Talk:Kochi/Archive 4

Crime Statistics and Inference thereof
Check, you have deleted the statement ''The state of Kerala as a whole stood at the third position. Within the state, Kochi reported the least number of crimes, making it the safest city in Kerala.'', supported by data in Table 1 of the reference. You claim wrong citation. Have you checked the numbers? The first statement is directly evident from Table 1.6, Page 200. The second statement is evident from Table 1.14, page 266, where the district wise crime data is given. Where a city commissioner is available, that data is separately given. you have to add the numbers to get the total in each row to see that Ernakulam commissioner have the lowest number of crimes reported. Please clarify your grounds for the edit

DileepKS69 (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dileep, I have checked the cited content. It says about Ernakulam district, and not about Kochi city. Moreover, if you add the number of total crimes recorded, Ernakulam is not the "safest". Ofcourse, Kerala always records a high number of crimes because of the fact that each of the crime is registered with the Police; unlike in many other states where the crimes are not even reported to the police. I request you to be more neutral while editing Kochi article. I understand the "my city is the best"-feeling; but please be considerate in wikipedia. --Chektomate (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain how the calculation is made.

There are city police commissioners in the three larger cities, and rural SPs for the rest of the district. The objective is to compare those three cities. There are 32 classes of violent crimes in the table. Then there is the 'others' class which is essentially non violent crimes, like financial crimes. It is not considered for evaluating the safety of a city. If you add up the violent crimes in the three cities, you will get 1736 for Kochi, 2437 for Kozhikode and 3269 for Trivandrum. Hence, in total number of violent crimes, Kochi stands lowest. Now, divide it by the population. Since we do not have accurate numbers for 2008, let us take 2001 as a reference. We get 307.48, 558.23 and 438.94 per lakh of population.

Hope that clears the point. DileepKS69 (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Dileep, from the citation, I can see that the total crimes are not the least in Kochi. I am referring to and adding up all the tables, and not only Table 1.14 as you mentioned. Crime includes financial crimes, theft, molestation, robbery etc (as listed in the cited pdf). There is nothing like violent crime and non-violent crime :-) All sort of crimes affects the safety of the citizens. --Chektomate (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also refer to Table 1.6, page 201 in the pdf. It is clearly stated that Kochi's Rank of Criminality is 4 among Indian cities, below Indore, Bhopal and Jaipur. --Chektomate (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read up on the way cities are ranked based on crime. For example, http://www.cityrating.com/crimestatistics.asp. The safety of the city is evaluated on major crimes, that the residents feel a sense of threat/fear. There is a reason why the 'others' category is there in the list, when every possible types of crimes are listed.

Perhaps the basis of the assertion could be made clear in the statement, but I don't see any reason for not using that data point.

Please note that the 4th rank is mentioned in the article. That makes it only fair to add the counter point to offer balance. In fact, I would suggest to add the reason for the high rank. In Kerala, crimes do get reported!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DileepKS69 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The figures from National Crimes Record Bureau covers of all possible type of major crimes apart from "Others". And safety is also based on theft, molestation, robbery, riots, rape etc; and not only based on murders or murder attempts. It seems that you have an urge to polish the harshness of the fact that Kochi recorded a high crime rate. :-) As you said, it is possible that the high crime rate is because of the fact that only a small number crimes go un-reported in Kerala. But here, we cannot make assumptions of our own, as it may get challenged. People from Bihar or UP can claim that their state is safer as the recorded crimes are lower. Remember, wikipedia doesnt hold any opinion of its own. Wiki policy states that it is not a place to publish our own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. It is not a soap box to write promotional stuff (check here : Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. You can go through Original research policy to find out more. --Chektomate (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Drawing inferences from the available data and making assertions are NOT original research. BTW, your first sentence shows that you haven't read through the classifications of crimes. The numbers are derived after adding EVERYTHING except the class 'others'. Careful observation shows that the percentage of others is very high in Kochi. This is obviously because of all the industrial and financial activities in the city, and it does not cause safety concerns for citizens. DileepKS69 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need to be so careful; simple reading itself will tell you that the crime rate in Kochi is not the lowest in the state :-) --Chektomate (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

please edit to say largest city. it is the largest by all std —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.125.169 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

2 million Population
The reference given about the population is not a valid reference. As per World Gazetteer, the population of Kochi UA is is 1,355,406 (see) in 2001 and 1,564,089 in 2010 estimated population. It is more valid reference than the reference given and is used by WikiProject Indian cities. Note that he total rural population of Ernakulam district is only 1,477,085 according to Census of India.(see this).

Also, according to the Census of India site, Kochi UA has a Population of 1,355,972. (see). What is the need for other references as we have all these reliable references about the population figures?  BIN O Y  Talk


 * World Gazetteer is not a reliable source, as it call the population of Kochi as 266898 as per census 2001. That is a serious error, which should readily discount a source. This incorrect information had been on that site for quite some time, despite several emails being sent to the author. Hence, at least for Kochi related information, the said source shall remain discredited.


 * Census of India is the official and credible source for population.


 * But the issue here is a bit more complicated, which is the definition of the terms like Kochi UA and Greater Kochi. The Kochi UA is purely from the census POV and the Greater Kochi is from the urban planning POV. The urban planning area happens to be bigger than the urban agglomeration as defined by the census.


 * A third data point came out recently, which is the master plan for Kochi. This defines an area that is midway between the above two.


 * IMO, the census figure should appear at the head of the city article. The article on the urban area should use the urban planning based definition, and not the census definition. This is because census definition is based on the population angle alone, and the urban planning definition reflects the reality better.

DileepKS(talk) 09:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * World Gazetteer is a reliable source, irrespective of your personal opinion. It has been discussed at length within Wikipedia and is used as a source by other reliable publications including Time magazine etc. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  10:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Spice, how can you call it a reliable source when it hosts an obviously incorrect piece of information? I would like to know your view on that, and why did you term it as a personal opinion, where I pointed out an obviously glaring error. It is not an opinion. It is a fact.

OR, are you asserting that the WG is correct, and the population of Kochi was, indeed 266898 in 2001?

DileepKS(talk) 10:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Census aggregate tables confound Ernakulam and Kochi, the details show where WG gets the exact number or 266898 from, with the Ernakulam part being the larger population sphere and Kochi being the smaller sphere. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  11:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is Ernakulam called in that report? The section on important towns read as follows:

1.Kochi (M Corp.) (Part) 328,677

2.Kochi (M Corp.) (Part) 266,898

3.Edathala (CT) 67,754

Ernakulam is not called anywhere in that report, except as the name of the district at the title. There is no justification for taking one of the values, the smaller one at that, when the text clearly says it is two parts of the same M Corp.

Now, you are trying to defend a source that failed to do even the commonsense check on the data it publishes. Can you still vouch for its reliability?

DileepKS(talk) 11:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be missing the point here, Wikipedia is not the place for you to indulge in original research. If a reliable source uses the census data to reach a conclusion on extrapolation that's it. If another reliable source contradicts it, then it is fair to use both sources within the article and mention the discrepancy, but using non reliable sources is not on and definitely saying something is not reliable because you don't agree with their interpretation isn't on either. As for the census. this also shows an urban population in Kochi sub-district of 275K. If you have any reliable sources that contradict this data then put that up and we can discuss and maybe arrive at a conclusion to use both (at this point, I can not find any source on the census site that has a higher population), but the source that I recently reverted was not one such. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Kochi sub district means Kochi taluk. The above mentioned population from Kochi Taluk,not from metro area or city.

--Bijuts (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please check the bangalore with same link http://www.censusindia.gov.in/PopulationFinder/Sub_Districts_Master.aspx?state_code=29&district_code=20

--Bijuts (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not missing any point here. You are just trying to prop up a losing argument to show WG's reliability, that's all. I don't know what your motivation here.

First of all, it is a well known indisputable fact that the city of Kochi, that is, the area under the local administration unit called Corporation of Cochin, had a population of more than 500,000 in 2001, and NOT around 266,000. That fact overrides all and every so called sources, their reliability notwithstanding. It is not a matter of interpretation. The exact number of population, however, needs a source. The census of India is the primary source for that. It clearly gives the city population, in two parts for reasons unknown, the total being 595575 in 2001.

Secondly, I am not making any original research here, and I am calling WG unreliable not because I don't agree with them. I am calling WG unreliable because they give a number that is obviously and blatantly incorrect, and you, dear sir, are trying to defend the indefensible. WG specifying the population of Kochi to be 266,898 is a serious error, tainting its reliability. That is all I have to say.

The real matter of debate here, however, is not the reliability of WG. It is the use of urban agglomeration as per census v/s the urban planning area as per the govt documents. Which makes sense in an encyclopedia. That is the real question. It is not a matter of source reliability. It is a matter of POV.

DileepKS(talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is going nowhere, it's not in your place to make that judgment -- "and I am calling WG unreliable not because I don't agree with them". Either you bring forth reliable sources that attest to the city's population or stop making these arguments. I haven't seen your source yet and we don't deal in indisputable facts here, only verifiability. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Census of India, the population of Kochi UA is 1,355,972. I cannot find any details of two million figures and the Greater Cochin area.

Also, Dileep said that the urban planning area happens to be bigger than the urban agglomeration as defined by the census. Do you have any reliable reference about this? The article Kochi metropolitan area says that The area constituted on the basis of census data 2001, consists of Corporation of Kochi (Cochin), 9 municipalities, 14 Panchayaths and parts of 4 Panchayaths. The article Greater Cochin also says that "Greater Cochin area consists of Cochin Corporation, 9 municipalities, 25 intervening panchayats and scattered islands around Kochi City (Goshree Islands) covering an area of 732 km²". The "25 intervening panchayats" mentioned here is not in the given reference in the article. That means Kochi metropolitan area and Greater Cochin is same or don't have too much difference.

See the City Development Plan – Appraisal Report which doesn't even mentioned about the Greater Cochin area.  BIN O Y  Talk 13:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Census figures says clearly about the urban agglomeration (Kochi UA) population. There is no census data available for some thing called Greater Cochin. Please produce valid population data before changing the article. --Chektomate (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The concept of Greater Cochin is established with the formation of GCDA in 1976. The GCDA Website says The jurisdictional area of GCDA comprises of the Cochin City, the commercial capital of Kerala, 6 surrounding municipalities and 25 intervening panchayats covering an area of 632 sq.km. I am not able to obtain a more detailed reference on the exact specification on this. A GO from the registration department says: ''The Jurisdiction of Greater Cochin Development authority comprises the area covered by: Cochin Corporation, Municipalities of Perumbavoor Always; North Parur, Angamaly, Thriyppunithura, Eloor & Kalamasserry; Panchayaths of Pallippuram, Kuzhuppally, Edavakkad, Ezhikkara, Kottuvally, Alangad, Kadungalloor, Kadamakkudy, Cheranalloor, Nayarambalam, Njarackal, Elamkunnapuzha, Malavukad, Nedumbassery, Chengamanad, Kanjoor, Sreemoolanagaram, Keexhmad, Choornikkar, Vazhakkulam, Thrikkakkara, VadavocodePuthencruz, Thiruvankulam, Chottanikkara, Maradu, Kumbanlingi, Chellanam, Kumbalam, Udayaymperoor, Mulanthuruthy and Edathala. (Ins 4/21410/89/220890 of IGRegn)''.

As I mentioned earlier in the discussion, the jurisdiction of GCDA is Greater Cochin. This is bigger than the CDP and master plan for the city. That in turn is bigger than the U/A defined by census records. DileepKS(talk) 02:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

ya nigga, its a BIGGGG great fantastic city!! its bigger than KERALA!!!!!!! Its bigger than Chennai, Bangalore, Delhi and even MUMBAI, Hong Kong etc... Its Bigger than INDIA.... and even bigger than the very small NEWYORK CITY town village!!!! Great KOCHI, Big city.

the worst article i ever red in wiki... every one knows the status of indian cities!!! the largest city in india, mumbai which is dirty with slums every where.......... chennai is a little better than this... only thing i loved is that the articles in wikipedia about those citys are very good. i read almost all the city articles of india. but in this article this city which was not even in the list of top 10 populous cities in the country, WAS VERY GREAT!!! if you google about the city, there you get the real face of the city!!! Its a city with a few shopping malls and theater houses... and the name of the only few shopping malls is written in the article itself!!!! what is the need for that??? the important details written in the article are """there is two turns from that road and this road has two speed breakers and 500 sign boards, that mall has 79million shops and this shopping mall has 50 billion shops, there is a biiiiggggg tree in the downtown etc......

and when we look into the talk page to write the mistakes about the city, there goes huuuuugeeeee arguments. i know nothing is usefull and no one cares this msg in this page and nothing is going to happen in this article... i know some one will reply to this msg and if someone replied, my reply to that reply was LOL!!!!! may your reply RIP..............

KOCHI, the first, largest, biggest, topest, fantastic, boombastic city in the Universe, which is smaller ! 27.97.67.233 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Crime Statistics. Specific Mention of unreliable source
Aarem, Reliable_source_examples clearly states the following:

''As a result, use of summarised crime statistics from raw data to indicate the criminality of a certain area in comparison with others or the prevalence of a certain type of crime constitutes original research. Editors should use reliable secondary sources for commentary on trends in the criminality or peacefulness of a district.''

So, the NCRB report which suits exactly what is being called here, is inadmissible as a source. If reliable second sources are available, please bring it. If not, the statement need to be removed.

DileepKS(talk) 10:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dileep, I think you missed the last line : Editors should use reliable secondary sources. The citation provided in the article does not fall under WP:OR, since it is indicated very clearly in the crime report published by National Crime Records Bureau. There is no summarising of raw data by the editors here. The rank is taken directly from the report published by the Government agency.
 * As per the crime rate is mega cities, Kochi stands in the fourth position with a crime rate of 646.3.
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! Rank ! City ! IPC Crime Rate
 * 1
 * Indore
 * 860.3
 * 2
 * Bhopal
 * 836.4
 * 3
 * Jaipur
 * 722.4
 * 4
 * Kochi
 * 646.3
 * 5
 * Bengaluru
 * 569.4
 * }
 * You may call for a third opinion, if you are still not convinced. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 10:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 5
 * Bengaluru
 * 569.4
 * }
 * You may call for a third opinion, if you are still not convinced. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 10:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like you are right. Thanks. DileepKS(talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Cuisine
Dileep, your edit here : cuisine is more apt in a tourism/travel page. As this is about the cuisine of the city in general, do we need to mention about fast food joints and You Buy, We Cook services? We need not mention these kind of details in the city page. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 11:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is in the Culture section. Definitely the food is part of the culture. You Buy, We Cook is a part of the food culture of Fort Kochi. It is not just the tourists who enjoy it. I myself used to eat there whenever I visit Fort Kochi. It is something unique to the place, and as Fort Kochi as the Cheena Valas.


 * The mention of fast food is under a different angle. It shows the gradual change in culture. Two decades ago, we hardly had any fast food places. Then the local foods, like dosa and porotta came in fast food avatar. Now, it is the time of other cuisines, like fried chicken, shawarma, pizza etc. Locals regularly eat them. Isn't it very relevant to mention this change at the culture section?


 * IMO, there is a wide grey area between tourism/travel and culture, because much of tourism is about culture only. If you take extreme views, one can't even mention about places of interest, because they too are tourism/travel.


 * Please suggest re-phrasing if needed, but my take is that the food scene is part of the culture, and should find a place on the page.


 * DileepKS(talk) 11:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you got me wrong. Sorry, if my message was not clear enough. I did not say that stating the food culture should be removed. My intention was to point out the [ statements entered by you. The statements sound like a blog entry. I need not suggest a re-phrasing, you are capable of doing that. Please go ahead. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 02:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine. What about this?

"The cuisine at Kochi is in general the Keralite Cuisine, which is characterized by the abundance of coconut and spices. Interaction with other cultures, both from the rest of India as well as international, had its influence upon the cuisine. Chinese and North Indian dishes find the same prominence as the Keralite cuisine at restaurants. A number of restaurants also serve various international cuisines, such as Italian, French, Mexican, Thai etc. Being close to the ocean and the backwaters, seafood forms a prominent part in the cuisine. A service known as You Buy, We Cook is available at the waterfront of Fort Kochi, where the fresh seafood purchased from the nets is cooked as per the customers needs. Fastfood culture is also very prominent in the city. Fastfood versions of traditional dishes like dosas and parathas are widely available. Arabian food joints that serve Shawarma and roasted chicken are a new addition to the fast food scene in the city."

DileepKS(talk) 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * May I know whether the Italian, French, Mexican, Thai, etc are a part of general cuisine of Kochi? Being in Kochi, I didn't know that these are part of normal cuisines. All cities have these kind of restaurants, but all these stuffs will not get included when we talk about cuisine of the city. This sounds snobbish (verum pongacham) and childish.
 * If you still insist in adding these, then please add Chinese, Korean, Pakistani, Srilankan, etc. Because, some restaurants in star hotels serve these food also.


 * I agree to add the You Buy, We Cook service. You should also add Kundan's thattu kada in Fort Kochi and many other parts in Kochi, which is very famous. It is also a part of the food culture of Fort Kochi. It is not just the tourists who enjoy it. Many people I know used to eat there whenever they visit Fort Kochi (may be you too). It is something unique to the place, and as Fort Kochi as the Cheena Valas and as You Buy services.
 * There is another service in Marine Drive area known as Vayil Ulathiyathu (Food prepared directly from farms).
 * You should also mention about  "We give, you Taste"  in Kaloor. This is very very prominent one, and I have seen Kochi crowds queuing up for this service.
 * There are many more which could be included in the cuisine section; You buy we cook is not the only one.
 * Apart from adding Shawarma and Roasted chicken, please add Ulli theeyal, Kaa varuthathu, and Undan pori also.

--59.98.82.136 (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone up there is very frustrated. Why don't you add all the information yourself? - Jackman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.160.190.130 (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP user 59.98.82.136 Wikipedia is NOT a FORUM to have a general discussion. If you want your arguments to be considered, please sign in under a username, and make the arguments in a civil and rational manner.

DileepKS(talk) 06:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule here that only registered users are allowed to edit or discuss. The statement from you above is as if you are the founder of wikipedia. I prefer not to login using any user name, and i may still edit the articles. If you can show me any rule in wiki that I cannot edit with anonymous IPs, I will stop contributing to wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.248 (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course you can contribute with IP, but if you want to hold a continued meaningful discussion on the talk page, there should be some continuity of the source. A dynamic IP that changes from post to post makes it very bad to hold a meaningful discussion.


 * DileepKS(talk) 02:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Towns to be mentioned in the NH Table
An IP Editor is inserting Kodungalloor and Ponnani in the table entry for NH-17. The comment given in the edit summary is not clear. Already a couple of reverts happened, so I am opening the talk here to try resolve it.

It is the article of Kochi. NOT an article on NH-17, so you don't need detailed driving directions kind of information on the article. Only big/important towns are listed there. Avoiding driving confusion (that is what I could understand from the edit summary) is NOT a priority here, hence Kodungalloor and Ponnani is not needed there.

The IP Editor may please respond here. Meanwhile I am removing the edit, based on WP:BRD principle.

DileepKS(talk) 10:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dileep,

I noticed the edit war going on around these two towns. While I partly share your opinion on the criteria to add towns to the list. Adding Kodungallur and Ponnani is not harming anyone. Strictly speaking we only need mention that NH-17 and NH-47 pass through Kochi with hyperlinks to the respective highway's article. If the edit war is not resolved, I suggest the table removed. rams81 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

@Ram & the identity-less IP editor (59.x.x.x) - As the editor who put in that NH table on the Kochi page, let me request you not to blindly and blatantly wreck that useful piece of information. This is the Kochi city page and that table is talking about National Highways that either start/end or pass through the city and the major towns and cities that the corresponding NH passes through. If we go by your logic (both Ram & 59.x), we may have to add every town in Konkan, Goa, TN etc which are of the same importance and size of Ponnani and Kodungaloor. Excuse my spelling mistakes, if any. '''I suggest that only the importance cities and towns be retained in that table. The average visitor to Wiki should be able to gather information at one quick glance. Having 100s of towns in that table would not help the visitor that way. No, Ram - the table cannot be removed as you have requested above. We would rather remove those two UNIMPORTANT TOWNS than remove an useful piece of information.''' Also, please do not call this an EDIT war. It is one-sided Vandalism by 59.x. Thanks for your time - MountainWhiskey - talk 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Mountainwhiskey

Ok. Please explain me how you define the criteria for "Important Town". rams81 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Ram - I would ideally look at comparing the two towns you have mentioned to those like Kannur, Mangalore, Panaji etc. If you look at the cities mentioned in the table, only the MOST important cities or towns have been mentioned. The whole idea is to give the visitor an idea as to how Kochi connects to Panvel through the NH17. It is all about giving the visitor a sense of direction and is not an attempt to promote a particular city or town. The most commonly used route to Kozhikode from Kochi is through NH17 and I do not see a need to mention every small town that lies on the route, which would also mean a very lengthy and detailed table. The Wikilink to NH17 is given in the table and if a visitor so wishes, s/he can visit the Wiki page for NH17 and gather more information about the towns that lie on the NH17. Hope this clarifies - Cheers! - MountainWhiskey - talk 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @ MW,

My point is as you have answered yourself, ("The Wikilink to NH17 is given in the table and if a visitor so wishes, s/he can visit the Wiki page for NH17 and gather more information about the towns that lie on the NH17.") it is enough to give the Highway number with a link to its article. The person will look into it if he finds it relevant. There is no point in having a table and then fighting over which city to add and which to delete.

Based on your own argument, I don't see any popular route to Kannur or Mangalore from Kochi other than through, so why give Kozhikode and Kannur?

The whole idea is to bring this article to a level of readability instead of clustering it with all sorts of information. If you remember it WAS a featured article some months back. rams81 (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rams, vandalism is more of an attitude, than the action. Look at the history of this IP editor (Different but very similar IPs). First he added Ponnani. When that was deleted, he added Guruvayoor, which is not even on the NH. Then he posted something about the Cuisine. If you know the slangs in Malayalam, you will know the underlying meanings on that post. Then he went on the flip-flop of edit/revert, ignoring the invitation to Talk. Clearly, his intentions are not the well being of the article.


 * IMHO, you did a disservice to the page by supporting him and reinstating his edit. You are a very senior editor, and I respect your intentions. But, I am sure you would agree that this would set a precedence and let people add a big list of towns.


 * Back to the subject, I don't think just having the NH number, and linking to its page is enough to serve the purpose. Remember that it is about the connectivity of the city. It only makes sense to provide a general sense of the connectivity by providing the end points (required) and if the highway is long (like the NH 17 is) to provide a list of important towns that it connects (desired). The importance of the town should be considered from the angle of the city itself.


 * The reason given by the editor is verbatim Ponnani from Malappuram is also needed since there is a confusion of SH-69 & NH-17 passing through Malappuram Dist from Kuttipuram/Edappal.. Is that a valid reason for inclusion on a city page? And you seemed to support that stance by reinstating that edit. I am sorry to say, but you aren't helping by that.


 * I hear often about the past FA status on this page. Do you really believe supporting this kind of edits would further that cause?

DileepKS(talk) 01:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just so that all of you who are part of this discussion are aware - there are several IP users trying to vandalize the page which could lead to a page lockout - the IPs worth noting start with 59.98.8x.xx (Kozhikode) and 124.247.212.239 (Pune). Pls ignore them as far as you can because their intentions are purely of a vandal nature and are not here to contribute whatsoever. - MountainWhiskey - talk 10:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC) @MountainWhiskey.
 * Don't under-estimate anybody if that person is NOT using an id.Don't feel that whatever you do is RIGHT and whatever others object you ropnion which is digestable to you is WRONG.Also,don't make any Blind conclusion that ALL REVERTS ARE VANDALISM.You are also doing the same,not only here but in some other pages too.

@DileepKS
 * Hope you are NOT the moderator or admin of wiki as you do in KochiNow.You are free to HYPE you city there.You are one among other editors and the wiki rules are same to al editors including you.Thats all.

@Bijuts
 * Don't show your arrogance.Njaan pidicha muyalinu kombu moonnu enna bhaavam.Thats not good.

@All others.
 * I accept the point that this is a CITY PAGE.Then why is the necessity of the detailed description ie;the cities covered column especially in this page.A wikilink to the concerned NH is enough.Those who need to get the details shall only goto that page.
 * The statements made by MW & DKS are funny.YES Bosses.There is a confusion in the nodes you mentioned here.Because the node at Kuttippuram deviates 90 deg to Ponnani.and passes through Chavakkad,Kodungallur etc.
 * You made it as Kochi just after Kozhikode.This is WRONG.One who travel this route clearly knows that.Your table simply makes confusion.Also you avoided a pont in Malappuram & Thrissur district.
 * It seems you people want to put Kochi wherever you want.Why Kochi is to mention in the 3rd column.Its already there in "From" & "To" .It clearly shows you intention.

--59.98.80.89 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @ 59.98.80.xx - Yes, we are all supposedly from KOCHINOW and we want to promote Kochi. Aha, so what next? Do you have a solution to all the above so-called problems or are you here to create more problems? - MountainWhiskey - talk 18:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Mountainwhiskey, Dileeks and Bijuts: Thanks for openly admitting that you are all from a common forum for hyping Kochi. That falls under Meat Puppetry in wiki. And your intentions are similar to paid editing. Btw, it is not good to call others vandals to show your frustration. Infact, your efforts to glamourize the city page are problematic. When I went through the discussion, I feel what IP 59.x is correct. My suggestion is to move the distance chart in transport section to the Transport subsection. None of the other city pages are having those kind of format. --Samaleks (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP Editor, let me repeat. the cities are listed:

1. NOT to clarify the route. 2. NOT to represent the districts

It is listed to show the CONNECTIVITY to important cities. If your assertion is that Ponnani is an important connection to Kochi, please say so. The other arguments doesn't stand, because it is a CITY page.

Samaleks, I had been seeing this allegation of hyping, glamourizing etc. The edit history is public on Wikipedia. Please list the edits that I did, which you consider glorifying/hyping the city, and I shall learn from them. Thanks.

DileepKS(talk) 01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Samaleks - Though this is not the page to discuss this, let me ask you who ADMITTED that myself, BijuTS, DileepKS are all from KochiNOW? You cannot simply announce Meat Puppetry here. Please go ahead and bring together some facts to prove the same! This cannot go on - I mean your allegations... I understand you fail to see the sarcasm in my response to the IP editor 59.x.x.x when I say "We all SUPPOSEDLY belong to the KochiNow forum" which was meant to satisfy the IP editor and possibly yourself as well, on your wild unsupported and baseless allegations and claims of every editor on Kochi being from some forum called KochiNow. You might think that we are from the same forum or whatever and have the same intentions, but you cannot continue to make baseless allegations. You should maybe go on to prove some of your dreamed up allegations. In fact, I could accuse You (Samaleks), 59.x.x.x, Lower Fourth etc, that you are all coming together to destroy Kochi pages. But, instead, I have left it to the Wiki Admins to find out who is doing what here... Have a nice day and would love to see more of your contributions to make Wiki a better place! - MountainWhiskey - talk 03:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

@Samaleks & the IP User: What is this KochiNow all about?It is just a forum to promote a particular city.I checked that forum,but couldn't find anything what you are mentioned here.But seen that DileepKS is one of the moderator there.Truely speaking I'm not much interested in such biased forums,so didn't gone in detail there.IP User,If you allege that why can't you show any proof of that? Also,Samaleks if this is the case of Meat Puppetry; it is SERIOUS I think.But without any proof how come?

@MountainWhiskey: Are you SURE that the allegations made above are baseless?Why because, you challenged about such one about another forum (forgot its name) somewhere in Wiki recently.There also it seems no proofs were produced;I think.

--Induzcreed (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Proof? If you browse that forum (Kochinow.com), you will find that all these editors (Dileep, Biju, Mantanviskey) are active forumers there and they all combine to create the same hype and editwars in wiki also. This is ofcourse MEAT puppetry. We should point this to the admins. These biased editors are not required in wikipedia. --Samaleks (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Samaleks, if you want to request a user investigation, please do so using the appropriate procedures. The talk page of an article is not the right place for that.

The issue under discussion here is, what is the criteria of including a town in the list of cities/towns connected in the table of highways. The reason provided by the editor who included two towns is verbatim Ponnani from Malappuram is also needed since there is a confusion of SH-69 & NH-17 passing through Malappuram Dist from Kuttipuram/Edappal. This is a city page, so that argument does not stand here. It maybe valid on the page of the NH.

The cities are listed:

1. NOT to clarify the route. 2. NOT to represent the districts

It is listed to show the CONNECTIVITY to important cities. If the assertion is that Ponnani is an important connection to Kochi, please say so. The other arguments doesn't stand, because it is a CITY page.

Editors Samaleks and Induzcreed have not provided ANY argument for or against the inclusion of those towns. Editor Ram didn't reply either. The IP Editor too did not give any arguments other than Ponnani from Malappuram is also needed since there is a confusion of SH-69 & NH-17 passing through Malappuram Dist from Kuttipuram/Edappal.. Please state your arguments here, why the towns Ponnani and Kodungalloor should be added as the towns connected to Kochi by NH-17. Do you still assert that the reason Ponnani from Malappuram is also needed since there is a confusion of SH-69 & NH-17 passing through Malappuram Dist from Kuttipuram/Edappal. is valid? If not, do you have another one? Please state.

DileepKS(talk) 13:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@DileepKS:Please see the reply in the section Below.

Thanks

--Induzcreed (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing the table on Highways
Though the edit war on the table started when a user tried adding a few cities and editors from Kochi not liking their city being linked with (pun intended) with smaller cities :-), as an introspection I find the table itself odd in the first place.

1. The table is an information overload. A causal listing of a couple of places will do. Any reader interested in knowing how Kochi connects to other major cities in India only need to click the Highway's link. The table as such is an eyesore in an otherwise good article.

2. No other city article has such tables. rams81 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ram - the edit war is being caused by none other than Sam, Lower, 59.x and a few others. The table was originally created by me to provide visitors to the Kochi page with one-stop info on the highway networks. Earlier, it was in a long paragraph and could not be easily dug out. Now, to avoid clutter, the info was kept very basic, hence inclusion of only major cities or towns. Moreover, it aims to provide a sense of direction. Of course, as usual, edit-war mongers like some of the above appeared on the scene and started inserting one town at a time and provoking the original editors. Every revert would gradually contribute to an edit war. Now, like you call it, it is an edit war - one-sided though.
 * Giving into these edit war mongers, would mean no new contributions to Wiki. I do not see why a table which carries very useful information be removed to please a few ZERO-contributing Revert and Edit War specialists. Thanks & Cheers - MountainWhiskey - talk 03:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi MW,
 * Let's be mature and not point at each other stating "he did this so I did this". The subject is do we need a table here, cluttering the flow of the article. Ok. I suggest something. Let me try to edit that section and if you guys find it objectionable, do let me know. rams81 (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok guys, I abridged the information spread out in table and in paragraphs. I hope this helps. Keep in mind that there are length guidelines for articles in wikipedia and one can always add a new article say, "Highway Connectivity to Kochi" to add more information and place a hyperlink just below the heading Highways in this article. Let's shed our ego and work on making this a fantastic article.. Cheers!! :-) rams81 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ram - I reckon your mention of Ego and Maturity should go to the vandals and destructors. It was they who did this and that and who had a problem with everything. Needless to say, they are zero contributors. People who love to see growth stunted like our rulers.


 * I really do not see the need to pull down the table. It is quite an useful piece of information and even the 'VANDALS' never wanted to remove the table. But, they wanted to include their towns, hometowns or whatever you might wanna call it. You are the only editor here seeking to remove the table. I do not see why. And, the format put up by you is taking us back to those unpleasant look. I would suggest removing it and putting it back in table format. My 2cents. -MountainWhiskey - talk 03:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ram - Alternatively, if it is the looks of the table that is bothersome to many of you, we can put up the same information in bullet points. I strongly feel that information should be quickly accessible to the layman visitor to the page and not hidden in cluttered paragraphs. Hence, my insistence on tables where one can quickly access the info s/he wants. And, No, I am not removing information to please vandals. Never. They should come here with an identity and justify their reverts.- MountainWhiskey - talk 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ram, your pun was uncalled for, and if I didn't know better, I might have attributed it to non WP:AGF. I am sorry to point out that instead of answering the question, you went on a tangent of the table being an eyesore.

The specific question was, let me repeat, is the argument Ponnani from Malappuram is also needed since there is a confusion of SH-69 & NH-17 passing through Malappuram Dist from Kuttipuram/Edappal. an admissible one for inclusion of the towns in the list? This is a fundamental policy question, which has relevance whether we retain the table or not. I do not consider it admissible. Do you?

I ask this again because yourself and Samaleks seemed to come to the defense of the IP editor who made that argument. Your opinion, being from a very senior editor, carries weight.

thanks

DileepKS(talk) 05:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@DileepKS : What wrong with you??Do you expect a reply as soon as you make a comment?How can you prove that I came for the defense of the IP user?What is the necessity for me to do that?If you want to continue with the discussion in a wiki professional manner please do it and refrain from any personal attacks.
 * Now regarding the table,my opinion is that the table itself is NOT Necessary.Nobody have doubt that this is city page.There is no need of mentioning the other cities covered by that particular NH in a table format.The description type will do.If anybody wants to know more about the places through which that NH is passing,just need to go to that NH Page.Thats all wiki about.
 * So better remove the table itself and the old format will be enough in this page.

Thanks.

--Induzcreed (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Induz, my apologies. You didn't support the POV of the IP Editor. You only intervened in reply to Samaleks. Only Ram and Samaleks did seem to support the IP Editors. Sorry about the mix up, and in fact I should thank you for the intervention. (I edited out your name in the original post)

I am neutral on whether the information should be in a table format or not. My opinion is that the connectivity to important cities need to be there in the section. But what is important is definitely a matter of contention, so IMVVHO, we may remove the connected cities information altogether.

Still, I am concerned about the apparent support of two editors to an argument that I find absolutely absurd. I still feel a need to resolve that as part of the quest of continual improvement.

DileepKS(talk) 06:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@ALL - The NH table has been removed to avert an edit war encouraged by a few unreasonable anonymous IP users and casual revert-specialists (see above for better description). The information about NHs can be seen in the form of bullet points. Connected towns and cities have been removed to a great extent because obviously Wiki has no space for every panchayat in Kerala to be included. - MountainWhiskey - talk 14:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @All,
 * Ok guys, thanks for your support and understanding. Too much water has flown under Aluva bridge since I last logged in. :-) so let me just clarify my stand.
 * 1. I don't support or nor am I against anyone. I assume Good faith even with the IP editors. I hope Dileep and MountainWhiskey understand very well what a Vandalism is and have seen pages being vandalised. Here is someone trying to add a few more places and you guys pounce on him/her and reverting the edits. As I see it, the addition of a few towns does no harm when small branches of NH-47 like NH-47C etc can add value to this article. HAving said that if someone lists 15 towns on a highway, it is a kill, a reasonable number would be 5-6. So you now know.
 * 2. As regards the table, I would not have noticed this thing had it not been for the repeated reverts with towns in Malappuram. The subject matter is is not something where you have three - four columns of data that a table is warranted.
 * You guys are doing good work in maintaining this article and I only wanted that you also give room for newbies and assume good faith. Thanks :-) rams81 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Rams81, The editors Dileepks69, Mountainwhiskey and bijuts are not doing any good job here in maintaining the article. This article was developed by some senior editors. These new editors are just trying to hype in favour of their city. They are all from a forum called KochiNow(a forum for hyping Kochi) and is a classic example of Meat Puppetry. Their intentions are similar to paid editing. Infact, their efforts to glamourize the city page are problematic. They discuss their actions about how to hype and glorify Kochi, and put their words in to action here. They often call others vandals, if the edits are not in favour to their thoughts.

Coming to the topic; I support removing the distance table from the article. No other city article is having that. The distance table could be moved to the subsection 'Transport in Kochi. Keeping the table there really makes the article looks more messy. Also, there are many extra lines in the article, which should be removed. --Samaleks (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there is no reply by the meat puppets, I am removing the table from the article. --Samaleks (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@Samaleks - Why did you remove the Distance Chart Table? Pls give me TWO good reasons? Does the table carry incorrect information? Does the table not comply with Wiki standards? The reason why I (the first creator of the table) did not respond is cos you only asked for removal without citing a valid reason. I am reinstating the table. Cheers - MountainWhiskey - talk 03:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please use wikitravel:Kochi (Kerala) to add the distance table. Lets keep things encyclopedic over here.  Arjun  codename024

CAUTION: Constant Vandalism and Reverts
'''Bringing to everyone's attention - Constant vandalism and reverts by a few users:  1. SAMALEKS  2. 59.X.X.X  3. 218.x.x.x'''

I know this may be of no use but nevertheless I feel the genuine editors here should be aware and cautious.

These users have been playing meat puppets in coordination with each other causing disruptions to the progress of the Kochi page. For instance, if you scroll up, you would see their persistent attempts in removing the Table on National Highways. This was discussed on the talk page and to avert an edit war (which is all they want so the page gets locked), the table was pulled down. The moment this happened, they were back demanding that a table mentioning Distances to other cities be brought down. When this was denied, there was a flurry of IP users and of course Samaleks dropping by to blindly vandalize the table. This is to bring to your notice that both these users are working together to destroy the Kochi page without reason with the help of several other ANONYMOUS IP editors. Despite being asked on the talk page to cite reasons, they went on a revert spree thus causing damage to original work by wiki editors. If this was not enough, they have been getting too personal which is characteristic of a few users who work together. Their intention obviously is to trigger an edit war on the page and disrupt progress of the same. All edigtor

Hope the admins take note and take necessary action.

This is for your attention - MountainWhiskey - talk 17:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to prove all the above are working together.But I assure you I have enough proof to show your group work to vandalize each and every page in wiki..Yes..DileepKS as the leader with the support of you and other editors like Bijuts,arunvarmaother and of course with the help of other with the use of different ips are doing a clear meat puppetry here in wiki.Yes I invite the admins to intervene the situation alleged by you;so that I can produce the proofs and of course you are also invited to produce the proof.I am damn sure you won't have it...But I have..
 * Cheers Buddy..Enjoy your remaining days in wiki.
 * By the way how can you delete my comments in talk page?

--59.92.113.1 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Distance to capital and other cities in the LEAD
I propose Distance to capital and other cities be removed from the Lead.

Some editors' contention is that the Distance to the capital be mentioned in order to help identify the geographic location of the city. Both Trivandrum (capital) and Kozhikode (important trade city of Kerala) could be mentioned as they are only 200kms each from Koch, but again, the problem is, if you added those cities, there would be one side opposing and the other supporting the inclusion of let's say Trivandrum following which there would rampant reverts, edits and vandalism as can be seen currently and in the past. There have been several anonymous IPs at work constantly reverting topics under discussion and trying to trigger edit wars on Kochi, Kozhikode and Thiruvananthapuram. I think in the case of this page, the distance to cities should be removed because as you probably can see, the inclusion of distance to Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode in the lead has attracted triggered a series of edit wars which has led to some important information being removed from the Kochi page in order to please and quieten those conducting edit wars. Distances shall be removed from the lead to avert such edit wars. Also please visit Talk:Kozhikode to see how editors have somewhat reached a consensus and removed the distances thus avoiding any edit wars. Please pitch in with your valuable suggestions, especially Senior Editors. Thanks - MountainWhiskey - talk 01:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There should be some uniformity among the city pages of Kerala. I see that Kozhikode is captioned Metropolitan City, but the same caption is vehemently fought against at the Kochi page. Completely baseless assertions are fine at Trivandrum, but solidly referenced information is fought down at Kochi. It is talk first, edit later at Trivandrum, but Edit first Talk never at Kochi. There should be uniformity in editing standards as well.


 * Given the tendency of NOT assuming good faith on these pages, can we have a uniform set of rules applicable for the city/regional pages of Kerala?


 * DileepKS(talk) 02:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to talk again this issue.This was already discussed and consensus arrived.Now everybody know your intention.Just want to add Kochi in each and every page of Kerala.This is your agenda.Somebody asked for the proof for your Meat Puppetry.Yes I do have the proof..Do you all want to see??Discuss about that first..Then we will discuss the remaining later..

--59.92.101.91 (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Two things: 1. Create an identity for yourself 2. Please go ahead and meet the admins and prove your fantasies of MeatPuppetry. Do not expect the admins to come looking for you. - MountainWhiskey - talk 06:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the consensus, may I ask? I haven't EVER added a link to Kochi on any other page, nor asked for it. Do not raise baseless allegations. All I am asking for is a uniformity on content, and editing decorum across the city pages of the state.

First of all, either remove the tag metropolitan city from Kozhikode, OR add it to Kochi. THEN we will talk about consensus.

DileepKS(talk) 06:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

'''::@Mandan Koothi : Then why you call for admin?Or do you think all admins will come on your call?Or do you think your fantacies will work here?Why should I come with an identity,you also not doing that.
 * DileepKS : May be you are doing or not, its your agenda that you want to remove the data related to TVM pages and hype with Kochi in all pages and you are making that happen through your gang including the mandan koothi.From the last sentence of your comment is also clear what is your intention here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.122.188 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC) '''

'''ADMIN - Please watch the abusive language used by the above user 59.x... This is unacceptable. Page should go into Semi Protection ASAP - Edharis (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)'''

CIAL Information
This is referring to Samaleks edits. Regarding the fourth busiest argument, The following datapoints are available:t

Data from April 2006 to March 2008 : http://www.aai.aero/traffic_news/mar2k8annex3.pdf Data from April 2007 to March 2009 : http://www.aai.aero/traffic_news/mar2k9annex3.pdf Data from April 2009 to October 2009 : http://www.aai.aero/traffic_news/oct2k9annex3.pdf Data from April 2010 to December 2010 : http://www.aai.aero/traffic_news/dec2k10annex3.pdf

You can see that data for Nov 2009 to March 2010, ie of five months is missing, out of 58 months total period. You can see that throughout the available data, COK has consistently maintained the relative position. That is good enough reference for the ranking, without the qualifier of time period.

Samaleks claims now it is not. Please provide reference to this. AAI have not released data after Nov 2010, so I would like to see your source.

Regarding the size of the airport:

COK terminal is 47,000 Sq. m. + 9,600 Sq. m. = 56600 Sqm TRV terminal is 13,335 sqm + 5,665 sqm + 32200 sqm = 51200 sqm

Which is big?

Reverted the edits. Please prove your points before doing it again

DileepKS(talk) 02:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IP Editor 218.186.16.252 (Undid revision 420771506 by DileepKS69 (talk) it is only fourth busiest for some months.)


 * Did this editor actually look at the data? FOR EVERY period of time in this dataset of 53 months, it is 4th. What can be done with such actions? How can someone assume good faith with this type of edits?
 * DileepKS(talk) 07:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The CIAL is not the fourth busiest now. Hence the claim should be removed from the article. --Samaleks (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Any Reliable Source to claim this? --Bijuts (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Samaleks, do you have any source other than because I said so. You were asked to post the sources many times already, and I wouldn't mind asking again.


 * Please post your source. You, being an old hand, very well know that anything else wouldn't do.


 * DileepKS(talk) 10:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @All,
 * This is not CIAL article so let's not fight over it. It is immaterial to fight over the rank of the city's airport. Ok, if we want to settle this issue. Kochi Airport is 4th largest airport in India in terms of passenger traffic according to this Business Line news article dated 21st March 2011 . So that settles this issue for quite some time. Cheers :-) rams81 (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

SOCIAL SERVICE
In the article about Cochin we need to add a topic in above one of the subjects or on similar topics. Cochin City have very notable, social responsible institutions known for its charity, social work and community support and it’s also a reflection of the collective and broad minded support and approach of the Cochin public towards social welfare.

Palluruthy Rehabilitation Shelter or PRS is one of the worth mentioning organization and its importance is multi dimensional and extends outside the boundaries of Cochin .Its owned by our Corporation (Cochin Corporation) in association with Peoples Council of Social Justice and its one the leading  organization of this type in whole Asian subcontinent under the direct administration of a Corporation. There are about 3 other related organizations under Cochin Corporation, one for girls, one for boys and one for ladies. Palluruthy Rehabilitation Settlement can be called the parent home of all these.

With the help of Social workers, Doctors, Social Welfare Clubs and with the initiative of PRS administration many successful rehabilitations were done and many of them are heart  breakening stories.

An article on Cochin will not be complete without mentioning the great work done in PRS and we have to acknowledge the service mind of the Cochin people.

Already a wiki page is formed in the name of ‘PRS COCHIN’

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankarr1977 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Shankar,
 * Please provide some citations about the organisation, its history and services, we can surely mention it under appropriate heading. We cannot obviously not have a separate heading for the institution. rams81 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest we have a section Social Welfare or similar, and give a brief of all the welfare organizations and their notable activities from the perspective of the city. I haven't researched it yet, but I know of many institutions that could be mentioned. Wikipedia encourages to be bold, so Shankar, please add the section.


 * Happy editing. DileepKS(talk) 00:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for ur support and good interest shown in the subject.I am abroad now and so i may need some time to collect more needful information on PRS.You can avail more details on PRS from Peoples Council for Social Justice ,located in Valanchabalam,South Cochin or from the PRS at Palluruthy Veli and i request if possible find some time to visit there because u will get direct picture and more authentic details.I am trying to collect and formulate more valid information on various activities of PRS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankarr1977 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Shankarr1977 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Shankarr1977

Taiking the inspiration from all good editors of wikipedia i have edited a matter in the name SOCIAL SERVICE I request for postive corrections and support from your end Thanks Shankarr1977 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The following discussion hapenned at Kerala talk page.

Use of the adjective Commercial Capital
There had been a flurry of activity on the term Commercial Capital in connection with the city of Kochi, but no one has opened a discussion. So, here goes:

There are two distinct questions here..

1. Does the adjective "Commercial Capital of Kerala" needed a place on the article of Kochi? 2. Does a mention of the above needed a place on the article of Kerala

The adjective of Commercial Capital is attached to Kochi for a long time. There are a number of sources for this, including the vishva vijnana kosham encyclopedia. (See Vol 1, article on Ernakulam). There are official sources, like the Kerala Development Report by the Planning Commission of India, page 447. A simple web search will yield a number of other documents including govt sources. So, it is an irrefutable fact that the adjective is in wide use.

There is precedent of using this adjective on the pages of other states. Gujarat have mention of both Surat and Ahmedabad as commercial capital. Madhya Pradesh have Indore mentioned. Cuttack and Kanpur also claim the distinction on their pages.

So, there is no justification in objecting the mention of the fact on the Kochi and Kerala pages. It can not be disposed as POV pushing.

To sum up:

1. The term "Commercial Capital of Kerala" is a widely recognized adjective for Kochi. 2. There is precedent that the adjective is used on Wiki pages.

Hence, it must be added to the pages of Kochi and Kerala.

DileepKS(talk) 03:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was expecting the MEATof Bijuts and Mountainwhiskey to pitch in soon, for Kochi boosting and glorifying. I was sure that once the page is semi-protected, you will come out of the shell of anonymous IPs.
 * Officially there is nothing called Commercial Capital for a state. And nothing similar is given in Kerala Government websites in their "About Kerala" pages. If you insists on adding "Kochi is the commercial capital of the state", the same has to go with
 * "Thrissur is the Cultural Capital of the state",
 * "Kottayam is the letter capital of the state",
 * "Trivandrum is the knowledge hub of the state", etc
 * But, these details cannot be included here. So, please stop your Kochi glorification in wikipedia. From your contributions, it is evident that you are here in wiki with only one agenda - Glorification of your city. I request you and your MEAT PUPPETS to refrain from edit-wars. Please do not take this discussion continuing forever (as DileepKS always do). Please think rationally and adhere to Neutral POV. Thank you, Samaleks (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As usual, Mr. Samaleks has come up with the ONLY ARGUMENT he has against any discussion point, ie bias. Do you have any real refutals to the points made, sir?

Yes, discussions get prolonged as long as you do not provide refutals, other than alleging bias. Bring your arguments forth, sir.

DileepKS(talk) 11:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Read my reply again, you will find points. --Samaleks (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I get two points from your post.

1. Officially, there is nothing called Commercial Capital of a state.


 * Sure, but it is widely used by a number of cities, and present in wikipedia articles. Good enough precedent here.

2. You will have to add such other adjectives of other cities


 * Sure, as long as it is widely used, and reference for the same available. It is not your call to say such details can not be included here. If they are valid and notable, sure they could be.

DileepKS(talk) 12:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As usual, i am here to fight against biased - organized vandals, and their captain is going to continue this discussion for ever. And ever.......

Dear DileepKS, its, not so important to add that in Kerala page because of "it is referred so". It is not official. ie, it's only like a Nick name like "Queen of the Arabian sea". Apart from other states, Kerala cities has this kind of terms like Thiruvananthauram - "Educational hub of Kerala", Trissur - "Cultural capital of Kerala", Kottayam - "Akshara Nagari" (City of Letters), Kannur - "The Land of Looms and Lores", etc. There is no need to add all these into this article. Many of these have valid references and are widely used.

For example, Thrissur is known as the "Cultural capital of Kerala". It is widely used and has so many references and even we studied that from school.

Your questions..

1. Does the adjective "Commercial Capital of Kerala" needed a place on the article of Kochi?

2. Does a mention of the above needed a place on the article of Kerala

Answers

1. Does the adjective "Commercial Capital of Kerala" needed a place on the article of Kochi?

Yes, it's surely needed. Like Trissur page uses "Trissur is known as the Cultural capital of Kerala", Kochi page should be mention it as, Kochi is known as the Commercial Capital of Kerala or Kochi is mentioned as the Commercial Capital of Kerala.

2. Does a mention of the above needed a place on the article of Kerala?

No need in a state like Kerala which has so many cities with almost same importance and population and also have so many widely used terms like this.

And you said, ''As long as it is widely used, and reference for the same available. It is not your call to say such details can not be included here. If they are valid and notable, sure they could be.''

I don't think so. Not every points with reference can be add here. That point is notable in the Kochi page. And has no importance in Kerala page. (Don't ask why, because it's mentioned above).

For example, Thiruvananthapuram is the capital of Kerala State. It's clearly referenced and it has importance. But it has no importance to be be added in the article India. Lower 4th. Tal K   08:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Lower Fourth, you really need to read WP:Vandalism and understand the meaning of the word in context of Wikipedia before you make allegations of vandalism. I am not doing anything different from what you, or other Trivandrum based editors do, except that I discuss sticking to etiquette and civility. Obviously I agree to rational arguments and work for concensus, while you guys always filibuster the discussions.


 * Commercial Capital is not simply a nickname. It is an important economic qualifier. From a state perspective, it is a very important piece of information, that is why the state pages of Gujarat and MP have it mentioned. Maybe the editors from their capital city are not so insecure to fight it.


 * Thanks for agreeing that it is relevant on Kochi page. Someone had been removing the information from the lead there. Do you mind putting that back in? Your word carries weight.


 * DileepKS(talk) 15:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The same is applicable to other titles such as "Cultural Capital of Kerala", "Letter Capital", etc. But, you are only here to push POV for Kochi. Also, the commercial capital is already existing in Kochi article. Take the discussion there, if you want to any change in Kochi article. Please do not carry forward this discussion forever, as you always do. Regarding Vandalism, please educate your MEAT Bijuts first. As seen from many of his revert, he is simply accusing other editors of vandalism (proof:,  ,  ,  ) Please educate your MEAT PUPPETS when you do wiki related discussions in KOCHINOW forum or SKYSCRAPERCITY forum. Also, please refrain from edit-wars through anonymous IPs, else you people might get blocked. Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Samaleks, it is the umpteenth time you are bringing in baseless allegations. If you have a complaint to make, please do so at the appropriate forum. Editors will have their aligned POV, just like yourself and a bunch of Trivandrum based editors always do. It is not wikiquette to allege sock/meat puppetry when editors happen to have similar POVs, and that is the reason why I do not make that allegation upon you and your friends.


 * Do you agree that the adjective should be in the lead of Kochi article?


 * DileepKS(talk) 06:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Samaleks, you need not worry. I have the screen shots which proves that DileepKS69, Bijuts, Arunvarmaother, and Mountainwhiskey are meat puppets. Dileep, It is not just a baseless allegation. I have solid proof of Dileep congratulating Bijuts for his destructive and biased edits for boosting Kochi in wikipedia. I am also aware that all of you are from a common city forum called Kochinow and Skyscrapercity. They are here for glorifying their city, Kochi and pushing/advertising Kochi in all other articles. Regards, Regards, Sunil(talk)


 * Well, you are free to raise an investigation. What is preventing you?DileepKS(talk) 10:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All should be neutral regarding all the articles. For eg: the adjective "Evergreen city of India" is used for Trivandrum, "Garden city and Pensioners paradise for Bangalore, "Manchester of India" for Coimbatore etc., in the INTRODUCTION itself. Why coming with arguments against Kochi only? My question is very simple. What is wrong with adding the term "Commercial Capital of Kerala" in the introdction of Kochi page?

Also see Surat and Gujarat pages in wiki.

--Bijuts (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing included in Gujarat article saying Surat is the commercial capital. You may move this discussion to Kochi page, if you want. Sunil (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC).

Did you check? Because the current version [] does mention it. Please, be serious when making assertions. DileepKS(talk) 09:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You better check. I couldnt find any such sentence in the lead. Also, in the article, Ahmedabad is also claimed as the commercial capital. So is it Surat or Ahmedabad?

You need not compare a poorly written article with Kerala article. Kerala was a featured article until recently, and is well structured than Gujarat. Sunil (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Gujarat article does have both Ahmedabad and Surat mentioned as Commercial Capital. See Madhya Pradesh. It has the term in the lead. DileepKS(talk) 11:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Commercial Capital
All should be neutral regarding all the articles. For eg: the adjective "Evergreen city of India" is used for Trivandrum, "Garden city and Pensioners paradise for Bangalore, "Manchester of India" for Coimbatore etc., in the INTRODUCTION itself. Why coming with arguments against Kochi only? My question is very simple. What is wrong with adding the term "Commercial Capital of Kerala" in the introdction of Kochi page?

Also see Surat and Gujarat pages in wiki.

--Bijuts (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bijuts, please take the discussion here, to avoid editwars. -- Aarem (Talk) 06:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In the introduction of Kochi page, it is mentioned that Kochi is heralded as Queen of Arabian Sea. The commercial capital is not a permenant nick name. It is an adjective which is used to describe a place where commercial activities are more. Since this is related to economy, the first sentence in the economy section says : "Kochi is widely referred to as the commercial capital of Kerala" with reference. It is accurate and well suited in economy section.

Queen of Arabian Sea is a permenant nick name, and there is no chance of the name getting changed. Whereas commercial capital may change if the economy of the place encounter any downfall. It depends upon economy, which is not stable.

So, Queen of Arabian Sea is given in the lead, and commercial capital in economy (where it is aptly fitting).

You need not compare with other city articles, only try to improve the one you are concerned with.Sunil (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If the only concern is that the status may change, please remember that Wikipedia allows transient information as it is editable. IF the adjective changes, the article is easily edited.


 * Please confirm if you are the same editor with IP 192.193.160.X who signed with the same name on other talk pages, for the sake of discussion continuity.


 * Comparing across similar article is not only needed, it is NECESSARY for the continual overall improvement. The fact that you personally dislike something doesn't mean it is bad from the wider perspective.


 * Aarem, you just reverted the change, but did not put down your opinion. Please oblige.


 * DileepKS(talk) 07:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Expect a meaningful opinion from the user:Aarem than silly useless arguments.

--Bijuts (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The commercial capital is already added in the economy section. Since it is not an official usage, it should not be given in the lead. This was discussed before (search archive). No body is silly or presenting useless arguments here. Samaleks (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Aall adjectives are not official usages. For eg: "Evergreen city of India", Manchester of India", "Garden city" etc., are not official. But they all in the lead in appropriate articles. Why not here? --Bijuts (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please dont ask "why there?" "why not here?" questions. You need to check whether it is apt to the contest or not. The adjective Queen of Arabian Sea is already in the lead. Commercial capital usage is more apt in the economy section and it is already existing there. Also, some references says that Ernakulam District is referred as commercial capital. So, there is an ambiguity. Hence need not mention in the lead. --Samaleks (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't ask because it breaks down your argument? Precedence IS a valid argument in Wikipedia, because it gives the general idea from a larger pool of editors.

Queen of Arabian Sea appears in the infobox, so there is nothing wrong in having Commercial Capital in the text. Also the former is a nickname and the latter is an adjective. They are not the same.

A district can not be capital. Only a city can. The string on that website means the district contains the city. You are just trying to further your agenda to derail any edit on this page.

DileepKS(talk) 01:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Adjective commercial capital is used by various important Indian Government agencies to indicate Kochi. Even JNNURM website is introducing Kochi as the Commercial Capital of Kerala. http://jnnurm.nic.in/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Kochi_Executive_Summary.pdf,  http://www.ecostat.kerala.gov.in/docs/pdf/district/ekm.pdf. So it deserves in the lead. --Bijuts (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Bijuts, This has been discussed many times before. Even a WP:30 was called. Officially, there is NO commercial capital concept. Hence need not add in the lead. The article says "Kochi has witnessed rapid commercialisation, and has today grown into a commercial hub of Kerala" with citation.
 * Also, First sentence in the Economy section is "Kochi is widely referred to as the commercial capital of Kerala".
 * So, the information is already there in the article. Please refrain from meaningless edit-warring. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 08:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you dear Aarem. You are the one of the few trusted editors from Kerala. --Bijuts (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2011
(The city of Kochi (pop. 601,574) is Kerala's second largest city and).Please change "second largest city" to "the largest city"

Jebzkavunkal (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * ❌ - Kochi is not the largest city by means of population or area. Please refer to the infobox of area and population. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 04:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Attention new users
This article was semi-protected because of constant edit-warring and attempts of POV pushing. Recently it is observed that similar edits are being made to the article. It would be better to discuss your changes in this talk page, before taking it to the article. This helps in quality and stability of the article. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 12:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why was my edit (pic on slum in Kaloor)reverted? It was reported that those slums were cleared by the corporation. There was no attempt to glorify anything. If the page is not up to date, what's in calling wiki as encyclopedia?? And i had given reference for the same.Metroman87 (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The citation you provided does not provide enough information on the subject. I am verifying your other edits including population, literacy etc. I will re-instate those info in to the article after verification. Note: wikipedia is not a conventional encyclopedia, it is a collection of verified sources. Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article. Threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 02:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. You can compare all the edits i have done. Briefing my edits here:
 * I wonder why the 'rate of literacy' doesn't lie anywhere near the real figure?
 * changed 'sex ratio' as per 2011 census
 * VICTT is mentioned as largest, which is of course true, but that its the only ICTT in the country now!
 * In the economy section, i made an addition of Federal Bank including picture. Being the largest private sector bank in the state, and one among in the country, doesn't it have some value?
 * In the demographics section, the data of 'population, literacy & sex ratio' was updated as per 2011 census.
 * The 'crime data' that came in new reports actually represent an exorbitant figure. The report was clarified by the Kochi city police later on. If such a data is proclaimed as the reality, its depicting wrong impression of a place far from the real scene.
 * added 'Durbar hall' in the culture section, being one of the happening place for the art & culture in the city.

All the edits are done from a NPOV. - Metroman (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The literacy and sex ratio in the article is of 2001, and is taken from official website of the Cochin Corporation. I couldnt find city specific details in official census website(censusindia.gov.in/). The crime rate scenario is taken from national crime bureau statitics, and the report contains crime seggregations. The article is already cluttered with many images, and adding a Federal Bank (which is actuallly not in the city area, but in Aluva) picture is not is not much recommended. If you insists, you may reinsert it back; and I dont have a problem with that. The Durbar Hall picture is already included in the collage. Superlatives like "largest", "only one", "biggest" etc are termed as peacock words unless a strong citation is given to back the claim. If you can produce a valid reference for Vallarpadam, you are welcome to include it. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 04:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the change in population. If you think, the Federal Bank is in Kochi Metro Area, then why the literacy can't be considered from the city area? Check this link. (http://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/459-kochi.html). Both city & Metro literacy is available in this link. The rate you have provided here has lesser value than any of those backward yards in the state. Even the district itself has an average literacy of 95.68, how come the most urban part of it contain only 84% literates! Consider this edit. -- Metroman (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The literacy rate and sex ratio should be for the city. The site census2011.co.in is not an official one. The current literacy rate is taken from the corporation website. I too feel that it is quite older. Let me check census website(censusindia.gov.in) to find an updated rate. And for Federal Bank, I am OK to include it with picture even though it is in metro area. Just need to rephrase the info to clarify it is in the UA of the city. I was not favouring the idea much, as more pics may clutter the article. Much appreciated in utilizing the talk page constructively. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 05:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel, FederaL Bank is worth including. You can look for the appropriate caption.Thanks--Metroman (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I want to add this to the Preface & Economy:

World Spice Organisation (WSO) is head quartered in Kochi, the spice capital of India.(http://www.wsospice.org/index.php)

Thanks--Metroman (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Federal Bank and WSO info added. Federal bank info and pic added here too: Economy_of_Kochi. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 10:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing the article
I would like to clean up the article, especially remove the umpteen references which exhibit a 'my city is better than yours' syndrome (no offense meant). Since there are no active discussions in the talk page, I plan to make the changes directly in the page. If you object to any change, please feel free to edit, revert or call out. Thanks! MyNameIs Shekure  06:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Indic scripts
As per INDICSCRIPTS, native scripts should not be added. Shrikanthv (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits by on 16 January 2015 User:75.147.51.1 between 20:57 and 21:13
Hi, in principle i don't like to revert edits and won't do it, but please comment your uncommented 10 edits between 20:57 and 21:13, thank you, Roland zh (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've gone through it edit-by-edit and find nothing questionable in the IPs edits. No doubt such explained and repeated content blanking did at first raise red flags; however, edits seem good faith and attempted to rid this article of excessive images. Such articles like this always end up with loads and loads of it. I did disagree with one removal, the wide image of Kochi Marine Drive and reverted that here. Also, notified the IP about using summaries.


 * PS: ping does not work with IPs, as they lack an ECHO notification system (recent discussion at Template talk:Reply to). Also, I feel you should be more trigger- revert-happy, most edits like these are usually misguided attempts, then there's always downright vandalism. If they really support their edits, they can communicate and get it done. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi : Thank your mery much for your reply, and particularly for taking so much time to argue and to check the Unregistred Wikipedian's edits, and you are completely right :-) Just btw and also 'notice-to-myself': bad by me to mention just IP (don't appreciate that term, but to hurried). As hopefully implied, i did not intend to allege some unfaithfull edits, to you 75.147.51.1, and therefore, also no offense. Was just confused, short in time, and honestly not much local Kochi/Ernakulam experiences.


 * Related to the images btw also agree, but there was one edit i was really unsure and motivated to start that section, quotation ...General Hospital, Ernakulam and Kochi Medical College... Latter, in fact Co-operative Medical College, Kochi imho seems to be a 'bad name', and also as of 2015-01-17 imho unsourced just linking an external image, although started 18:00, 9 July 2011 (!)‎ by another user. No offense again, tried checking before commenting here because was at the same time looking at Wikimedia Commons for an image to that wiki, and hoped to add one single reference, but just found http://cmccochin.org, that's the prime cause to ask for comments. So you or other Malayalam/Kerala Wikimedians provide at that wiki some more informations, perfectly :-)


 * In all, thank your very much, enjoy the weekend, and happy editings, Roland zh (talk) 15:28 [~15:38 primarly edited typo], 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * PS: Every day a learning effect since 2006 in Wikimedia projects, thank you, and also in future, from my side reverts just in emergenices as insinuated, and absolutely no plans to 'police' Wikimedia, though started an article to that topic just at the same time: what a curious online world an old man may to discover day for day [:-)], and hopefully to go asap definitely to Kochi/Ernakulam or nearby God's Own Country; let's from my side closely dream for some minutes (plan soon to retire) ...


 * I reverted this edit too since it was unsourced but then again, that whole para looks unsourced. Anyway, best wishes to you too. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ... and my best wishes for your further contributions, Roland zh (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Kochi. 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/20121014171619/http://www.hinduonnet.com/mp/2004/06/24/stories/2004062401020100.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/mp/2004/06/24/stories/2004062401020100.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110805025944/http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/07/stories/2010030761160300.htm to http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/07/stories/2010030761160300.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 12:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Addition of important towns near to Kochi irrespective of district boundaries
As part of improving Kochi article, is there any problem if there is a sub section on important and major towns near to Kochi which are increasingly related to Kochi as suburban towns or as major urban centres. The towns apart from Aluva, I consider Muvattupuzha, Perumbavoor, Cherthala, Vaikom, North Paravoor, Angamaly, Kodungallur and Piravom as rigidly connected to Kochi albeit appearing as separate urban centres. A small explanation about these towns citing distance and other factors will enrich the article. Thank you 116.68.127.11 (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Largest city/corporation + Metropolis/City
Would you look at the Kerala page and Talk:Kerala to see if what we've updated is fine?

Also, regarding metropolis/city there has been back-and-forth editing between it for a long time. Changing it now will only result in IPs changing it back. I didn't try to find any good sources, are there? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * None of these cities are officially Metropolitan. Yes, we need to find sources which say they are not metros... - MountainWhiskey - talk 07:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

reference on koonen cross church
The travelwiki on kochi itself is a reference. The NDTV website has published the award details too.. the references are clear in other articles Jithu Thomas Mylapra (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)