Talk:History of Pune

)

When was Poona renamed Pune
When was Poona renamed Pune??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.231.66 (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I came to check on the same fact. I found a newspaper clipping from 1979 which already says "Pune (formerly Poona)", so it must have been earlier than that.   Will Beback    talk    20:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about this too. PumpkinSky (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've cross-posted at talk:Pune.   Will Beback    talk    23:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In 1976, it would appear. See my recent edit in Pune, under Toponymy.
 * Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on History of Pune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081202072725/http://pune.gov.in:80/history/mevents3.htm to http://pune.gov.in/history/mevents3.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

content to be added in section on British rule
==Demographics==
 * complete

Government

 * complete

Economy

 * complete

Education

 * complete

Festivals

 * complete

Parks
No parks during British era.

Entertainment
Complete

cricket
====badminton====

Railways

 * complete

Bus services

 * complete

other modes of transport
Complete

Telegraph

 * complete

Postal service

 * complete

Public health

 * complete

Water

 * complete



====Sewage====

Electricity

 * complete

The content does not necessarily needs to be put under different sections. We do .however, need content relating to these topics. Please contribute if you have well resourced material. Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

== Content for period 1947-present ==

Demographics

 * complete

Government

 * partial

City government expenditure
Partial

Economy

 * partial

Education

 * partial

Social and Cultural life
Not started

Social reform
Not started

Politics
NO

Religion
Partial

Media
No

Festivals
No

Parks
No

Entertainment
NO

sports
NO

talim & indian sports
NO

Transport
Complete

Railways

 * complete

Bus services

 * complete

other modes of transport
Complete

Telegraph
No

Postal service
No

Telephone
No

Healthcare
No

Public health

 * complete

Water
Partial

Sewage
Partial

Electricity
No

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Pune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927050207/http://puneonline.in/Profile/Political/ to http://puneonline.in/Profile/Political/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject assessment
Assess this to C. Should be easy to get it further to B by addressing the following. Not all of my comments need to be agreed to, some will be more like questions for me to know more about this article and what to recommend doing further or whether no action needed. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There seem to be a lot of minor but serious grammar issues mainly with omission of or extra punctuations at the end of sentences and extra spaces. See my most recent edits. Try to fix them, quite easy to spot; for the extra spaces, Visual Editor has a search and replace feature which will make it very easy to find.
 * Overall structure:
 * Standardise the main headings to have date ranges like "British rule (1818–1947)" for Early and medieval and Maratha rule.
 * Keeping in mind that the branching of sections ought to be proportionate unless there's special reason, why does the main section no 3 (British rule) get branched into 9 more sub sections and subsection no 9 even further into 5 more. The remaining three main sections have minimal branching. There's the reason for the British rule section having a lots more content but reorganisation is needed if everything is relevant. Like why subsections devoted to aspects of the city like Demographics, Transport etc are there when this is a page about history, the content in these sections could be reorganised or removed if beyond the scope. If I'm not making sense, look at the structure in History of Mumbai.
 * Thanks, Ugog. I will fix the punctuations.As far as the headings for the British period are concerned, it is mainly for ease of finding information on that topic.Ideally I would like to have them for the other periods too while information is being added.However, I will take them out once we have all the information.
 * After reading the article do you feel you are better informed about the city or is there something missing ? Best regards.Jonathansammy (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not just the headings, I mean more about the content in general, you get the idea. Dealing with just the history, there could be cases of content being Out of scope going by the sheer size of the last two main sections. To point out specific cases of content being overly detailed or missing, I can only say after going through it fully and complete this assessment. There may be content simply not relevant which could be moved to the subarticles which cover it more in detail. If you find any, go ahead and do it or wait for me to finish reading through it as I comment more here. The size and structure do make it hard to read through, compare it to that of History of Mumbai; of course, you must have done your research and this may be more comprehensive than that article, but content relevance maybe the main issue here. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the article is about history of a city,I believe you have to have a comprehensive history of government, infra-structure development, and culture in the article. I will see if any topic can be trimmed but getting rid of it completely will reduce the comprehensiveness of the article.If the content needs to be split because of size, then my preference would be for separate articles for Islamic/Maratha, British and Post-independence  periods respectively.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Starting going through this section-by-section. I'll probably dig up a lot but I'm being more strict on just assessment, going towards checking it against the WP:GACR roughly.

Early and medieval
Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Pune was first mentioned in a copper plate issued by Shilahar king, Aparajit in 993 AD" Unclear: it's written before it was mentioned in plates dated to 758 AD thus contradicting it possibly. "Shilahar king, Aparajit" any possible linking here for more information?
 * ""In later centuries it was referred to as "Punekavadi", "Punevadi" and "Kasabe Pune" respectively ." What does this mean here? that the three names were used in chronological order? Can "later centuries" be made more specific?
 * The first para just has one inline cite and in my view, besides just the alternate names, the remaining statements are serious enough to warrant more inline cites.
 * "Under Islamic rule," be more precise here? which ruler exactly or both the Sultanates? Statements related to this could use an inline cite.
 * "built by Barya Arab, a commander of the Khiljis ", this dynasty being here was never mentioned before, could this be made clearer?
 * "It is also believed that..." This by far, seems like the most challengeable statement. One cite is a British-era source 1885 and another a 1945. The former makes me worry about WP:PRIMARY source. In any case, what do sources say, do they say "believed" or state it as a non-contentious fact?
 * The last two statements about the Hindu saints visiting temples seem unrelated and trivial, what's the relevance here? We have two articles on Kedareshwar temple, which one is being referred to?
 * I will fix the problems over the next few days.Most of the information in paragraph one comes from the Kantak reference.
 * The Khiljis were the first muslim rulers to conquer central and Southern India.I have put a link there? Do you think I need a footnote to give additional details on that dynasty and their invasion of the south?ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So far the article introduces the Bahamani and Deccan Sultanates, the relation of the Khiljis to this area needs to be established for the readers. What details are you going to put? Can it be short and just enough? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Alladin Khilji was the first Delhi sultan to invade central and Southern india.Isn't a link (Khilji) enough here? I can always put additional information in the footnote.Let me know.ThanksJonathansammy (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I got the connection now from your addition. This should be fine. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Maratha rule
Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Murar Jagdeo Pandit, a general of Adil Shahi of Bijapur attacked Pune and literally raised it to the ground by using ass-driven ploughs as symbol of total destruction." What does this mean? I’m quite baffled. He destroyed the city using just ploughs driven by asses?!
 * ”Shahu's ministers, the Pantsachiv, for saving” “Pantsachiv” redirects to a place, so I’m unsure what’s the point of the link or meaning of this term (the group of these said ministers were referred to by this term)?
 * I’ve fixed several cases of WP:OVERLINKING and use of WP:HONORIFIC titles (Peshwa, Chhatrapati, Sant etc), but there seems to be more.
 * "Ass driven plough" was used as a symbolic action to denote total destruction of the locality. I can transfer that to a Footnote.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite interesting. If this action isn't that notable, it ought to be moved to the note as well with a hint of it. So like "attacked Pune and literally raised it to the ground(note). Remaining joins the current note. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Peshwa rulers and “the knights”, surely you just mean nobles or a more general word here, “knights” is a European medieval term.
 * I’ve fixed Peshwa Bajirao Ii to II, hope that was right.
 * Here are cases of repeated content which can be removed.
 * Para “Pune first came under Maratha control in the early 1600s…The city during this period was confined to the east bank of the Mutha river.” is just summarising the remaining section. That’s the job of the lead, which I’ll get to last. Remove and if the last statement about the river isn’t mentioned, keep it but shift it where it will keep the prose flow.
 * For this purpose, see my new proposed structure:
 * from ==Maratha rule==, ===Seventeenth century under the Bhosale family===, ===Peshwa rule ===
 * to ==Early Maratha rule (XXXX–XXXX)==, ==Peshwa rule(XXXX–XXXX)==, ===Administration and culture===
 * Just rename Seventeenth century under the Bhosale family to Early Maratha rule. Finally, divide the Peshwa section content into general history about the shift in rulers. I reckon roughly the first two paras plus the last para (this can also be trimmed, it repeats the Battle of Panipat, use your discretion). The remaining would go into the Administration and culture subsection.
 * Thanks.The first paragraph in the section, Maratha rule is a summary.I think mention of city being on the East bank should actually be in main lede.Once again thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Although, Pune was granted to Bhosale family as a Jagir or fief in late 1500s,nominally it was part of the territories of, first the Nizamshahi and later the Adilshahi.Under terms of a treaty,Shivaji conceded it to the Mughals in 1666.After that until 1707, the place repeatedly changed hands between the Marathas and the Mughals.That being the case can we call it "Early Maratha rule" ?I think Bhosale family fiefdom may be a better title.Let me knowJonathansammy (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Pune. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140515205013/https://www.manase.org/maharashtra.php?mid=68&smid=22&did=10&dsid=4 to https://www.manase.org/maharashtra.php?mid=68&smid=22&did=10&dsid=4

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Murar Jaggdeo or Jagdeo?
I found the same name appearing twice, but spelled differently in version 872181465 from 5 December 2018, section Bhosale family fiefdom (1599–1714) – but I have no idea which one is correct. --CiaPan (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Fixed in Special:Diff/876801436 on 4 January 2019 by . --CiaPan (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)