Talk:Ahmedabad

Galleries

 * Gallery 1

The article has two galleries. Gallery 1 and 2 use different formatting. I think it would be better if they were either merged, or (as a minimum) used the same formatting. I prefer a merge.

There are currently two identical photographs of a window of the Sidi Saiyyed Mosque (one in each gallery). If we are going to have two photographs, please could they be different photographs, and in the same gallery. I propose that the second photograph should be File:Sidi-Saiyyed-Jaali-Ahmedabad.jpg, which shows the building, not just the screen. The 11 April 2023 version of the article had two different windows of the Sidi Saiyyed Mosque. I do not mind whether a gallery has one or two photographs of windows, but I think there should be a photograph of the building next to them.

There is already a photograph of the Atal Pedestrian Bridge in the infobox. The photograph of it in the 12 April version of Gallery 2 does not show anything that is not shown in the photograph in the infobox. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. Did not see Atal bridge pic in the info box.  SpunkyGeek  (talk)  02:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Karnavati is WP:FRINGE
other than Karnavati being on the banks of Sabarmati, there is little evidence to suggest that it was at the same location as Ahmedabad. the present location provides no archaeological evidence to suggest it was once called Karnavati. ChandlerMinh (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @ChandlerMinh, it is not fringe. It is used in government also. You can check sister city of new jersy official gov site where "karnavati" is used instead of Ahmedabad. In Ahmedabad municipal boards also have sometimes karnavati used. 103.241.226.129 (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

GDP figure in the infobox and the article
An editor has repeatedly changed the number in the infobox from $110 billion to $80 billion.14:54, 01 August 2023, 20:26, 01 August 2023, 22:41, 05 August 2023 So let us check what sources say.


 * At 08:10 11 August 2022, an IP editor changed the GDP figure in the infobox from $68 billion to $80 billion. The IP editor did not change the citation, which supported $68 billion, so the IP editor introduced a verification error.
 * At 10:54, 11 August 2022, Abhijit.shah1 changed the GDP figure in the infobox back to $68 billion and also changed the citation. The new citation supported the $68 billion figure.
 * At 14:54, 1 August 2023, Abhijit.shah1 changed the GDP figure in the infobox from $110 billion to $80 billion with no changes to the citations, the first of which supported $110 billion, the second of which supported $68 billion.  i.e. neither citation supported $80 billion!
 * At 20:26, 1 August 2023 Abhijit.shah1 made the same change from $110 billion to $80 billion giving the edit summary (GDP figures were misleading. Actual GDP of Ahmedabad is around 69 Billion USD)
 * At 22:41, 5 August 2023 Abhijit.shah1 made the same change from $110 billion to $80 billion giving the edit summary (Corrected the GDP figure.)

The body of the article says:
 * The gross domestic product of Ahmedabad was estimated at US$80 billion in 2014.

Clearly that $80 billion is not supported by either citation for it, which both say $64 billion. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Note that I have added quotations from each source to each citation.


 * @Toddy1 I think we should stick with the first source as its the 2020 figure the other sources mention the GDP figures for 2017 or 2014 or even even earlier i think we should comply with the most recent source for the figures Joy goel (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The India Times figure was from an article dated October 2021. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The lead of the article says:
 * The gross domestic product of Ahmedabad metro was estimated at $80 billion in 2020.

The The Indian Express article does not mention Ahmedabad. The India Times article says $68 billion.

I have added quotations to each of the citation templates for each of the sources cited for GDP, and modified text so that figures are supported by the citations given for them. I have deleted the citation for GDP that did not mention Ahmedabad. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I have found another source: If you assumed compound annual growth of 13.5% continued after 2019, you would get a GDP of $77.2 billion for 2020, $87.6 billion for 2021, $99.4 billion for 2022 and $112.8 billion for 2023. But that is a big assumption not supported by the source. But it does indicate that the $110 billion figure is possible for 2023, but implausible for 2020. Remember that $110 billion figure was stated by the source as a 2020 projection. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

A 2023 source: -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that support the claim the the GDP was $80 billion? If so, please can we discuss them here. -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't Make falls claims, don't add misleading information
from Notable People section i have removed some names that are fallsly claimed, they are not born in ahemdabad or worked in ahemdabad.

Ali Sher Bengali

Kishore Chauhan

Prakash K. Desai

Drashti Dhami

Mahatma Gandhi

Sanjeev Kumar

Jhaverchand Meghani

Ketan Mehta

Sudhir Mehta

Rohinton Mistry

Smita Patil

Falguni Pathak

Amrita Pritam

Naseeruddin Shah

Ravi Shankar

Hemant Shesh

Manhar Udhas Annki777 (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

NPOV and fluff
Hey @SpunkyGeek - Thanks for collaborating on the Ahmedabad article. With respect to your edits, I wanted to point out two things.


 * 1) The first sentence is both unsourced and comes across as a little biased with fluff. I removed it pursuant to the WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and MOS:PUFFERY. The content itself is likely best covered in the “Early history” section when the city became a trade centre during the Mughal period.
 * 2) The second sentence is best covered under the “Population” and “Culture” sections. I’ve cleaned up the former noting the population of the city relative to the other cities in India and the latter already includes references to monuments, museums, and festivals.

Following your review, let me know if you agree to remove the content from the “Post-Independence” section.

The 2010 FAR cited the article as having content issues including verifiability issues, low citation standards, and a biased POV as well as style issues including MOS:WEASEL and MOS:PUFFERY. To the extent you’re interested, I’d greatly appreciate it if you could help address these issues. Thanks!

The Shadow Hokage (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @The Shadow Hokage
 * Thanks for discussing this.
 * About Ahmedabad's historical significance (focus is throughout its history not just Early History), the info comes from a legit source. If needed, I can back it up with another source. The part about it growing into a prosperous trade hub is pretty much straight facts. There’s no POV in it. Can back my claim here.
 * As for moving stuff around, I'm cool with shifting that statement to the Culture section. It makes sense. I can back that up too with more sources if you want.
 * But I don’t think any puffery is involved here based on the sources.
 * SpunkyGeek (talk)  20:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @SpunkyGeek - Thanks for engaging on this topic / issue!
 * On the #2 item, I'm glad we agree on moving that sentence and I'd certainly appreciate your help with the article.
 * On the #1 item, firstly, there is no citation directly identifying that sentence as currently drafted. Secondly, and more importantly, I still believe we should stay away from words like "prosperous." If the adverb is based on any industry or trade, we should include that specific industry or trade instead of words such as "prosperous," which could seemingly come across as a "peacock term." Looking at the source you have linked, I believe it would be appropriate to either speak about the textile industry in the "Modern history section" or perhaps include a quote about how in the 1990s, Ahmedabad "emerged as the financial capital of the state."
 * I reckon being mindful of the tone / words will go a long way towards resolving the issues brought up in the FAR and improve the overall quality of the article. Let me know your thoughts and thanks again!
 * The Shadow Hokage (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @TheShadowHokage,
 * I want to explain the rationale behind using the term “prosperous” …
 * The timeline (“Over the years”) we want to focus on regarding 1st statement is modern history 19th and 20th  centuries (because almost every place has developed since the medieval ages) Here,  the author writes: -  “The establishment of the first cotton textile mill in 1861, without any special climatic advantage and before the advent of railways, and how this industry expanded over the years speaks for the high level of business acumen.” This statement signifies the industrialization in Ahmedabad (It’s called Manchester of India), also the author confirms migration to the city which is another signal of “prosperity” or development…
 * For the 21st century,
 * This article also emphasizes Ahmedabad being one of the successful cities in terms of growth and infra. Yes, I agree that economy and growth numbers are not the only indicators of absolute prosperity, but it does indicate improvement in the common lifestyle, and here we are talking about development over the years.... which seems pretty factual.
 * I understand the term “prosperous” may bring some POV, but we can rephrase it to something like :
 * "Post-independence Ahmedabad has seen development in manufacturing and infrastructure" SpunkyGeek  (talk)  17:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey @SpunkyGeek - Apologies but I got sidetracked with work over the last few days. I have no issues with your proposed edit at the end and believe that it helps address the POV issues. Thanks again for your engagement on this article.
 * The Shadow Hokage (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)