3. Change the Dharavi Image for a recent one of Malabar Hill 4. Add one of the Sea Link (Im trying to find a good spot for this one) 5. Im wondering if Elephanta caves belongs here, after all its outside the Mumbai metropolitan region. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there has been no response to the above for more than 2 days now (despite my note on the Mumbai Wikiproject Talk Page yesterday), I take it that there is no objection to the above and am going ahead with the changes. Just to note, Im adding an image of malabar hill c.1865 above the c.2007 one for comparison and changing the Elephanta one for a Queens Necklace pic (as I mentioned above, Elephanta is not in Mumbai! Why have an image of something outside Mumbai?). Lastly, Iv rm 2 duplicate images. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please wait for a consensus before changing images. I understand that you are very excited about images, but please wait for others to comment on the talk page before changing the images. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Excited?!? There was no response for over 2 days despite my putting a note on the Mumbai Wikiproject page, therefore I took it that there is no objection to the changes - if you have any objections please list them. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you are very new here. Wikipedia policy is that images should be discussed and a consensus must be formed before an image is changed. Just because you waited for 2 days and no one replied does not mean there was consensus among editors. People have other things to do in life. Please WAIT for consensus before reverting. Otherwise, I will have to inform an admin. Nikkul (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If you call someone who has been around for five years new, yes I am new (and yes, I learn new things on Wiki everyday, so I am a learner as well). Please refer WP:BOLD. My first post on this talk page, dated 25 February 2011 (and subsequent posts) I clearly stated my intention of changing some of the images. The only objection was for Ganesh Visarjan images (which have not been added). You have been reverting me without objecting to any of the images in this discussion (in any of your posts). If there is no objection, I can only surmise that everyone is OK with the changes. It has never been my intention to get into an edit war (again refer my first post) - however if there is no objection, I cannot wait forever. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The proper way of changing images is to make a separate section for each image you would like to change. Include the current image and your proposal. Then, give people 2 weeks to discuss each image and then see what the consensus is. If people don't know what images you are changing, how can they discuss? Please see past discussions on image changes. Nikkul (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(od) I don't really see anything wrong with the way AroundTheGlobe has gone around changing the images. This isn't even a featured article. However, since Nikkul does have objections, perhaps you could list your suggested changes and we could all take a look. --rgpk (comment) 19:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This comment is about the "Elephanta Caves". They seem to be in the jurisdiction of Raigad district. But imo, we can still include them on this page, as it is part of the Mumbai Harbour. We can add a note that it is managed by a different jurisdiction. As far as I know, the ferries to Elephanta Caves also run from the Mumbai coast and some Mumbai Darshan tours include a visit to Elephanta Caves. They don't tell you sorry we can't take you there as it is in not in Mumbai :-). When readers come to this page, they are interested in knowing about Mumbai and it's not as if they want to know exactly what is inside the municipal boundaries and nothing 1 cm outside it. Ninadhardikar (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Per request by User:Nikkul:

Discussion of proposed images

1. I propose to add an image of a Portuguese church in the history section - to show Portuguese influence in the city File:SEEPZ church 4.jpg (Proposal by AroundTheGlobe)

• Strongly Oppose- The picture of a corner of a church has no value. No need to add. Nikkul (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Adds marginal value. I think it should be weighed against the large number of images already in the article. --rgpk (comment) 16:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• There isn't much the Portuguese built in the city. Do not see any particular marks making it look Portuguese to a lay person. Prad2609 (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the comment above, that there isn't much Portuguese influence on the city as such. But on a different note, we might want to consider giving some importance to Mount Mary Church and the fair. Ninadhardikar (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

2. I propose to remove File:Marine Drive.JPG altogether - its against WP:MoS, sandwiching information between 2 images. Further a similar picture of the same place is already in the infobox. (Proposal by AroundTheGlobe)

• Support I agree with this. There are plenty of images that show the modernity of Mumbai already in the article.--rgpk (comment) 16:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nikkul (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Prad2609 (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

3. I propose to change the BSE picture from File:India economy.jpg to File:Bombay Stock Exchange 3.jpg. The current image goes against Wiki norms (has a number watermark at the bottom of the image) and does not show the Rotunda building or the trading screen outside. (Proposal by AroundTheGlobe)

• Strongly oppose- Current image shows the main part of the building. The proposed image is lopsided. It looks like BSE is about to fall over!
• Indifferent Agree about the watermark so support a change. But the replacement suggested is not a good picture - it looks like two separate pictures and the angle of view is odd.--rgpk (comment) 16:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The replacement image, though at an odd angle, looks more like the image of the BSE that people know. Also, the replacement image also makes it look like a working building while the current image looks like a non-descript building. Prad2609 (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Cause of the watermark the change is necessary (unless someone can suggest a better replacement image, this is the best I found). Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I dont like the current and proposed images. File:India economy.jpg which is the current image is oversaturated and has the unwanted date stamp at the bottom. The proposed image is not good. I would suggest File:BSE.jpg which is also used in the India article. --Jovian Eye (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

4. I propose to change File:Dharavi Slum in Mumbai.jpg and replace it with File:Malabarpoint governmenthouse bombay.jpg and File:Malabar view.jpg. Per my explanation above, no other city article has a picture of its slums on Wikipedia. I propose to replace with a contrast of 2 images - Malabar Hill from the original 7 islands of Bombay in 1865 to a recent one as a residential area of the island city today. We could even use File:Two Tips ....jpg to show an aerial view of the area as of today. (Proposal by AroundTheGlobe)

• Oppose I think that the Dharavi slum picture is very representative of what modern Bombay is and should stay. I dlike File:Malabar view.jpg but I think you'll need to identify a something to replace before it can be inserted. --rgpk (comment) 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I agree with you that Dharavi is a well known part of the city today, however my point is no other city articles have pictures of its underbellies on Wikipedia, why should Mumbai Have one? There is another image Iv proposed above (File:Two Tips ....jpg) that can be used for recent Malabar Hill (in contrast to Rudyard Kiplings 1865 pic). Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose See my proposal below Nikkul (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support When Wikipedia articles of no major world city poses this view (of the urban poor), I do not think a special case needs to be made of Mumbai. It may be removed without any replacement as well. Feel free to add this image in the Dharavi page, if needed. Prad2609 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I wouldn't consider Mumbai's slums just to be an underbelly. Mumbai's 50% population lives in slums. That is a big number and a very important point to tell the readers. Ninadhardikar (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I don't think a slum picture needs to be put in an article for Mumbai. Many featured articles of Indian cities doesnt haev a pic of slum. If one is so fond of showing all the hard realities, then why not put some photos of red light areas, underworld heroes, services(ladies) bars, etc. --Crazysoul (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

5. I propose to add File:Queens Necklace.jpg where the Elephanta Image was. I understand from Ninadhardikar that Elephanta is near Mumbai, however it is not in Mumbai Metropolitan region and has its own article. There are so many areas we can showcase within Mumbai itself that are not on the article, why have something outside Mumbai. The city has its own caves - Kanheri caves, of which an image exists in the upper part of the article. If this was an article for tourism in and around Mumbai, we could still have an Elephanta image, however this is a Mumbai city article.The image I propose to add is of Marine Drive or Queens Necklace, which can easily be called the city's most famous boulevard. (Proposal by AroundTheGlobe)

• Support the removal of Elephanta image. No replacement Nikkul (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I still think it should be included, as from the point of readers they hardly care what exactly falls under the administrative region. Elephanta caves is a important component of Mumbai's tourism, and is in the Mumbai harbour. We might not require the picture, but a mention of it in the article imo is important. Ninadhardikar (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

6. I propose to add an image of the sea link - File:India Mumbai Bridge .jpg, however I am yet to find a place for it. (Proposal by AroundTheGlobe)

• Support Sea link is an important image to have in the article. Perhaps Nikkul has suggestions on where it can go. --rgpk (comment) 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC) (Proposal by AroundTheGlobe)
• Support- I propose inputting the sealink image and removing the road map since it really doesn't help. Nikkul (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support The Sea Link can be added under "Transport" perhaps? Prad2609 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Good Idea . Ninadhardikar (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

7. I propose replacing the current Dharavi image File:Dharavi Slum in Mumbai.jpg with File:Mumbai Slum Economy.jpg which shows the economy and culture of the traders in Dharavi. The current image shows just an alley which adds no value. (Proposal by Nikkul)

• Support Nikkul
• Comment: Please feel free to add this to the Dharavi page. Prad2609 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

8. I propose adding File:Hajiali.jpg in the history section to show Islamic rule in India. The Haji Ali Dargarh was built in 1431, when Mumbai was under the Gujarat Sultanate (Proposal by Nikkul)

• Support Nikkul
• Support Lovely picture, important mosque, and Bombay has a large muslim population. --rgpk (comment) 19:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Provisional Support Image looks good - depends on where you want to place it (as RegentsPark mentioned the article is crammed so I feel you should find a place [or an image that can be replaced] first). In the top of the history section I feel there should be a Portuguese related image as they have had considerable influence on the city when it was founded. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Prad2609 (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support I thought this was already there. Looks like got removed. Ninadhardikar (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Though I have complied with the request, I protest at the way I have been treated. If someone had an issue with any of the changes, they should have brought it up on the talk page. Despite giving notice on the talk page I have been reverted not once but several times. Consensus is only required when someone has an objection, however I dont see any objections from any of the editors who have reverted me or User:Redtigerxyz. I propose that whiles voting for the changes we also vote on whether we need to arrive at a consensus BEFORE changing any images on this article or arrive at a consensus only if there is an objection to a change (as is the norm on Wikipedia).

Disclosure: I am not promoting my own images - I have not clicked any of the images proposed to be added to the article in this post of mine (just to clarify that I have no personal goals to achieve by proposing these changes). The two recent Malabar Hill images (File:Malabar view.jpg and File:Two Tips ....jpg) and were imported by me to Commons from Flickr (after requesting the authors to release the said images under a Wikipedia acceptable license) and I have cropped an existing image on Commons to derive File:Queens Necklace.jpg.

Thanks, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but it is Wikipedia policy that such largescale image changes are discussed BEFORE they are changed. This is the way everyone has done it for years. Even the current images on the page were voted and consensus was formed before they were added. I know you are new,but it is already established as Wikipedia policy. If you don't wait for consensus on the talk page, it leads to edit wars. Please remember that no one has any ill-intentions. :)Nikkul (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added pics which had strong consensus as per the discussion above. Thanks for participating. Nikkul (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Per your own suggestion, we were to give this a couple of weeks - why the hurry (I see that the couple you have changed are not going to be too controversial as they have consensus - however it might have been better to decide on all the proposals and then make the changes). Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Second Most Populous City of India?

Hi, I'm just curious about the following: since when did Mumbai become the second most populous? It's always been first, right? Avatarfanx2 (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed 16:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Mumbai became India's most populous metropolitan city during the mid 1980s. Before that Kolkata was the biggest Indian city. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 10:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Mumba Devi Temple Image

I'd like to propose removing the Mumba devi temple image. The dilapidated temple building really does not show anything about the city's name. It would be better to remove it. What do you guys think? Nikkul (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Although dilapitated thats where Mumbai gets its name from. Maybe changing the image for a better shot, but I would vote to keep an image of "THE PLACE" the city gets its name from. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Mumbai does not get it's name from this temple. It gets the name from the Mumba Goddess which is not shown anywhere in this image. Nikkul (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sixth most populous city in the World

The article states that Mumbai is the 6th most populous city, whereas the linked-to List of cities proper by population states it is 5th. The article's 'factual accuracy is disputed' so I am unsure as to which is currently correct. Pjrobertson (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

demographics of Mumbai Updated with 2011 census Numbers

Found demographics of mumbai having 2001 data which was old as new data has been released in 2011,Made the necessary changes, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.108.162 (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

2nd largest city

According to the 2011 provisional population results, the population of Mumbai is 12,478,447, where as the population of Delhi is 12,565,901. this makes Delhi the largest city in India. Mumbai is the second largest in terms of population. What say?? --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 10:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if i am wrong, but I think you are comparing Mumbai's 2011 provisional figures to the Delhi's 2010 estimate. Ninadhardikar (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah You're correct. It's 2010 estimate for delhi. But I read somewhere that the provisional population of delhi close to that figure (12.5 million). Can someone provide the correct data. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 07:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Delhi's 2011 provisional census figure is inaccessible as yet. We should keep an eye out. These figures should be around the news and on the census site soon enough. Should change it only when we have proper citation. Ninadhardikar (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_India which gives 2010 estimates. Mumbai is paged at 13.5mn compare to Delhi's 12.3mn. Also, Delhi is a state with area of 1430 sq kms whereas mumbai is a city only with 630 sq mts. Also, if we count Thane & New Mumbai (these 2 are very much part of mumbai but not included for census purpose), the poplutation shall increase to untouchable level. It very sad that politicians in Delhi are trying to kill MUMBAI... they favour Delhi in all things..like new airport, F1 track, asian games etc at the cost of Mumbai (remember mumbai still contributes more than 50% of tax revenues)

I undid your edit regarding "city size". I think this has been discussed in the past. It's something to do with the port area and the national park area not falling under the administration of the municipal council. Editors have different opinions about city size, population, what forms part of Mumbai agglomeration etc. so it's better to discuss these. About your views in the above post, I do agree with your message but we should maintain a unbiased page here, without any hype or superiority over other cities in the picture. Ninadhardikar (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The wiki page is just an estimate. The population inside the municipal corporation of all major cities except Delhi and Bangalore have witnessed a very low growth rate. Mumbai's population is 5 lakhs more than what it was 10 years ago. Thane and Navi Mumbai can't be included under Mumbai corporation, since they are seperate corporations themselves. Similarly Chennai and Hyderabad also have registered low growth rates. Regarding Delhi, I agree that it has got a big area(1397 sq. km) than Mumbai(603 sq.km), yet the growth is much higher than Mumbai. In the case of Bangalore also, it has an area of 709 sq.km where as the areas of Chennai, Hyderabad and Kolkata are a meagre 174, 172 and 185 sq.km Imagine what would be the case if the area is expanded, it will definitely be more than bangalore's. Yet it is being said that Bangalore is India's third largest city, beyond Kolkata, Chennai and Hyderabad. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 11:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the corp. area, I got the source from census website. It states that the area of Mumbai corporation is 603 sq.km (446+157) Mumbai city (157) and Mumbai suburban (446). Data published in govt. sites are more reliable than any others. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You got a point there. It seems that the districts were separated for revenue collection purposes. Now the question is - does Mumbai city comprise of both these districts or only the area which the municipal corporation manages which according to its website is 437 sq km (see mcgm.gov.in top left hand corner). Ninadhardikar (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the archives. I seem to have suggested on two occasions that the city size should be 603 sq kms. I find it silly that the whole of Mumbai Port and even the national park is not considered part of the city just because the municipal corporation doesn't manage it. Maybe a city's municipal corporation doesn't need to manage the whole area. I approve of the change back to 603 sq kms. Ninadhardikar (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

When you add the population figures for those two revenue dist. you'll exactly arrive at tha populatin figures for Mumbai City. I crosschecked it for 2001 census also, the figure was exactly the same (11.9 million). --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 04:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If we consider only BMC limit then there is no way we should treat Delhi as city, Delhi has more than 1 municipal corporation i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, New Delhi Municipal Council, and Delhi Cantonment Board. Just like Maharashtra/other state has more municipal corporation. So for city/district we can consider New Delhi etc for more details please see Government of Delhi. So city wise Mumbai still largest not second largest. KuwarOnline ^Talk 08:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

New Pic of Bandra Worli Sea Link

I think we can consider new pic of Bandra worli sea link

Old

New

KuwarOnline ^Talk 08:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support the change to the new pic mentioned. It has a broader view and better view of the sea-link. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 09:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The image barely shows the suspension bridge and only shows the side! It looks terrible! Nikkul (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Mumbai → Bombay – While Mumbai may be the local Hindi name for the city, WP:ENGLISH says that the common English name should be used instead. --134.10.114.238 (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you present evidence that Bombay is more common in present use? Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

NO!! The name of the city is now Mumbai. Everyone around the world calls it Mumbai now. Mumbai is the common English name. Nikkul (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=Bombay%2C+Mumbai&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=2

"Bombay" is, and has always been, more common than "Mumbai". --134.10.113.198 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I have no idea what the name is in Hindi, it is irrelevant. India is very largely an English speaking country, Mumbai is the official name and is therefore widely used in English. Sussexonian (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Mumbai is now the most common name used in English. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request from Venkat.karimanasseri, 4 August 2011

Please change "The average total annual rainfall is 2,146.6 mm (6 in) for the Island City" to read 'The average total annual rainfall is 2,146.6 mm (86 in) for the Island City" in section 3.1 Climate, because 2146.6 mm = 86 in, (and not 6 in). Venkat.karimanasseri (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Looks like someone had move the 2 outside of the convert tag. Fixed now --Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

New image for Economy section

OLD

NEW

NEW

We should have both the second proposed image along with the old image. The caption for the new image can be "In recent years, Mumbai has seen huge growth in the housing market. Shown here is South Mumbai." Nikkul (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel the third image is good. Lynch7 08:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Third image looks great KuwarOnline ^Talk 13:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

New Mumbai Montage

OLD

File:Mumbai Montage.jpg

Before adding new image

NEW

After adding new image

No!! DO NOT ADD THIS WITHOUT DISCUSSION! Your version looks terrible and the top picture is so unclear!! Nikkul (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont know why I feel that you opposing this new image and earlier too, just because of that the current image and older one also uploaded by you? and you dont wanna change?, I waited for almost a week before changing image, so before writing that caps letters you should check here(talk page) that my self started this discussion. If you think that montage has unclear pic why dont you give try to make some what clear and propose new image? with latest skyline image?. KuwarOnline ^Talk 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dude the image is terrible! That image wasn't even uploaded by me!!!! I don't care who uploads an image. If it makes a page better I will always support it. But the image you unilaterally added is just plain terrible! You did not even get consensus.

"Why don't I give a try to make it somewhat clear?" I'm not here to make crappy images look presentable. Nikkul (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the picture of Slum

Most of the world's major cities (including Newyork, London) have slums; But no other cities' page has a picture of a slum. Even Karachi's page does not have a picture of a slum even though it is renowned for slum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.17.180 (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove it. It is a visual aid depicting the conditions Dharavi's residents live in. It is certainly not meant as a slight and does not tarnish the reputation of the city or the article. By the way, Rio de Janeiro is famous for its favelas (shanty towns) and the city's article sports a picture of one (Vidigal). – Siddharth Prabhu (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be misrepresentation if the slums were not shown. Over half the population of Mumbai lives in slums. Lynch7 12:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Mumbai → Bombay — It should be Bombay and not Mumbai because the river Ganga is called Ganges. Why should the wikipedia have different rules for different names? 203.132.209.101 (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose - I strictly oppose for renaming. Mumbai is the commercial name of the city been renamed in 1995. I agree if many people (incl. Mumbaikars) still call it Bombay, but still we must go on its official name. Karthik Nadar (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is two RMs on the same page. Situation has not changed since last RM. Lynch7 12:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as a WP:POINTy request. Also, our last move request on the same concluded a couple of months ago, and there's nothing other than WP:OSE presented in the nomination argument. Nothing new here, overwhelming number of sources currently use Mumbai including most new outlets from all over the world, most governmental bodies etc etc. —SpacemanSpiff 12:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. The city was officially renamed Mumbai (sanctioned by the government of India) in 1995. There is no reason for this article to refer to the city by its former name. — Siddharth Prabhu (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Support. Despite the WP:POINTy nature of this, it is worth discussing. The case is distinctly weaker than the case for Ganges; Mumbai is at least heard all over the English-speaking world, as the coverage of the recent terrorism showed. Nevertheless, the chief argument for Ganga carries over: the locals, as opposed to the local politicians, tend to use "Bombay". There is also the consideration of neutrality: Mumbai is, after all, used as the result of a successful political program; are we neutral in endorsing that program? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that Mumbai is more commonly used, whether that was as a result of a political program or not is secondary. Lynch7 02:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't; see the ngram below. Changing my voice to Support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)1

• Oppose Its well known that Bombay is the FORMER name of the city and now it is officially Mumbai. Jeancey (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support If you do a Google book search, you'll notice that "Mumbai" (225,000) has fewer search results compared to "Bombay" (2,480,000). The difference in the numbers is quite astounding. I think this article should be called Bombay until there are sufficient number of books written using the word Mumbai as against Bombay.--203.132.209.101 (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Google results have to be taken with a pinch of salt. What it implies is that historically, Bombay was more commonly used, even until the early 2000s probably. We are not looking at what name was used in sources written in the 70s or 80s, we are more interested in what is being commonly used now. Lynch7 14:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

True; however, Bombay is still used three times as often; that's a load of salt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That, is for books alone (if I understand it right). News sources use Mumbai more often: Bombay, without Mumbai, and Mumbai, without Bombay. Lynch7 16:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but datelines aren't everything. It may well be that Mumbai will become the predominant usage, as Beijing has, even in books. It may also be that they will elect a municipal government with a different policy, and the trend will reverse. We jumped the gun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Comment User has !voted twice. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I thought this survey isn't decided based on the number of votes but rather on the arguments. Not democracy right?--111.92.76.50 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
    • And he hasn't. Nominators are permitted to !vote with arguments for their own proposals. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's "Mumbai", according to Britannica, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, The Hindu, The Times of India, and The Telegraph. Kauffner (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC
• Oppose Mumbai is now the predominant name both in India and globally - see for instance this Guardia story from 2008. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• (I moved the two !votes that were here to the Survey section.) I don't agree with Karthik that we "must go on its official name". We follow the sources and use the most common name, whether it's "official or not". That said, the basis for the move request is invalid: we do not have "different rules for different names". We have only one rule: use the name under which most readers will be looking for the article. Powers ^T 12:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• This move along with the corresponding move at Ganges ([7]) should be closed because the main motivation for them is to make a point. The Ganges move was tried and failed just a few months back. I can understand the sentiment of the IP but either signing up or logging in would do the India project good rather than making move requests as an IP. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.