Talk:Mumbai/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Random

This reference page has been destroyed by the addition of the Nov 26 terrorist attack information. This is not a news page people! Codeviolation (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC) codeviolation

Language of Mumbai

Right now there is a broken link under Demographics as to the dialect of marathi spoken in Mumbai.

More sections

Doesn't this article need more sections? I believe a number of these could be added. Here are some suggestions. Let's all add to this list.

1. Restaurants, pubs, eating joints and popular hangout places.

2. Popular localities and real estate.

3. Bollywood (there's only a mention of this in the article; it's too huge a phenomena to be summed up in one line!)

4. Travel destinations around the city: Alibaug, Elephanta Caves, hill stations like Mahabhaleshwar, Panchgani, and Matheran.

5. Languages and dialects in the city

6. Books and art on Mumbai

Some more magazine titles can be added to the list of "media" - including Time Out and Mumbai Mirror to start with.

I'm starting with some of these changes; do direct me, add, and comment.

Thanks,

TroubledTraveler (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your interest. Looks like You have recently joined. But however Wikipedia Pages are meant to be Encyclopedic, not yellow pages and travel brochures. Please do not start with the changes. You will be reverted. In the mean time, please continue browsing through articles and reading Wikimanuals to get acquainted with the protocols and standards of Wikipedia. Kensplanet^T_C 12:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that some of the sections I have suggested are yellow-page-like and travel-brochure-like. But I still feel that a bigger section is needed on the history of Bollywood, and on the city's multilingual character. These won't look like "listings". It will throw considerable light on the history of Bombay, which is important. Here's another section I think we need to add, and that includes: Politics. We need a section on its political history too. TroubledTraveler (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

TT, Some of the information can be useful in the article, but it does not need sections of its own. For example, the "multilingual character" belongs in Demographics, Bollywood in Economy or Culture etc. See WP:INCITIES for more on what sections are thought to be appropriate for Indian city articles. Also note that, for a well-developed article like this one, any information added should be sourced to a authoritative source on the subject, and should be written in a summary style (the details will go into dedicated articles on those subjects). Finally, some of the tourist-y information that may not be appropriate for this article can be very useful in Wikitravel. Abecedare (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Those things will really have to added in the near future if the art wants to keep FA status. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominate for GA and A class

Hey, since the article is currently unassessed, should someone nominate it for GA and A status while everybody here works towards FA status? Deavenger (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do this. Have to see which project has a formal A-class review process once GA is met. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, someone has marked it as A now.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

To be A, This has to be a GA first. It has to be nominated at WP:GAN first. Kensplanet^T_C 04:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, I saw that one veteran editor has marked it as A. So I was wondering what to do. But, on second thought, GA is a formal one and A is not. I'll go for GA nomination.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Skyline Image(s?)

Is it really necessary to have 5 different images in the template for a skyline? The skylinke looks more like an image gallery rather than a skyline. --Deepak D'Souza 04:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary. For some cosmopolitan cities, it's fine to have a Montage. Mumbai, being the second most populous city in the world, does fit into that category. Kensplanet^T_C 04:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mumbai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• I will be undertaking this review. The article is long, so please have some patience if it takes me a few days to cover all points.
• Thank you to the many regular editors of this article who have made tremendous improvements in recent weeks after the delisting following FAR, which probably was a disappointment to some.
• I may undertake some copyedits as I go: I encourage regular editors of the page to check any of my copyedits to ensure I haven't unintentionally altered the sense of anything.

The article is generally very well-written and, while intensively edited by a number of editors, is stable. It appears neutral, illustrated by a good range of images, and is structured under a sensible and manageable series of headings. While there have obviously been issues, particularly in relation to the citation of sources, that were of concern at Feature Article level, this remains an outstanding Wikipedia entry.

Detailed points

====Toponymy====

• The last sentence of this section: "J.P. Machado seems to reject..." would be more appropriate as the last sentence of the previous para, as it is the previous para that is about the 'bom bahia' theory.
  •  Done. Kensplanet^T_C 06:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

History

• "In place of the present day city was an archipelago..." I think would be better phrased as "Where Mumbai currently stands was an archipelago..." or (better) "Mumbai is built on what was once an archipelago..."
  •  Done. Your prose skills are better Kensplanet^T_C 11:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• "In 1534, the Portuguese appropriated the seven islands of Bombay from Bahadur Shah of the Gujarat Sultanate by the Treaty of Bassein. However, the seven islands were later surrendered, on 25 October 1535." Two points. First, I would query the language: I would not have thought that something was "appropriated" if the transfer of the islands was by treaty. "Appropriated" to me suggests it was involuntary, even perhaps taken by force. Second, surrendered by whom and to whom? If this means by the Portugese, back to the Shah, it is best to make it clearer: perhaps "returned to the Sultanate" would be better.
  •  Done. Made it very clear. The islands were offered to the Portuguese, not the other way round. Was it really so confusing? Kensplanet^T_C 11:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

More later. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry Kensplanet and others, some things got out of hand and I'm probably going to have to be offline for about three or four days. I've also been asked to help out at an FAC in difficulty, but I will get back to this review ASAP. Hope you can be patient. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Take your own time. FACs are more urgent that GANs. This GAN can surely wait. See you after a few weeks. Kensplanet^T_C 08:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• The history section needs a little more than "The islands suffered incursions from the Mughals in the late 17th century" to cover the period 1687 to 1782. A couple of sentences with their references, summarising existing material from History of Mumbai, focussed on the British defence of Bombay against incursion and the transfer back and forth of governance would be good. Trying to form a clearer picture of exactly what happened during this period would help - the main History article itself I found hard to follow, in terms of clearly understanding who ruled what when during this period. If I understnad correctly, the period involved a kind of three-cornered contest between British, Portugese and local interests such as Maratha Baji Rao I. It would be good to get more clarity here.
  •  Done. Added details on the Portuguese-Maratha-British wars. Kensplanet^T_C 06:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

*The only history for the last 20 years concerns terrorist activities. That is not balanced. This same period has seen, as I understand it, the ongoing rise of Mumbai as an economic power within India. In my view, the modern history in History of Mumbai is also a little unbalanced in this regard, placing too much emphasis on high-profile events (like bombings) and not enough on historically signfiicant developments that are not necessarily tied to events in the news.

• •  Done, I think - added information from the History of Mumbai article, including the formation of the Shiv Sena in the 1960s and the expansion of the city in the 1970s and 1980s. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• The phrase "The city's secular fabric was torn apart..." is not encyclopedic and needs to be 'toned down'.
  •  Done Reworded to a more neutral tone. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • After SBC's edits, I think the History section post 1960 onwards looks quite balanced. It also speaks about development. Kensplanet^T_C 11:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much to SBC-YPR and Kensplanet. I have also added a concluding para to try (fairly crudely) to give some overall 'shape' to the section, and to not have it conclude only with a list of facts about bombings etc. Please check my work, and I otherwise think this is now done. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

====Geography====

• I would have expected perhaps some mention of latitude / longitude in this section? Or coords? And what ocean / sea it sits on.

 Done. Kensplanet^T_C 11:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Climate

OK

Economy

OK

Civic administration

This section states "Almost all the state political parties field candidates in the elections for Councillors."... but it doesn't tell us anything about the results. Do any particular political parties tend to have a strong showing or monopolise government of Mumbai, as is the case in Kolkata for example? Which party governs at present? When were the last elections and how often are they held? This material could, alternatively, be in a separate section called "politics" (as in Delhi, or might be part of "history" (as in Kolkata, if editors are uncomfortable with including it under "civic administration".

It will take some time to add this info. Though I found some link on exact results of state elections in the state, it will take some time to find reference on which parties formed the government after these elections. Also, haven't got any ref for similar results on Municipal elections in the city.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one Party claims they have a strong monopoly over Bombay and the Government. That is the Shiv Sena. Actually that's just a claim. Sometimes they win, sometimes the [{Congress]]. The Shiv Sena were miserably defeated this time in the polls. We have added their wonderful activities in the History section. But however looking at the poll results, no party has any monopoly over Mumbai. Kensplanet^T_C 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In state elections, Congress was always single largest party except three elections, current one when NCP was single largest party (they formed the government forming a coalition with Congress), last one when BJP-Shiv Sena alliance was in power (from 1995), and in 1978 when Sharad Pawar led a coalition of many parties. I got a book reference which clearly says it (except current government info), but unfortunately it has a typo; it says Congress was always in power in the state since the inception of the state till '1992' (should have been 1995) except in 1978, when Sharad Pawar, ... etc. I am not sure about whether a single party had a monopoly over winning Legislative Assembly seats or Parliamentary seats of the city of Mumbai.--GDibyendu (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the way I expresssed my point has caused distraction. Forget the monopoly issue. My central point is: whatever the politics of the city, can some information be added about this? The facts sketched in the above comments by both Kensplanet and GDibyendu are exactly the sort of things we need - a para or two on who won what, roughly speaking, together with any analysis from reliable sources. Not a lot, just to give people the feel for the contests that take place in Mumbai politics. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The parties who govern the city have also been added as of 2009. Kensplanet^T_C 12:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. But that may require a new section "Politics". We can't have that in Civic administartion. Kensplanet^T_C 12:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• We have tremendously expanded the "Politics" section. Please do have a glance. Kensplanet^T_C 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Fabulous. This is exactly the sort of thing that was needed. It will need more clarification at FA level, but we're OK for GA (I made one minor change). hamiltonstone (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

====Transport====

• Acronyms need to be either spelt out or explained: BEST, MSRTC and BRTS. BEST appears to be spelt out in the following section, but should be in full when it first appears.
  •  Done. Kensplanet^T_C 08:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Is anything known about the numbers of cars, taxis and rickshaws in Mumbai?
  •  Done. Added no of taxis - 50,000. No idea about no of cars. Kensplanet^T_C 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

====Utility services====

• can appropriate wikilinks be provided for CDMA and GSM?
  •  Done. Kensplanet^T_C 06:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

• The very low ratio of females to males needs an explanation - what does the literature say?
  •  Done. As per this article by The Times of India, it's because of the the huge number of male migrants who come to the city to work, leaving their wifes behind. Kensplanet^T_C 05:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK - can you add something in the article? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I did add it. You can check the Demographics, first Para, last sentence. Kensplanet^T_C 06:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Mumbai has a large polyglot population like any other metropolitan city of India." Really? It exhibits far higher religious diversity than Kolkata, and more than Delhi or Chennai. I have the impression (though I can't substantiate it) that Mumbai is also perhaps more culturally diverse than some cities, and more oriented toward, and inter-connected with, the international community because of its trade links. Can someone look at whether this warrants being described as "like any other metropolitan city of India"?
  • Actually, there are two more metropolitan cities - Hyderabad, India and Bangalore. Their demographics are similar to that of Mumbai. Yes, it is culturally diverse. But I dunno whether it is more culturally diverse than any other city or no. Kensplanet^T_C 05:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

People and culture

*This section begins very strangely. The first para has sentence (1) about what the residents call themselves, (2) about how close to transport they are, then (3) local culinary delicacies. This needs significant reorganising, and I am not sure whether all these sentences belong in the Culture section. If they do, they don't belong in the first para. I suggest the first paragraph of this section needs to be a 'big picture' introduction to Mumbai culture. Something like (remembering, of course, that whatever is written needs to be supported by the published sources): "Mumbai's history as a major trading centre has led to a diverse range of cultures, religions and cuisines coexisting in the city. This has led, for example, to the celebration of both Indian and western festivals and to the city being the base of India's thriving film industry" (etc). Then subsequent paras need to give some detail, but without sounding like a travel guide.

• Related to my comments under the heading "demographics" - why does this section's title include the word "people"?
  • Added some details on Architecture. Kensplanet^T_C 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done. Renamed "People and culture" to "Culture". Kensplanet^T_C 08:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Are there any notable individuals that should be mentioned (as is the case in the Kolkata entry)? Rushdie? And should not this section mention Mumbai resident Aravind Adiga and his Man Booker-winning White Tiger, which draws inspiration from the rise and rise of the economy and metropolis of places like Mumbai?
  • Yes, mentioned on similar lines as the Calcutta article. Mentioned Booker Prize winners Salman Rushdie, Aravind Adiga, and Nobel laureate Rudyard Kipling, who received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1907. These people were either born in Bombay and had spent a significant part of their life in Bombay. Kensplanet^T_C 16:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Also added details on Marathi literature. Kensplanet^T_C 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Media

*"ESPN, Star Sports, Zee Marathi, ETV Marathi, DD Sahyadri, Mee Marathi, Zee Talkies, Zee TV, STAR Plus and news channels like Star Majha are popular." Is there a source that says they are popular?

• • Almost impossible to find citations for such non-contentious claims. But however that's true. If someone does write an article tomorrow on the popular channels in Mumbai, I'll surely put it there. Kensplanet^T_C 08:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry to be picky here, but the way it is drafted it implies that the channels that are listed are the popular ones, while there may be other unlisted channels that are not. This is not a "non-contentious" claim. If what is meant is that the list contains all available channels, that would be non-contentious, replacing the words "are popular" with "are available" (or similar). however if you are saying that these particular ones have more viewers than others, that should be substantiated. I know in some countries ratings are regularly published that reveal how many viewers watch which channels, however they may not cover payTV, and such ratings may not be provided in Mumbai. If nothing is available, I suggest revising this section to indicate what are the service providers (i am assuming a full listing of all channels would be long and pointless) :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, I do agree with your concerns. I found no such news article on the NET which deals with the popular channels in Mumbai. Some 10-15 year old books do have some info, but they are outdated and incomplete. Many new channels have been introduced in the 21st century. These books do not reflect the current popularity and statistics. So, I really don't know how to deal with this. Statistics of India may not be the same for Mumbai. Do you suggest something. For popular newspapers in Mumbai, there was an article published by Rediff. Kensplanet^T_C 06:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • OK. I have dealt with the "popular" issue. I am about to pass this for GA. I urge you to include some of the analysis from that article you found about Mumbai papers, but that can be for FA - it does not need to hold up the GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Other

*Are there any public holidays specific to Mumbai (if so, include probably in culture section)?

• •  Done. Yes, there is one, Maharashtra Day on May 1, Although it is not unique to the city, and is celebrated throughout the state but not the nation. But this one is extremely important for Mumbai, since this was the day, when Bombay City was properly created and included in the state. Kensplanet^T_C 05:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Overall comment

• This article is very informative, and should reach GA with little difficulty. Can I commend all editors on the commitment to digging out information and ensuring very close referencing of the article. I think it is a fine effort.
• For those interested in taking it to FA: it reads a little too much like a long list of facts and snippets of information. Revision to reach Feature Article status in my view would concentrate on giving an overall 'shape' to the facts, that would give the reader a more coherent 'feel' for the city. This issue is most evident in the History, Civic administration, and People and culture sections. Only in the culture section have I suggested that there is enough of an issue for this to need some editing to pass at GA level. But I would one day like to see this article provide more of a narrative, perhaps bolstered by drawing on the overall picture created by some academic studies of Mumbai / the region in Indian history, both ancient and modern, that have already been cited in the reference list (there may be others of course). But this is already good work. Thank you for giving me such a good piece to review. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Progress

• I have struck out things already dealt with, and some points, outlined in the original review above, still need work. The three main issues are: (1) recent history needs to be balanced, not just about terrorist attacks etc; (2) civic administration needs some more information on the politics; and (3) the culture section needs work. Happy to keep on hold and keep watching. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DONE

Added 1 Image

I have added one Image "Ships in Bombay Harbour" in the History section. There was no time to discuss as this article is on a GA review. Replies and actions in a GA review should be swift. Comments on better Images are welcomed. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 06:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• Archive 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17

Ganesh Chaturthi image

In past, I have changed the Img 1 to Img 2, but was reverted to present one. So started a discussion here. Img 1 may not be photographed in Mumbai. It may be anywhere in Maharashtra, even India. The author does not claim that it is shot in Mumbai, nor is it geotagged. Img 2 is one of Mumbai's most famous Ganesh mandals. So I suggest the second.

• Img 1
  Img 1
• 
  Img 2, "GSB Mandal's Ganesha image worshipped in (King-circle), Mumbai, Maharashtra. It is one of the richest Ganesha Mandals in Mumbai." which is in infobox of Ganesh Chaturthi
• 
  Img 3. The Wadala Gsb mandal
• 
  img 4

Any objections. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Added img 3 and 4. Choose which one you like most. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

img 4. Includes people for the culture section. Doorvery far (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Even I like img 4. changing to it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No I think we should wait for more people to get consensus. Fourth image barely shows Ganapati! I like the first image. Nikkul (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

But the image 1 has no documented proof that it is from Mumbai and thus does not correctly reflect the Mumbai Ganesh Chaturthi. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That is False! See the summary from the Author! It says it is shot in Mumbai!!!!!! Nikkul (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, Missed the flickr link in summary. Then It is a copyvio, the license on flickr is not suitable. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would go for the second image, because IMHO it is a better-quality shot (despite not being very well framed) and also carries some significance of its own. The first and third images are not of very good quality and the composition of the fourth image leaves much to be desired (if people were the subject of the photograph, a photo of the crowds surrounding the procession during immersion would look much better than a few random devotees in a close-up with the idol. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We need to agree on a consensus here BEFORE changing the image on the main page. This is wikipedia policy. Let us all abide by it. Nikkul (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Referencing

As requested at Template talk:Harvard citation no brackets#Bombay (follow up to Wikipedia:Help desk#No such anchor: CITEREF...), I have amended all relevant {{cite book}} templates by adding |ref=harv; this is so that the various {{harvnb}} will link correctly. I also needed to copy a {{cite book}} (that for Misra 1982) from History of Mumbai. It's not completely done, since there is still one reference which has a {{harvnb}} but doesn't link. This is found in the History section, and the relevant text is:

• ... and served as an important centre of Buddhism in Western India during ancient times.

The reference given for this is:

Kumari 1990, p. 37

Unfortunately there is no relevant {{cite book}} in the References section. Please would somebody either add the {{cite book}} that is required, or find an alternative reference? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements to the article. I didn't know about the "ref=harv" trick, and it will be useful in other articles I edit. Googling, I found the work Kumari 1990, p. 37 was referring to and have added it to the Reference section of the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverting again and again

A User names Deepak D'Souza is repeatedly reverting my constructive edits --------

• My Edit: I have replaced the dead link http://eci.nic.in/miscellaneous_statistics/ListofPC.pdf by http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/miscellaneous_statistics/ListofPC.pdf

• My Edit: Maharashtrians now comprise only 40 percent of the city's residents; 21 percent are Gujarati, and the rest are Muslim, North Indian, Sindhi, South Indian, Christian, Sikh, Parsi, and everybody else. is incorrect. The correct statistics are Maharashtrians now comprise only 42 percent of the city's residents; 19 percent are Gujarati, and the rest are Muslim, North Indian, Sindhi, South Indian, Christian, Sikh, Parsi, and everybody else. For heavens's sake, please check the correct statistics on Google Books.

Yet Mr. Deepak D'Souza tells me to check the correctness of my edits. Please can someone make Mr. Deepak D'Souza understand that these edits are constructive. I have tried my best.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.6.226 (talk • contribs) .

Firslty, can you tell us who you are and why are you hiding behind an IP address? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you suspect that it's a known user, surely identity of the person does not matter? There is no requirement on Wikipedia to have an account to edit. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, There is no requirement on Wikipedia to have an account to edit/contribute. We need to understand the time/contribution provided by IP's to Wikipedia. IP@ If you sure about your edits that they are really true and worth adding them to article, please provide more quality references to your claim and yet anybody reverts your edits. Then you can escalate to admin.KuwarOnline (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen deepak talking to the point. If you say A, he says F. IP is more open, username hides more. Time to improve privacy reputation of wiki. Doorvery far (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

IP, your edits are mainly fine, but since they were originally made without any edit-summary, it is very difficult for us to know if the content changes are defensible or not - and usually we end up giving the benefit of doubt to the status quo (and that strategy works well in practice!). Once an edit is reverted it is best to take the discussion to the talk page and explain why the changes are being made instead of reverting back and forth, which is really an ineffective technique to make ones edits "stick" (see WP:BRD). You have already explained the reasoning behind a couple of your edits above. Can you briefly outline the reason for the other changes here ?
PS: I myself had corrected the demographic information a month back, but some of the numbers were arbitrarily changed by another IP without anyone noticing. Just a small illustration of what breeds our suspicion about unexplained changes made by unestablished users. If you don't have one already, I'd encourage you to get an account on wikipedia.Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the broken reference and apologize for reverting incorrect stats which were not according to the ref; I thought they were correct. Anons usually tend to fiddle with the stats and I assumed you were doing the same. But are you sure that everything else is correct?

As per your edits:

1. Mankhurd is in the north of the city(it is to the east)
2. Eastern Express Highway terminates at Mulund (as per article,it goes upto Thane)
3. You removed a fact tag which I had added to Honolulu without waiting for even a day to let someone find a reference.
4. The rest of your edit mainly comprises of joining up paragraphs which should be separated.

--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

regarding Eastern express highway, if u check the reference http://mdmu.maharashtra.gov.in/pages/Mumbai/mumbaiplanShow.php, 1.10 Transport and Communication Network, it clearl states, "Mumbai has three entry and exit points at Mankhurd, Dahisar and Mulund with octroi check posts at each point. The main road stretches are the Eastern Express Highway from Sion to Mulund leading to NH-3, Western Express Highway from Bandra to Borivali leading to NH-8, and Sion-Panvel road leading to NH-4 and NH-17. "

I had already told on the talk: "plz watch it b4 mass reverting mr deepak..honolulu is not a sister city of mumbai..if u feel something is incorrect plz undo it 1 by 1..not all the edits)". U started the mass reverting, not me. IF U feel some of my edits are not right, plz undo ot 1 by 1, not all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.56.165 (talk • contribs)

Mr. Deepak, I never understood how wikipedia and especially articles related mumbai become your property and why you revert others' edits (even when they are constructive) without giving even a second thought. Please understand this is an open encyclopedia and everyone can contribute to it. You can ask put citation tags if you find something doubtful but you do not hold any right to revert others' edits as such. by no means you own any portion of wikipedia (not even a single byte). Several other editors find you disrupting constructive edits and contributions. Please do not do it again. --Swaminworld (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you looked for a reference to verify the facts or merely looked for a reference that supported your mistake. You need not have made all that effort. The very first reference in the article Eastern Express Highwaysays: 23.55 km of Eastern Express Highway from Sion to Thane. And that's from the MCGM website whereas the ref you gave was from the Relief and Rehabilitation division of the Revenue and Forests dept. of Maharashtra govt.

Swaminworld, I frankly do not understand what you are cribbing about. The onus of proving the edits remains with the person making those edits not with the person removing them. Our "anon" did not provide any references, nor edit summaries, nor discussed the issue on the talk page so I was justified in removing them. And I had reasons to revert which I have already stated, so your little drama is a bit late. It would have been justified only if I had not responded on the talk page. So, please think before making baseless and sweeping accusations and giving useless lectures. If you feel that I have violated any Wikipedia policy kindly ask for administrative action. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Eastern Express Highway: my guess is that both sources are right. Specifically:

• The EEH stretches from Sion to Thane
• The extent of the EEH within Greater Mumbai (as in under MCGM jurisdiction) stretches from Sion to Mulund

I am agnostic as to which version should be included in the Mumbai article.

Aside: from the above discussion it is clear that all involved editors here are knowledgeable and working towards a common goal; so a little less snippiness would make the whole collaborative editing experience more pleasant for all. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Swaminworld, instead of writing here in talk page, you can bluntly revert Deepak in article, so that we can stop him reverting using WP:3RR. 2 editors are enough to stop him from reverting. I'm not sure of the meaning of cribbing. I'm happy that i'm not alone to see him being reckless. Doorvery far (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That is extremely bad advice! Note that editors can be blocked for edit-warring and/or disruption even if they have made less than 4 reverts in a day, and if the strategy suggested by Doorvery far is adopted, I'll be reporting the editors to WP:ANEW/WP:ANI for appropriate sanctions. Instead of such silly proposals, editors should read through WP:BRD and follow it. Abecedare (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all WP:BRD is just an essay, not a policy. Moreover, we can discuss with people who talk to point, not with someone who asks your ip, credentials, past relationships etc. While WP:3RR is policy, and works perfectly fine when there is lone opposer and multiple supporters, in most cases Deepak is alone unless accompanied by Abecedare's few points. Doorvery far (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey i commented on D'Souza because of his previous several reverts and not just this one. I found him mostly constructive however sometimes he is aggressive in reverts and that is not a good thing in general. Any new addition should be seen as a constructive contribution and if anyone has any doubt he can put fact tag and give editor a reasonable time to reconsider his/her additions. D'Souza you seems to be overly aggressive when you say something like "your little drama is a bit late". --Swaminworld (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I refrained from commenting any further because Swaminworld and Doorvery far were making it a personal issue instead of a content issue which it really was. Swaminworld, if you had a problem with my reverts you could have definetly reverted me and discussed the contentious issue, or asked me to justify them on the talk page, which you havent done anytime before. So I wonder how you suddenly found my reverting to be "disruptive". Not to mention your rather dramatic and unfounded assertions like articles related mumbai become your property and Several other editors find you disrupting (several, in this case meaning only one). Wikipedia talk pages are meant to discuss the article, not the editors. So my final request, if you have any valid proof to back up your assertions, please do take them to the proper remedial forum or else stop discussing "me".--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I did consider the perspective that only the extent of EEH within Mumbai itself should be mentioned. However, since Thane is nearly an extended suburb of Mumbai on this route, as opposed to say a road leading to Nashik or Pune; and it is the very next suburb after Mulund, I felt it was valid to mention Thane. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I too have a slight preference for Thane, because unless we add some wordy explanation, saying that EEH extends from Sion to Mulund will leave the impression that the highway ends at Mulund, which is not the case. There doesn't seem to be any advantage in listing the Mumbai extent of EEH alone. That said, this is such a minor point that if consensus lies elsewhere I am not going to unnecessarily prolong the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes EEH, Extended till Thane. As Abecedare saying that EEH extends from Sion to Mulund will leave the impression that the highway ends at Mulund. is right its leave the impression which is not right.KuwarOnline (talk)

NMMT starts volvo from cbd belapur to Bandra

This point should be mentioned in transport as even best dont have volvos.Even NMMT has services to mulund/dadar/ and other areas.If Navi Mumbai can include BEST then even Mumbai should write about NMMT as even BEST dont own Volvos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 05:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

lot of repetition is there

mumbai metropolitan is mentioned twice differently in diff section. lets change it. similarly many data are repeated —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 05:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

removal of ambiguity.

friends. lets remove ambiguity in this article.

First define Mumbai, whether we are considering city of Mumbai as "Mumbai city district" or as "Greater Mumbai"(which includes city district and Suburban District). I think word "greater mumbai" is obsolete and now on, We can consider area under the administration of BMC as "Mumbai" Referring to "Greater Mumbai" is unnecessary

so, in this article we should avoid frequent reference to "Mumbai Metropolitan Region" , instead we can create New section with name "Mumbai Metropolitan Area" and just include cities of Navi Mumbai,Thane and other smaller towns.

Your opinions pls.

mumbaikar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added an unspecified datestamp. 05:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No picture of BWSL

Interestingly, there is no pic of BWSL anywhere in the article; such an omission could be normally considered glaring considering the iconic status of BWSL. Pizzadeliveryboy (talk)

I agree. We should add a pic of it Nikkul (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree! BWSL image should be added and i think at-least 3 angle view of it can be added or may be paranoma will do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaminworld (talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, there needs to be a high-quality image of the BWSL available under CC before one can be included. I recall there being a discussion on this some time back and the consensus was that there was no image of sufficiently good quality available at that point of time which was fit for inclusion in a GA. If better images have since emerged, I would suggest that they be placed here so that a discussion on which image would be the most suitable for the article can be carried out before actually incorporating any image into the article. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Aerial view
• 
  Complete view
• 
  Night view

Overview of images. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The first and third images are of remarkably poor quality, in addition the third image does not even illustrate the subject well. The second image is the best of the lot - however, it seems to have been taken during the construction period. It would be fantastic if someone in Mumbai could take a similar picture now that construction work is finally complete. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; the third image was discussed previously and explicitly rejected, the second one was not chosen because of the reasons SBC-YPR gives above. I don't find the first image to be of any improvement over the others, and I don't think it adds any value to the article at present. For this particular thing, it should be a good image or none at all. —SpacemanSpiff 18:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, the second image shows the image with one of its parts running. See cars running on the left side. The right side is now completed though the cranes are not removed as yet. A similar view is only possible from The Taj Lands End, one of the upper floors. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

YES,, We should add pic of BSWL to article, its iconic structure of mumbai...like Taj hotel, Gateway of india etc.. KuwarOnline (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

agreed BSWL should find space in here and if not today may be in future. Someone surely can take some nice shots of it and upload them here. until then we have to wait. --Swaminworld (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• 
  4. BWSL across mahim bay
• 
  5.

I have uploaded 2 files from flickr, the images show all hanging bridges not just one. Doorvery far (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

1st one is ok but second one has some problem. don't know if it is or not. the water and reflections make it appear as if it is some sort of marsh (large garbage + water) and not just water. --Swaminworld (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We should wait...for few days...once the crane is removed and we have a nice pic of bwsl we will add to this article. I m also looking for new images of bwsl, once got will share.KuwarOnline (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Another point,,,here is the lots of photos/updates http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=612663&page=93. KuwarOnline (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Rajabai tower image

The Rajabai tower repeated twice in the article - once in the lead image and then in Education. This is an WP:UNDUE. IMO, the image in Education is apt and the Rajabai tower in the lead montage can be replaced. I want to know what others think. Comments please. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Returning to this article after a long time away, I am astonished at the space still accorded to the "Bom Bahia" hypothesis by the etymology section. The earliest Portuguese sources on Bombaim all recorded variations on the name of the place as "majambu", "maiambu" or "mombayn", which later evolved to Bombaim (Machado, Nascentes, Cunha).

The "baim" hypothesis mentioned in the article ("baim" supposedly being a 16th century-Portuguese word for little bay) does not account for these early forms (in other words, even if "baim" meant "small bay", "mumbaim" doesn't mean anything). Again, I don't know what this is doing in the article (though, of course, it would be appropriate to include a reference to it in a more specific article dealing with the etymology of Mumbai/Bombay, provided Shirodkar actually links "baim" to "Bombay" - I haven't seen the 1998 text).

IMHO, if the goal of the section in question is to explain the origin of the toponyms "Mumbai" and "Bombay", I don't think the article provides an adequate explanation of the latter. It basically clings to the (now discredited) "Boa Bahia" hypothesis, neglecting the Mumbadevi -> Mombayn -> Bombaim -> Bombay (Eng.) evolution mapped by several scholars (again, Machado, Nascentes, Cunha are just a few). In other words, the prevailing hypothesis according to which Portuguese "Bombaim" (and, as a consequence, English "Bombay") comes from Mumbadevi is simply not present at all. Why? Gabbhh (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No comments? Interesting. Gabbhh (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dharavi Image

Largest slums in the world

Removal of dharavi image, Mexico City having largest slum in world still there is not even single word describing about the slum, as per the source, complete list on list, why we should show on this article, its one of the most viewed article. we can write about it, but why show it as photos KuwarOnline ^Talk 18:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

we add what is there, relevant and notable. if u have a problem with Mexico city, raise the issue there. --CarTick 18:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, then can we add image showing mumbai has most tallest towers in india List of tallest buildings in India. If we want to show dharavi image then why not showing skyline of mumbai which is best in country. KuwarOnline ^Talk 07:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously don't understand what you're saying here, the skyline image is the first image on the infobox. —SpacemanSpiff 09:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

my bad, I didnt specified in first, I was thinking to add in demographics section, it may show the real mumbai where every kind of people are living from poorest to richest. KuwarOnline ^Talk 09:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

not necessary. redundancy. --CarTick 12:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

agreed! its really not necessary.--Onef9day ^Talk! 21:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Orangi Town, which is South Asia's worst slum is not shown on the Karachi page. The movie has made people infatuated with the poor areas of India. --92.8.122.21 (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

yes its true, its the image being created by the movie, even only 6-12%, of land used by Slum dwellers,,, still its been shown as there only slum in Mumbai.

If people want to know about Dhairavi, they should go to its Wiki page. I suggest that the image be removed, atleast from demographics as it presents a different image to the most common demographic of Mumbai - where an emerging middle class is present. --92.9.89.252 (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was the Sister cities section in Culture?

The "Sister Cities" section was in the "Culture" section. I didn't removed it but places it in a new section at the bottom. --Rahul Bobhate (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh

It has been discovered that this book:

• Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will be deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive after it goes there.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Area

The area covered by Mumbai 437.71 Sq.Km. this is what govt website says, Then why this article list ~604 sq km in Infobox. KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sure this has been discussed before. It's probably because of the 110 sq kms of national park and some other area which is being managed by Thane Municipal Corporation. I don't think the BMC themselves know how much area they are managing and what is the right area of the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.12.175 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Marathi pronunciation

The Marathi pronunciation seems dubious, since AFAIK Marathi doesn't even have those vowels. The attached sound file doesn't identify the language. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The pronunciation is absolutely correct. Any Mumbai resident is likely to pronounce it in the exact same way. As far as the language is concerned the pronunciation of Mumbai in both Hindi and Marathi is the same. User:PrincessStar (talk)

GDP and per-capita income of Mumbai

Regarding GDP of the Mumbai, I want to know on what basis it is calculated. As the article says that Rs 2,00,483 crore is the GDP of Mumbai. Is it Mumbai region, including suburban Mumbai and Thane, contributed.? If the answer is Yes, Rs 2,00,483 crore is of Mumbai metropolitan region. Then while calculating the per-capita income we should consider the a population of Mumbai Metropolitan Area and it is 21,347,412.(as per article). If we calculate this the per-capita income is only 93914 not 128,000 as article says.

Kindly also put in plain words, how to calculate GDP of the city. It seems that editors of "Mumbai" have taken product (or output) approach, while calculating the GDP.-- . Shlok _{talk .} 10:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, from the source, its clear the research is conducted by Indicus Analytics, which calls itself "India's leading Economic reserach firm". I checked for a similar article of Indicus Analytics, and I found this article. Quoting the Mumbai GDP sentence from their article, Mumbai city region (districts of Mumbai, Mumbai suburban and Thane) has the highest city-region GDP (at current prices 2006-07) of Rs 2,00,483 crore (and annualised growth of 8.5% between 2001-02 and 2006-07). So its clear, the research includes Bombay City, Bombay Suburbs, and also Thane district. We need to somewhere include a note in the article mentioning this fact. Xavier449 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you mean that former featured article has a statement which needs clarity? -- . Shlok _{talk .} 20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mumbai's GDP shown here is probably outdated. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP. Mumbai's GDP is $209 bn which in rupee terms (1 USD to 44 rupees approx) is 919,600 crore rupees. Ninadhardikar (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Crime statistics

One should include the crime statistics from : http://ncrb.nic.in/CII2008/cii-2008/Snapshots.pdf

Mumbai accounted for 9.4% of total crime reported from 35 mega cities of India. This per capita is lesser than crime in Delhi (12.8%) and even in Bangalore (8.5%). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.86.81.20 (talk) 05:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

Why is there a link to a disambiguation page on the top of the article? Was it added by mistake, or are there other pages called 'Mumbai'?

MikeLynch (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean this -- "Bombay" redirects here. For other uses, see Bombay (disambiguation). ?? The word "Bombay" redirects to "Mumbai" as the city's name was changed. There are other uses for word "Bombay". As far as I know the word "Mumbai" doesn't refer to anything other than the city. Ninadhardikar (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah okay. When I saw this page yesterday, it was written Mumbai(disambiguation). So needed a clarification. Thanks. MikeLynch (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

We have fanatics of who come and vandalise the page, by trying to change all instances of "Bombay" to "Mumbai". Must have been one of them. Ninadhardikar (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Other name, former name?

There have been tussles over the names in the infobox, with an IP marking Bombay as 'other name', and another editor marking it as 'former name'. What is the correct naming convention for these type of articles? There have been similar edits to Chennai also. As Chennai and Mumbai are featured and Good Articles respectively, I wouldn't want to make any unnecessary edits to the names without discussion. Please discuss. Regards. MikeLynch (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say 'other', since they still go by 'Bombay' and 'Madras'. Rather like Ho Chin Min City: Saigon's not really a 'former'. — kwami (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The question is : how do you define "other name". IMO, As far as official use is concerned "Bombay" is former, not other. Many people still use it on a day-to-day basis but it isnt official anymore. People no longer adress letters as Bombay. Other may be only useful as long as it has some official sanction. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense too. Maybe 'former official name'? — kwami (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also go by other name. If you check the parameter other_name in Template:Infobox settlement#Name and transliteration, it states For places with a former or more common name like Bombay or Saigon. I do not agree with the assertion that, "Other may be only useful as long as it has some official sanction.". Official use is just one of the context for other name, and definitely an important context. Non-official contexts are also important for other names. Moreover, Template:Infobox settlement, which is a standard template for human settlements, also defines, both official as well as common usage impacts other name. Xavier449 (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Former" is the best choice. "Former colonial name" would have been even better than that but I think the template needs to be changed for that to happen. I will take a look at the template if people don't object. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel it should be called other name. The thing is, it doesn't really matter whether it is called other name or former name, because we see that 'former_name' and 'other_name' stuff only when we edit the infobox. But for someone looking at the article, he sees only the top of the infobox, and the top of the infobox should ideally read Mumbai (marathi/hindi name) and below that, it should read Bombay. I would insist on retaining a reference to Bombay because many important institutions still have the name Bombay, like Bombay High Court, IIT Bombay etc. MakingTheMark •^{Wassup doc?} 05:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox settlement#Name and transliteration seems to suggest that other_name can be used for "former or common" name. Since Bombay satisfies not one but both these criteria, I would go for "other_name". But if it's not visible on the article page, I wouldn't worry about changing it. Ninadhardikar (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Well, if we add Bombay to the other_name parameter, it will be visible in the infobox at the top. Shall we add other_name = Bombay if no one is objecting and if we have the consensus. Xavier449 (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Please go ahead. MakingTheMark •^{Wassup doc?} 09:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, as well. Ninadhardikar (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see my link below to continue this discussion at the template talk page. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at template talk page

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_Indian_jurisdiction#Former_colonial_name. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Navi Mumbai

The article doesn't mention that Navi Mumbai, was in fact created as a satellite city in 1972 to de-congest Mumbai. Surely the reader would know this if he/she clicks on Navi Mumbai and reads the introduction, but I feel it's important to mention it in the "Mumbai" article as this information relates to "Mumbai" as much as to "Navi Mumbai". Ninadhardikar (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but I need a clarification on the status of Navi Mumbai. Is it just a satellite town, or is it a well defined city/town in itself? Why I ask is that in places like Bangalore, and Chennai, there were places which were designed to be satellite cities, but ended up being almost a part of the main city itself. MakingTheMark •^{Wassup doc?} 15:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, in the History section, I can see a statement, "In August 1979, a sister township of New Bombay was founded by City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) across Thane and Raigad districts to help the dispersal and control of Bombay's population." Xavier449 (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Mark - it is a satellite town, but now can be considered a city in it's own right. Xavier - Thanks for pointing that out, didn't see it Ninadhardikar (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent State

As of 2011-01-15 at 06:50, the article and its history appears to be in an inconsistent state. It looks like three people tried to revert the vandalism of 2011-01-15 06:44 by 203.115.123.2. The result is that the article still has the vandalism ("Mumbai is cool!!!"), but the edit history believes the article to have been successfully reverted. (Look at the diffs, or the article length 144,966 = correct version, 144,984 = vandalised version.) I'll leave it to more knowledgeable people to fix this. (Incidentally it's possible the extra attention this page is getting may be due to a current BBC World Service programme which mentions this page.) 92.7.243.188 (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• I had second thoughts and tried to fix it myself. It was quite peculiar - the vandalism didn't appear in the page source, but it was there in the actual page itself. I made an empty edit and that seemed to cure it, but there is no trace of my edit in the history, so it is left looking like I imagined the problem, which I didn't! In case it is useful to anyone debugging this, I also noticed the Mumbai page was extremely slow to respond when it was in a bad state. Now it is responding pretty fast. 92.7.243.188 (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• • It happens sometimes, a null edit and enter apparently cures this state. —SpacemanSpiff 15:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Image for Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus

Current Image

Proposed Image

The current image is of low resolution. The proposed image of much higher resolution and is also a Quality Image. --JovianEye (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No offense to your photography skills, but I found the earlier image bit sharper. We can always take a vote Ninadhardikar (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Proposed: I have sharpened the image a bit more. Additionally this image shows a better more renovated CST. It has also no perspective issues. --JovianEye (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has opposed this image for more than week. IMO, changing the image to the proposed one is result of this discussion. --JovianEye (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bit late now, but I would've opposed - I agree with Ninadhardikar that the older image appears sharper (possibly just due to the exposure of the newer image), but more than this, the newer image seems to have been cropped to remove the ground floor of the building. Khcf6971 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Half the portion of the older image is the road and the framing on top is very poor. Additionally, look at the side towers they look they are going to fall. This is perspective issue I mentioned before. The newer image does not crop the ground floor in such a bad manner. Look more closely at full size and you will see the heads of people. Also a larger image offer more encyclopaedic value. --JovianEye (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: The old image clearly appears more sharper that the new image. Xavier449 (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: current image is better than proposed image. --Onef9day ^Talk! 13:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Nikkul (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)