Talk:Mumbai/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

List of Portuguese colonies not needed

Is the 'list of Portuguese colonies'(located extreme below) needed in Mumbai's page?Its just taking up space. (mahawiki 14:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

I agree it is ugly, but should not be removed just like that since this was a Portuguese possession. How about having the template to be set to "hide" instead? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure abt what u said?How do we hide it?? (mahawiki 06:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

There is a way, but I can't remember. Ask in WP:VP. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I add a link to मुंबई of Marathi wikipedia? mahawiki 21:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No, such links come at the bottom of the page along with the rest of the interwiki tags. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is Savai Raja's comments removed?I dont think there's anything offensive in it.There's no need to buy his views,but I am sure those are the depiction of what Maharashtrians think.I strongly suggesr to revert his views as I dont see any violations of Wiki's rules.mahawiki 19:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Mumbai name

Few users have edited out the 'Name' sub-section of article.The name Mumbai is derived from Mumbadevi and not from any Portuguese name.They have also removed the mentions of 'Marathi influence' on the name of Mumbaimahawiki 16:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

mumbai

This is the famous and wonderful city for development of tourism, it has a wonderful beach with ideal view of the sea. that attracts people verymuch , a few days back the sea water changes into drinking water as the romur comes most of the people come to the sea and drunk water and tasted it. some of the people take the water home with the pot but later it was explained by the concerning authority that the water is changed due to some deliver of compounds from various organisations, and they advised people to heat the water and drink You can't just say that. courtesy : sathya kumar

It also has very bad infrastructure and a corrupt Municipal corporation.--Johnhardcastle 10:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Bombay derived from "bom bahia"?

I have mentioned this before, but I feel that this is an error that needs to be corrected, and deserves to be brought up again. Basically, it is impossible for the Portuguese to have called the place "bom bahia" because that expression is incorrect in Portuguese. This seems to be a folk etymology based on the realisation that "bom" means "good" in Portuguese without paying much attention to the subtleties of grammar. For the time being, I have added a "citation needed" to the statement that the Portuguese coined the name "bom bahia", but I think we need a proper reference based on Portuguese historical documents (and not on the oodles of websites that take their information from Wikipedia). For those who do not understand Portuguese, "bom" does indeed mean "good", but it is the masculine form of the adjective whereas "baia" ("bahia" in old spelling) is a feminine noun (and, as far as I know, always has been). This means that for a Portuguese speaker to name a place "bom bahia" would be similar to an Englishman calling it "the islands very beautifuls". Gelo 11:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur with you skepticism. José Pedro Machado´s Dicionário Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa, one of the leading references in the Portuguese language in matters of etymology and onomastics, gives an entirely different origin for the Portuguese toponym Bombaim (whence the English form Bombay comes): local marathi terms related to Mumba-Devi. According to that source, documents dated from 1525 refer to the place as Mombaim and the final form Bombaim is recorded in later documents.
That author appears to reject the "Bom Bahia" explanation (which, as you mentioned, makes no sense whatsoever in Portuguese), saying (my translation) "This fact of the bay [references to a bay in old documents] led the English who were not very proficient in Portuguese to assume the presence of that word in the toponym, so that the Portuguese word Bombaim became the English Bombay" (Machado, José Pedro, Dicionário Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa, entry Bombaim).
I have found corroborating sources in Portuguese for his explanation. I´ve yet to find something about "Bom Bahia", not counting the Mumbai article at the en:Wikipedia. Gabbhh 20:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have inserted the "alternative" etymology for Bombaim in the article. Gabbhh 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the references. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks indeed. Good to see Wikipedia at its best. Gelo 12:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Always glad to help! I´m still puzzled by the paragraph with the "Bom Bahia" explanation, though. I was reviewing the article´s history and I found out that the explanation was originally inserted on May 16, 2002, in what was the first major edit on the article. It should be noted that the editor remained anonymous and only mentioned that the place was renamed "Bom Bahia" by the Portuguese, refraining from giving a translation for that term. No sources were given.
The edit immediately following that one (June 13, 2002) was limited to providing what is supposed to be a translation for "Bom Bahia", just adding "("Good Bay")". This editor also remained anonymous, but its IP address might indicate a Brazilian editor. Again, no sources were given.
Folks, I´m not an active contributor to the en:Wikipedia, so I´ll let you guys decide what to do, but unless someone comes up with a credible source for the "Bom Bahia" explanation (and by that I mean a book or dictionary on toponymy), it would seem logical to remove that explanation, which, despite being given by an anonymous editor without sources, has been standing for 4 years and 7 months. I might add that most sister Wikipedias used the English version of this article as a source for their texts and most include the "Bom Bahia" explanation, based on the en:Wikipedia.
Regards, Gabbhh 18:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the "bom bahia" explanation is absurd, no matter how we look at it. It would involve the Portuguese giving the place a name in what would be Pidgin Portuguese at best, and then a meaninful word like "baia" being distorted to give a meaningless name like "Bombaim", where the original meaning would be lost, something a bit weird if the origin was in an actual Portuguese phrase, especially in times when written documents would have been commonplace. It seems much more likely that the "bom bahia" explanation has its origins in English speakers thinking of the name Bombay as containing the word "bay" and then, learning that "bom" is "good" in Portuguese, reverse-engineering a putative Portuguese origin for the name. The problem is that we are doing a bit of original research here, so this interpretation cannot go in the article. I think what we could do is mention the "bom bahia" origin as a folk etymology, and it is easy to find references, like Indian tourist websites, for the existence of this belief. Then we can leave your paragraph with the more authoritative explanation based on José Pedro Machado's dictionary. Does this make sense? Gelo 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Please go ahead and modify the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. I have kept a mention of the "bom bahia" explanation, but highlighting that it is problematic. As a source for the existence of this explanation I have provided a reference to an article in the website of The Economist, the most respectable source I could find. I wouldn't be surprised if The Economist originally took the information from Wikipedia, though. Gelo 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that solves the etymology issue. Gabbhh 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever doing secret reverts are requested to give proper explanations. Mrtag 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC) 04:28,

Could you clarify what you mean by "secret" reverts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bombay or Mumbai

Why is it that in the English-language part of Wikipedia we simply accept that the city that is called in Bombay in English is now called Mumbai ? By way of contrast, the article on Sweden's second largest city is called Gothenburg not Göteborg, because this is the normal English-language name for the city. For consistency we should either use the common English names, or the local names, but not a mixture. Or is the policy to use English-language names in Europe, but local names in Asia for some sort of misguided 'ethnic sensitivity' reasons ? --Mark 08:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by called in Bombay in English is now called Mumbai? The official name of the city has been changed in English. The decision to change the name was effected in all languages, and since English is an official language in India, it was legally effected in English too. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The renaming of toponyms is a very delicate subject in many languages. The English language seems to be more open to changes such as Peking/Beijing and Bombay/Mumbai. Other languages are not so quick to absorb changes such as these. For instance, according to the Spanish version of the article on Mumbai, the Real Academia Española (the Spanish Academy of Letters) still recommends using the traditional form Bombay. Other examples can be mentioned: the Portuguese language rejected the new versions for Beijing and for the Ivory Coast and still calls them Pequim and Costa do Marfim (despite requests by the Chinese and Ivoirian governments to call them Beijing and Côte d'Ivoire). Nevertheless, Portuguese has absorbed changes like Ceylon/Sri Lanka and Zaire/D.R. of Congo. In the case of Mumbai (and other Indian toponyms), Portuguese still retains the traditional form Bombaim, though Mumbai is used by some. It can be confusing. Gabbhh 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Mark, although Bombay and Mumbai sound similar, their etymology is entirely different. The word 'Mumbai' originates from the Mumba Devi temple that has been in Mumbai since the Portuguese arrived. 'Bai' in Marathi language means lady and so the city was called Mumbai after the Mumba Devi goddess. Bombay is an English corruption of the Portuguese word called Bom Bahai or Bom Bahaiia meaning "Good Bay" in Portuguese. So Mumbai is what Mumbai will be known as in English and any other tongue. Indian Air Force (IAF)

As someone who lives in the city, I can assure Wikipedians that the name of the city overwhelmingly predominate in English usage is "Bombay." Mumbai is the city's name in the Marathi language. The object of changing the "official name" of the city was clearly an attempt by Maharastrian populist politicians to appeal to the nationalists among their voter base. As such, it is also considered an attempt to promote divisions among Bombayites, most of whom take pride in the cosmopolitan character of their city. Using the English name is thus often a way of voicing support for Bombay as a multiethnic, cosmopolitan, worldly megalopolis, and rejecting hegemony of any one ethnicity. DG

Mumbai : Don't we need to add any contemporary matters?

I believe a section needs to be added on contemporary affairs in Mumbai. The city has undergone unimaginable transformation in the last decade. It is a social and economic trendsetter for the rest of India, and is the most well known city of India across the world. Therefore, a section on some of the positives and negatives from current affairs of Mumbai could well be considered worth adding. Some points are proposed below for discussion, since Wiki is a public domain encyclopedia, and it is best if people concur (or differ) on the talk page itself, before one actually makes any changes to the article itself.

1. Society and Lifestyle The current article does not reflect the current Mumbaikar's mindset. The growth of disposable incomes and wealth, manifesting itself in malls, adlabs, proliferation of restaurants, partying destinations, pubs, large retailers and the general consumer boom. The growth in private owned vehicles (paralleling that of Delhi, Bangalore and other cities), the explosion of media (written in the media section), the growing importance of the fashion industry (so far controlled by Delhi based designers), along with that of the entertainment industry. These are events that are significantly shaping the changing face of Mumbai. While these factors are not unique to Mumbai, Mumbai still is a trendsetter for the rest of India and therefore, deserves a mention.

2. Mumbai Tourism - how the city presents the latest and the best available for global travellers, business and pleasure alike. The availability of hospitality options. How international corporations like McDonalds have become an integral part of the Mumbaikar's lifestyle in the last 5 years or so, and present a closer-to-home lifestyle alternative for the international traveller.

3. The growth of the booming service industry in Mumbai - the BPO and IT-enabled services, banking, finance, life and non-life insurance that have provided jobs for so many, including international employees. Add to that the growth in media, entertainment and hospitality industries mentioned above.

4. How Mumbai is India's American Dream - how one can realize one's teenage dream, which might not always be possible in the rest of India.

5. The melting-pot culture of the city - how Mumbai is a fine example of national integration and tolerance - giving a good cosmopolitan background to the city. (The city has beeen absorbing significant waves of internal displacement from the overcrowded areas of the Gangetic plains - and that has influenced more than just the face of the city - as more and more politicians are drawn from different demographic backgrounds than that prior to 1995.)

And a look at the negatives :

1. A look at India's most popular terrorist destination - At least 15 bombs have hit Mumbai in the period of 2003-2006.

2. A note on this city-of the rich - how unfettered real-estate growth has nearly destroyed traditional living and families in Mumbai. A typical new house in midtown Chicago costs $150,000. The average salary for a white collar worker in America is $60,000. So a house costs 3 times his yearly income. On the other hand, a typical new flat in midtown Mumbai (not suburbs) costs around $135,000 dollars - almost the same as in America. But the average yearly salary for a white collar worker in IT or Finance is $8,000. So a house costs 17 times his yearly income, sending him into a lifelong debt trap, if he needs a house! This is indicative of the growing capitalist greed in Mumbai - a city which is a trendsetter for the rest of India. It also means that the good honest working class must either leave the city or be kicked out.

3. Problems besetting the city - Mumbai suffers from a lack of space for horizontal expansion due to various factors and therefore, fosters a rat race for living within the city limits. This, coupled with overcrowded trains and traffic ridden roads full of transport trucks, auto rickshaws, private vehicles and water tankers - that hinder road transport - is one of the prime drivers of high real estate rates in Mumbai. This overcrowding has not affected real estate prices and transport hassles alone. It has resulted in significant power cuts across the city and its suburbs. It has resulted in water shortages and drainage systems that cannot cope -leading to annual monsoon flooding, and an increase in petty crime. There are few open spaces or green areas left in the suburbs, except where they are sponsored by some large corporation or the other. The huge national park is the last refuge, and is fast being encroached upon by slums.

4. The explosion of illegitimate, dangerously built housing and slum areas. How internally displaced people from across India live 8-10 to a room in squalid conditions, surviving on their micro businesses.. preparing the way for the growth of petty or organised crime in the city.

5. Simmering ethnic and religious tensions in the city - that often surface in angry retorts in the bazaars, trains or buses and in ethnic newspapers.

Artaxerxes07 14:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments: Some of them are valid, so I'll make a brief note on what is good, and what is not so good.

  1. The current article does not reflect the current Mumbaikar's mindset. The word mindset would be a POV. General consumer boom would be a welcome addition to the economy section.. BUT.. it must be linked to the general trend in the economy of India, as it is not an isolated case.
  2. Tourism -- We don't keep this section as it is an encyclopedia. Tourist recommendations et al are best left to wikitravel
  3. booming service industry - same as 1. Both could be merged
  4. India's American Dream "American" is POV, and a lot of cities can vie for this claim today
  5. fine example of national integration and tolerance - A lot of cities can also be called as tolerant Kolkata for example. Do we need to make an issue that should be the norm? We can mention it to me a melting pot of different cultures. It was there, and removed for some reason or the other.
  6. most popular terrorist destination - mentioned in the history. I think Srinagar and Assam can also lay claim to most popular destination
  7. A note on this city-of the rich expensive housing is already mentioned
  8. Problems besetting the city - mentioned
  9. housing and slum areas - mentioned
  10. angry retorts in the bazaars, trains or buses - could you expand on this more?

I invite you to go ahead and add the stuff on booming economy, but please WP:CITE credible sources (media reports) while doing so. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Following your advice, I have done some further research through available media reports and have appended a section in the "Economy" section. I have also added relevant links in the External Links section.

Artaxerxes07 02:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work but some further tweaks are needed. 1. The content needs to be summarised into about one paragraph or 40% of the content you've added. Specific places such as Lifestyle, Piramyds, Shoppers' Stop need not be mentioned. Similar references to BKC too should be omitted. Lastly, the sources should not be placed in the external links section, but formatted correctly using the <ref></ref> tags. You would need to see other examples in the article as to how this is done.

Excess images

There are far too many images on this page and few are relevent to the section that they are placed in. I am removing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Is it necessary to remove all of them? I was just following standard based on articles like Karachi or New York. Which images do you think are unnecessary? Please discuss. Rumpelstiltskin223 15:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Karachi and NYC are not featured articles, and for a long time Mumbai was the role model to base featured city articles. The golden rule is: 1 image per section, and should be closely related to the topic. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Starting Mumbai image gallery

Guys, how about starting a new 'picture gallery' section. I have recently shot very high resolution (2MB each) images of mumbai (mostly night images) and want to upload it. Tell me if you all are in for this section.

spacejuncky 05:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, galleries are not meant to be on pages for article content. Images placed here are meant to suppliment the text. However please feel free to add a gallery in commons: either at commons:Mumbai. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mumbai infobox is now online!

Using the Mumbai map, i have created a mumbai specific locator infobox. See it in action at Bandra (Edit infobox). Code was copied from the Indian infobox and i unsuccesfully modified it :P Requesting help of coders to set it straight -- PlaneMad|YakYak 18:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sister cities of Mumbai?

I am wondering where is the list of sister cities of Mumbai? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nirajrm (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC). --Nirajrm talk ||| sign plz! 15:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Does it have any? It should twin with La Ceiba, SqueakBox 15:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It does have a few. I've reverted to a version which mentions it. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well La Ceiba doesnt, I see, have a chance as it alrerady has the maximum permitted 6, SqueakBox 04:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Heavy modifications

Some heavy modifications are performed on this article. Many unnecessary pics are added, please revert this to some acceptable previous version. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mayur.thakare (talk • contribs) 05:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

spacejuncky 05:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Done =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro Picture Desperately Needed

All major cities on Wikipedia have an intro pic illustrating their skyline. Since its one of the world's most populated cities, Mumbai needs one such intro picture as well. It's imperative to have such a pic because a skyline defines a city and also because Mumbai is experiences rapid growth

Below are some other cities that have similar intro pictures Shanghai, new york city, dubai, london, paris, beijing, taipei, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore City, frankfurt....i can go on and on!

Please do not delete the skyline pic — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

A skyline should be a panoramic image, and it is optional, not imperative. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What Nikkul said (on Mumbai's talk page) is not invalid. I don't know why we should not have an intro pic. Maybe not skyline but some landmark that identifies Mumbai, like pic of taj and gateway taken from sea. As far as i know that had been an identity of Mumbai.

spacejuncky 04:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason why a skyline was chosen is that because it has a higher width:height ratio and is something unique to a city. A snapshot of Nariman Point from Marine Drive or Malabar Hill could very well be highlighted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with the point of view that a skyline desperately needed. In my view images, in general, in this article need a major overhaul. For example, the images from climate and geography section are redundant and do not provide information proportional to the real state they eat up on the article page. Also the hiranandani complex is in no way a representative of the city's upwardly mobile people. I think a picture from a larger region like peddar-road would better fit here. The adjoining text never talks about the prosperity in the city rather mentions the slums so if we plan to be in line with that, we should get a pic from dharavi slums which, unfortunately, is a better landmark than the hiranandani complex. Even CST can be shown in better glory than the one in present picture. These are some of my thought, if we agree on an agenda regarding picture, we can actively work on it. http://www.answers.com/topic/bombayatnight-gif --Rakov 05:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversions: and things to keep in mind

I have made several reverts to the article. The main reason is that Mumbai is a featured article, one of the best on wikipedia. Mumbai leads other city articles, not the other way around. Please keep the following in mind when making edits:

Images
  • Add only images that are relavent to the section. Images aid the section, not the article. And no more than two images per large section. One, if the section is small.
  • Images selected should be high-quality, *free*, >1000px, colourful, and should best represent the text mentioned in the section
  • Galleries are not permitted here, as this is an article. Instead add them in commons:wikimedia commons
  • The skyline image should be of the city skyline, not a landmark. Should be a panorama to avoid pushing the infobox too low.
Text
  • Do not fragment sections. Adding subsections makes the ToC lopsided and ugly
  • If you state facts figures, please quote your source! Your sources should be credible. Else a reversion will be strongly enforced to maintain FA credibility.
  • This is not a tourist brochure, so laudatory statements promoting the city will be reverted. See Wikitravel if you want to contribute in that sphere.
  • When citing examples of any, do not list more than three of a kind. A major problem is the newspapers in the city where all sort of newspapers are added. Keep the top three, and add the entire list in List of newspapers sold in Mumbai.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Mumbai

In the fourth sentence of the History section, it is stated that in the 3rd century BCE, the islands were part of an empire ruled by a Buddhist emperor. However, Buddhism did not begin until the 5th century BCE.Joedrennan1 17:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The dates are true as mentioned in the article on Ashoka the Great. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Can an established user please add the following code? It adds an intro picture and conforms to the rules laid down by the administrator nichalp.

Mumbai
File:Bombayatnight.gif
No, the above image does not conform to the established guidelines. One, the image is found to be a copyviolation and it will be deleted. Two it is a gif file, photos should be jpeg; three, the quality is grainy, and four the resolution is poor. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Samyukta Maharashtra Smarak

Why is the picture of Samyukta Maharashtra Smarak removed? Please add it back.Maharashtraexpress 07:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Modernization

I feel that because this article is a featured article, it is limiting us from making it better.

I am totally for an intro pic. I want a picture gallery. I would like this article to look much better. It has so much potential.

Better Images needed under: Economy Transport- CST can be better 

-Bus pic

Demographics People and culture- maybe a pic of a mall because A LOT of people go there. Media Sports

Look at Beijing, the article has sooooooooo many pictures. And some dont even relate. In History instead of showing a pic of the Tienanmen Square protests, theyre advertising the tienanmen square and what it looks like today. And im not saying that we should try to emulate them, but I think we should look at them and learn to make our city be more user friendly on wikipedia (more appealing to the eye)

Why cant we add more pictures and add better pictures? The article on Mumbai makes it look very hackneyed and old and unrevised for a long time...and i feel that a lot of people agree with me that we need to make the Mumbai page look better. Unfortunately, a few internet...nazis...are limiting this because its a featured article.

I would have taken some pics myself, but I live in the US, so its quite a drive to get to Bombay

Please submit your images here:

Nikkul 14:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Nikkul

I disagree with your original statement that is you are restrained from making it better. What is a featured article? has clear guidelines as to how such articles are written. To gain featured article status, an article must conform to the mentioned criteria, before gaining community support in WP:FAC. Standards are high, and getting one article featured is not easy. I don't see any reason to compare Mumbai with Beijing, this is a featured article, Beijing is certainly not. This article conforms to a standard set of publishing rules, Beijing does not. In other words, it is a baseless comparison. There is nothing stopping you from adding better, more appropriate pictures, but what is appropriate is given in a section above. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not an image gallery. And please refrain from calling people "nazis", it's poor taste. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation

In an effort to attain featured status, I feel we are loosing out. Still lets look at Vancouver, a city which attained featured status on Feb 8. Vancouver has an intro pic, which Mumbai does not Vancouver has 3 Geography pictures It has 4 Demographic pictures 2 Economy pictures, both which do not relate to the economy. 2 Government pictures A whole Architecture and Cityscape section which Mumbai could do well with and 2 pics in that And 2 Sports pictures Obviously, we can do soo much to make it more appealing. I can't change anything, as I am not an established user, but obviously, we can add more pics and still attain featured status. User:nikkul 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


I also noticed that San Francisco, California is a featured article and has EIGHT pictures in the History and Geography column alone! Johannesburg has 5 pics under transport. Both are featured articles

Obviously, its time to look at Wikipedia:Featured articles and realize that going tight on the pics is not gonna get us featured status. User:nikkul

Err... The discrepancies you're seeing are because US and Indian cities are governed by a different set of wikiprojects. Indian cities follow the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Indian cities workgroup. The rules laid down by each workgroup have been achieved through the consensus of several editors. if you've gone through any of the FACs in the past, most reviewers ask the nominator to scale down the number of images in the article. Rules that govern featured article status state (#3) It should have images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. I reiterate my point, wikipedia is an encyclopedia (textual content first). All excess images can be placed in commons: where they will be gladly welcome. The main reason against having excess images is that the images flow from the section that they are in into the the following one. Thus having 5 images per section is pointless, some of those images can be placed in main articles such as History of Mumbai etc.
The next point I want to state is that I am not stopping you from adding images to blank sections or replacing older ones. What is against the grain here is the 1. the excess number of images 2. copyviolations 3. unrepresentative images that may replace the present ones.
Lastly I would like to completely negate your point that "that going tight on the pics is not gonna get us featured status". The wikipedia Indian cities has been the most successful city project till date. We have 10 cities featured (9 of them on first try). The next country is the United States with 7. Featured articles are evaluated on content, not the quality of pictures. So please do not make baseless allegations.
PS The skyline image is a copyright violation and will be removed from wikipedia servers. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So as per my observations, having only one or two images per section is not a requirement to gain featured status, but rather a preference set by the administrators and editors of the wikiproject indian cities work group. Nikkul 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You're close but not quite. Wikipedia works on the consensus model where a group of editors working on a topic frame a set of rules and guidelines to maintain consistency after a series of discussions. Though not set in stone, efforts to change the established model needs to be discussed first on the wikiproject concerned and gain a consensus of editors before going into effect. (See WP:WIAFA #2 : It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects.). And, you don't have to be an administrator or have special privileges to frame these rules. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


I dont see why it would be such a bad idea if we were to incorporate a picture that a city is known for in the infobox. The wikipedia city infobox makes space for this as does almost every other wikipedia city page. An infobox without a defining image makes the city page look dull. since wikipedia recommends this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_City) and since most other cities have this, then why cant we? I also feel that most people are for this. Nikkul 00:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be lost in the crossposts. Please read what I have written above about the skyline. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So it can be done? how about incorporating it into the info box? and what about cities without skylines? I think we should have an image that defines the city, sometimes this is not the skyline. also, if we incorporate the image into the info box, the map wont be pushed down as much. - nikkul

Nice catch, but the image is too dull and hazy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And who's going to be the judge of that? look, this is not your personal myspace, its an encyclopedia. Additionally, this is wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Its not run by one person. So you cant just keep deleting stuff that others try to add. If you scroll up and care to read wut others have said, you'll find that you are the only one who opposes an intro pic(I, spacejunky, rakov, etc are for it). You decided the rules about revisons, and I followed them, but we are not here to satisfy your tastes about which image is too hazy for you and which is not. I have a cybershot, so its not my camera, its the city. Like I said before, this is an encyclopedia, which means that articles relating to cities should stick to the infobox given by WIkipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_City And if you read through the lines, you will find that an intro pic that defines the city (like a skyline) is suggested. And if you do not like the image, then please help make Wikipedia better by adding a better image yourself, but do not detract from it. And if the Wikiproject India editors have come to the decision years ago that a intro pic was not needed, its certainly time to vote again, because of the people who have commented here, the ratio is 3 to 1. I do not see any reason why an intro image should be deleted, even after it has passed the rules that you, yourself made up. Everyother city has an intro image...even baghdad and kabul, and remember, our bombs took out their skyline. And therefore, mumbai should as well. Please use your creativity on facebook, xanga, or myspace. This, unfortunately, is not your myspace, its the free encyclopedia.Nikkul 01:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia (IPA: /ˌwiːkiːˈpiːdi.ə/ or /ˌwɪːkiːˈpiːdi.ə/) is a multilingual, Web-based, free content encyclopedia project. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers; its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Web site. The name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a type of collaborative website) and encyclopedia.

Those who would like to contribute are encouraged

Decisions on the content and editorial processes of Wikipedia are made largely through consensus decision-making "

Calm down Nikkul. Please do not claim to say that I have *opposed* a skyline picture. I have never opposed having the picture. I've clearly mentioned the guidelines that govern adding a skyline image to the page. Please do read what I mention above. The image in the infobox should be a skyline image (Please see the meaning of skyline), and read the statement above on the technical reason on why a panoramic image is chosen, so that the map is not pushed down too low. I also don't believe that you need to be so condescending and lecture me on what wikipedia is. If new members to wikipedia aim to just do as they please the encylopedia will be a pure example of anarchy. And it's quite clear that you are acting unlaterally, without discussing the proposals in the appropriate forums. Some of the images you seek to place have been taken out by me, and as author of those images, I don't think that they even merit a page on a featured article. So, please quit the histrionics. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


Nichalp, if you scroll up, u might find a section that says "Intro Pic desperately needed" where the concept was discussed. I have even been so kind as to paste it below for you.

Intro Picture Desperately Needed All major cities on Wikipedia have an intro pic illustrating their skyline. Since its one of the world's most populated cities, Mumbai needs one such intro picture as well. It's imperative to have such a pic because a skyline defines a city and also because Mumbai is experiences rapid growth

Below are some other cities that have similar intro pictures Shanghai, new york city, dubai, london, paris, beijing, taipei, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore City, frankfurt....i can go on and on!

Please do not delete the skyline pic — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

A skyline should be a panoramic image, and it is optional, not imperative. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What Nikkul said (on Mumbai's talk page) is not invalid. I don't know why we should not have an intro pic. Maybe not skyline but some landmark that identifies Mumbai, like pic of taj and gateway taken from sea. As far as i know that had been an identity of Mumbai. spacejuncky 04:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason why a skyline was chosen is that because it has a higher width:height ratio and is something unique to a city. A snapshot of Nariman Point from Marine Drive or Malabar Hill could very well be highlighted. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with the point of view that a skyline desperately needed. In my view images, in general, in this article need a major overhaul. For example, the images from climate and geography section are redundant and do not provide information proportional to the real state they eat up on the article page. Also the hiranandani complex is in no way a representative of the city's upwardly mobile people. I think a picture from a larger region like peddar-road would better fit here. The adjoining text never talks about the prosperity in the city rather mentions the slums so if we plan to be in line with that, we should get a pic from dharavi slums which, unfortunately, is a better landmark than the hiranandani complex. Even CST can be shown in better glory than the one in present picture. These are some of my thought, if we agree on an agenda regarding picture, we can actively work on it. http://www.answers.com/topic/bombayatnight-gif --Rakov 05:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I have read all the comments on this page more than once. And I definately know what a skyline is and i've probably seen more skylines than you have. And just like you said yourself, wikipedia is not run unilaterally, so please respect the opinions of those who have pasted their comments above and please notice the consensus present and follow the consensus decision-making guidelines of Wikipedia. Thank you. --nikkul

If you want a reply, you need to be more WP:CIVIL =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikipedia:Consensus means that one might not get his way every single time.Nikkul 15:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Media

Bollywood reaches almost twice as many people as Hollywood, releases many many more movies than Hollywood, and is known all over the world. Indians watch more movies than any other group of people and Bollywood has had a great impact of Indian society.

And all the magic happens in Bombay. Hence, we need something about Bollywood (and a pic) under the media section. Nikkul 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mumbai/Archive_4&oldid=1093568313"