Talk:Mumbai/Archive 10

User:Adam.J.W.C's Edits
The proper way to change images is to propose the change on the talk page and see what other editors think before you can change it. User:Adam.J.W.C. has continued to add his own images without any discussion. I have continuously tried to tell him to discuss his edits, but he has ignored all of my requests.

Even though several editors have reverted his edits, he has kept inserting his own images without discussion. He has also deleted important charts and images without any discussion! 

This is a featured article. The content and the images are models in Wikipedia. Images additions and deletations have always been discussed to see what other editors think. User:Adam.J.W.C. needs to realize that he does not own this page.

We all contribute to this page and so we should all discuss major changes instead of making them unilaterally. We are all open to hearing your point of view provided that you discuss it here and not edit war on the main article. Please stop trying to add and delete images as you want because you need to discuss such important changes here and see what other editors think. Nikkul (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nikul, If you look at my comments above you will see that I have discussed the changes, you are the one that keeps reverting everything that I do. The links that you have provided above do not prove anything apart from the fact that I edit the article. You seem to want to include your pictures in this article regardless of how bad they are. I am doing this for the good of the article and you insist on putting back you images of poorer quality. May I point out that images uploaded under the name Indianhilbilly are also Nikkuls. I do not need to discuss in length minor changes. This article should probably be delisted as an FA.        Adam (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Adam, there have been many instances where an image I provided was inferior and as a result, a new better image was used in the article. I was happy to have a better image after there was discussion of that image and other editors feel it's better. This is what happened with the Climate Chart. I do not own any of these images. Most of them are images from other people on Flickr, so I don't see what point you're trying to make. You MUST discuss image changes on this article and see what other editors think before you can change an image. Stop being disruptive and please discuss the image rather than making more excuses and wasting everyone's time. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Adam's image changes. They are better quality and more representative of Mumbai.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

comparison
Suggestion: To start with, please post the old pictures which are already in the article and the new pictures (proposed replacements) here side by side and we will see which is better quality and more appropriate. -- Docku:  What's up?  14:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. The current picture is the top one and an editor wants it to be replaced with the bottom one.

Also, By78 wanted to add this image yesterday in replacement of another picture on the page, I undid his edit so he could discuss it, and plus, the picture might be deleted on April 11 unless he fixes the copyright on all of his pictures. current picture on top and he wanted to replace it with . Deavenger (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My main objective here was not to replace but to reduce the amount of images in the article. The picture placed below the black and white image I have already stated that I have objected to that as a description of construction, unless you are trying to illustrate a construction boom in tin sheds. With the two images at the top I would have preferred to have deleted both of them and looked for other images on commons to replace either one. Later when I get more time I will look at some of the images in the commons categories.        Adam (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We could probably find better images here मुंबई or in this catergory commons:Category:Mumbai which has many sub categories. I could look into this a bit more later on. Also with the bus image I believe that commons has a sub cat for transport in Mumbai, most of the images are poor in quality but might look better in the article than the picture of the bus .        Adam (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support Adam's images. They are much more representative of Mumbai.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont see how seagulls show the culture of Mumbai? Atleast the sunset image represents mumbai because a lot of people come to the beach to watch the sunset. Nikkul (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That WP:OR. Adam's Chowpatty image shows richer colors and the photographic quality is higher.
 * What is your opposing argument to the construction boom image? Adam has given strong supporting arguments many times, but I struggle to find any argument from you. Lalit Jagannath (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont like either of the Chowpatty images. Given what we have, i dont care for either. Honestly, I also dont like the images chosen for building construction boom either. Why am i begining to smell that there is a fight between editor(s) who are attempting to show Mumbai in flying colours and and editor(s) who wants to present the same in poor light? Can we not look for a better representative and leave that picture aside till then? -- Docku:  What's up?  18:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of Mumbai people live in slums and another quarter in chawls, so the only problem is that we have only one image of these areas.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We should reckon that when the article received its featured article status, it had zero skyscraper images.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For Chowpaty beach, I really have no opinion, so I'll let the other users decide that one out. As for the second one, I prefer C over D, as the caption is not talking about the slums in India. D belongs more in economy of India, Standard of Living in India, and Poverty in India page. However, I like to point off that the user By78 has over 20 pictures of the slums uploaded. Also, the user keeps on adding that picture on other pages over the picture of Cuffe Parade, despite the fact the same pages have pictures of other international cities, and he won't add pictures of their slums, despite the fact that Karachi (one of the cities) has what I think is the largest or second largest slum in Asia before or after Dharavi, and the fact that adding pictures of the slums or bad areas of the cities would be inappropriate in that page. Deavenger (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am with Docku. Specifically: So, wight now, I would support keeping all these images out of the article and searching for better quality image(s) with greater encyclopedic value. Abecedare (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)a
 * Neither of the two Chowpatty contribute anything to the article. "Lots of people go to a beach to see a sunset/gulls" is hardly an argument for encyclopedic value of the images!
 * The B/W image of buildings shows some building construction, but its poor quality (focus and noise), as well as B/Wness (chosen, apparently, only for "artistic" considerations) make it a poor choice for this article.
 * The slum image with the buildings in the far background, is perhaps ok to depict the economic disparity in Mumbai (rather than a construction boom), but again it is of unsatisfactory quality and images with better image and compositional quality should be found.
 * Yes I agree with the above comments that these images should be kept out of the article, as in deleted from the article and search for better quality image(s) with greater encyclopedic value. I think the article could do with a few less images.        Adam (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about this one but it might be alright for the history section. There are plenty of pictures on commons that can be chosen from.        Adam (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have placed all the candidate images in a gallery and labeled them A, B, C, ... for easy referencing. Please add future candidates to the gallery too. Abecedare (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments I think the latest version of the article as edited by Lalit Jagannath should remain as is until someone actually goes out there and takes good quality images themselves. We could still search on commons for some replacement pictures later on. If I do come across any that I wish to propose I will place them here first.        Adam (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Whenever there is a debate, the original page stays as it is until the decision is made after consensus is reached. This is normal Wikipedia convention. The original form of the page should stay as it is until there is a decision on changes that need to be made. Nikkul (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC) I am not lying you were reverting even the slightest edition of upright format. Those comments that you have listed are of another situation and have nothing to do with this article. You are the one that started this edit war, not me.        Adam (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User:Adam.J.W.C. & User:Lalit Jagannath
Whenever there is a discussion regarding an issue on Wikipedia, the article is kept in the original form until a decision has been made for changes to be implemented.

Despite my repeated requests to keep the page as it is until there is a decision on this page, User:Adam.J.W.C. & User:Lalit Jagannath have kept edit warring with other editors and trying to add their own images without waiting for a consensus in the discussion above. I am definitely not against their images as long as they get consensus from editors to have them changed. Many editors have been trying to keep the original page as it was until the changes they propose can be decided upon. But User:Adam.J.W.C. & User:Lalit Jagannath have kept reverting everyone and trying to add their own images even though there has been NO decision or consensus reached in the discussion.

User:Adam.J.W.C. added his own images, stating that it should be changed because "so far two people preffer this version." This is not civil behavior and must stop immediately.

User:Adam.J.W.C. reverted User: Deavenger's version here

User:Adam.J.W.C. reverted User: Hnsampat's version here

User:Adam.J.W.C. reverted User: Ottre's version here

User:Adam.J.W.C. reverted User:Nikkul's version here

User:Lalit Jagannath reverted User:Abecedare's version here

User:Lalit Jagannath reverted User:Nikkul's version here
 * I need to point out that some of these edits are not edit waring. The edit that I have listed below is not a revert of Abecadares verion. It looks as though he reverted something that an ip did and then in the next edit Lalit simply reformated the article.


 * User:Lalit Jagannath reverted User:Abecedare's version here
 * In the next edit that I have listed below Nikkul states that I have reverted Ottre, this is simply not true, Ottre reverted Nikkul with a partial revert and in the next edit I changed a photo. So this is a false and misleading statement on Nikkuls behalf.


 * User:Adam.J.W.C. reverted User: Ottre's version here
 * In the next edit that I have listed below Nikkul states that I am reverting Deavenger when in fact Deavenger reverted another editor, I then came in and undid Nikkuls disruptive edit and a push to use his own image


 * User:Adam.J.W.C. reverted User: Deavenger's version here


 * In this next edit that I have listed from Nikkuls false and misleading statements from above it looks as though the editor Hnsampat made a change of his own, I then in the next edit added the upright format to a few pics and deleted a couple that are not needed


 * User:Adam.J.W.C. reverted User: Hnsampat's version here
 * Once again Nikkul has reverted a version preferred by at least two to three editors and stresses that those two editors are being disruptive when in fact it is he that is possibly being disruptive


 * User:Adam.J.W.C. reverted User:Nikkul's version here
 * 08:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I also need to stress that since the 5th of March and more so since the 1st of April that the only edits  that Nikkul has made to and article (excluding talk pages and project pages) is to revert my edits and a few others in the Mumbai article.         Adam (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that this dispute stems from some dispute on Poverty in India back in January 2008. I think I know why that one started.... ` YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 04:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For me it has nothing do to with that. I am simply trying to make a few changes to this article and everytime I get reverted by nikkul for even the simplest of changes. If you look at all his contributions starting from early March you will see that every single one of his edits are related to reverting my edits. If I had not edited this article then Nikkul would not have edited wikipedia at all from around the 5th of March onwards, give or take a few days. It seems to me that nikkul is being a pest just for the fun of it.        Adam (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying to everyone, Adam. After you discussed your upright image changes, I stopped changing your edits because other users were okay with it. You have to discuss major changes like image removals before you can do them.

I have continued to request you to stop changing the images until the discussion is over and there is consensus. I am not being a pest. I have a life and I'm not here to waste my time "for the fun of it." You need to wait until the discussion is over to change the images. This is Wikipedia convention.

Also, the only edits to this page that you have made is to add your images without waiting for discussion to be over. Nikkul (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not lying, your list of edits listed above are full of lies. .        Adam (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

` YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ), I agree with you. The Poverty in India debate was also started by User:Adam.J.W.C. and even when there was consensus that the image should be removed, he kept inserting the image over and over. He even said to someone else: "'If the photo is removed, just weight a month or so then re insert it, if it is removed again then do one revert per day after that, I don't think you would be breaking any law by doing so. I could step in as well'"

User:Adam.J.W.C. is doing the same thing here. He keeps inserting his own images without waiting for consensus. Nikkul (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nikkul, this is different your images are of very poor quality, even the ones that you have taken yourself are very poor. I am using other peoples images which are still not very good but better than you choice in images. The choice of images here for me is neutral because I have taken none of them .        Adam (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And I have only taken one of them and no one is opposed to that one because its in the name section, so you have no valid point. Nikkul (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to read the comments above a bit more thoroughly.

Also does this ring a bell:

Number of Images I have added to Wiki page:
 * Recently deleted from your user page


 * New Delhi- 11 out of 12
 * Mumbai - 18 out of 19
 * Kolkata - 12 out of 20
 * Bangalore - 13 out of 15
 * Tourism in India - 24 out of 30
 * Delhi - 16 out of 21
 * Hyderabad, India- 6 out of 13
 * Chennai - 2
 * India - 6

I've checked and most of the images in this article are ones that you have uploaded including indianhilbilly photos. This edit war that you have started is a push to keep your images in the article, no matter how poor they are or weather or not there are better images to replace them. Like I said before I don't have my own images of Mumbai so for me it is a neutral thing, for you it is a conflict of interest. If you go there often why don't you try to take better ones to replace them or even try using ptgui to join a few. If you did take a great photo I would be the first to let you know.        Adam (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you think I deleted that? Because it doesnt matter to me whose images are on which page. There used to be a beautiful image of two palm trees in the climate section on this page. After discussing it, one user got consensus to change it to a climate chart. I was opposed to it, but after I saw consensus, I was okay with it.

I dont have a problem with you trying to change an image as long as you follow the same process that all other editors follow. You first need to discuss and get consensus.


 * Instead, all you have been doing is adding your images without discussion. Even when there was consensus that an image should be removed, you kept inserting the image over and over. You even said to someone else:

"'If the photo is removed, just weight a month or so then re insert it, if it is removed again then do one revert per day after that, I don't think you would be breaking any law by doing so. I could step in as well'"


 * It is obvious that you have no intention of following Wikipedia convention and being civil. Nikkul (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the one that is not being civil, reverting every edit that I do, you have provided no argument in what you have just stated, just gibberish and a repeat of what you have said a hundred times over. You have not explained why these images should be kept. Other editors have stated that these are of poor quality yet you insist that these stay in the article. All you keep saying over and over is you need to get consensus. I don't need to get consensus every time I want to edit an article. Other people have already state that these images should go. The FA status of this article should be reviewed as well. It was given this status in March of 2005 and has been changed many times since then. The criteria for FA is probably a little higher since then as well.        Adam (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the FA quality of the page should be reviewed to make sure it still can keep that status, both of you guys need to CALM DOWN. Let's stop with all the bad mouthing, assuming bad faith, and accusing each other of stuff that really doesn't help this page. How about you guys first offer each other some wikilove like this

. Then, let's start over, and talk civilly about improving the article, and getting consensus for changing or adding new pictures, and make sure the article still meets FA requirements. Deavenger (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am not that concerned about who's pictures go in the article, what I would really like to do is reduce the amount of pics in the article and then further on down the track find some better quality or take some of my own for the article. But for the time being just a minor clean up of images. We have tried to get consensus but no one seems to interested in gaining it. Most people have given up .        Adam (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the number of pictures could be reduced. If there is a hard time getting a consensus, we could ask members of wikiproject India to come and add their two cents, or have an RFC. Deavenger (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I don't have to much of a preference to what images are used but a good clean up would be good. Cheers.        Adam (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * people lose interest because these lengthy talk messages contain hardly any substance. Alright, looks like the article is locked, which is good. we tried to list images side by side. Did we make any progress on comparing images? Adam has been pointing to pictures at commons. could you pls specifically say which pic you would want to suggest? -- Docku:  What's up?  03:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I was saying before I don't have a preference for replacing images, I will look into it when I get a chance. But I think for the time being it would be best to just clean out a few images that are making the article look cramped.        Adam (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * History, Transport and People and Culture each has three images. In History, All three pictures seem significant and appropriate. However, we need a better quality picture of the mosque. I wouldnt recommend removing any. In transport, I like the railway station, however, the interior of the railway station rather than just the building (being very busy) might have been much more appropriate. The current railway station picture and library picture (in culture section) would suit more in Architecture section. I would recommend replacing the "bus" picture with a "busy road with buses and other vehicles". The airport picture kind of looks strange (looks beautiful, but not unique) and it doest depict what the caption says "busiest in South Asia and hardly any people". If one photo needs to go, it would have to be this. In Culture section, the library picture doesnt suit very well. Chowpatty picture doesnt look good and for Ganesha Chaturthi, there can be much better snaps. Etymology, Civic administration, Media, Education and Sports all seem to have appropriate pictures. we need a better quality picture of Cuff parade and need another picture at Economy section to balance the mighty stock exchange. -- Docku:   What's up?  04:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good analysis and suggestions Docku! We have been thinking along the same lines.
 * For example: instead of having a photo of "a bus", which tells us nothing about the city; lets try finding a picture like this one on flickr that shows a double-decker along with old Fiat and new Logan taxis (I have requested the photographer to release it under a free license, but haven't heard back yet); or even a picture of the dockyards (Mumbai is a port!). Similarly, we can look for high quality picture of Ganesha visarjan, Vada pau, gulli (or Azad maidan) cricket etc. Lets think creatively; Mumbai is more than a collection of buildings. And yes, lets discuss and collaborate, instead of edit-warring and name-calling. Abecedare (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with the both Abecadare and Docku. With the bus image I suggest that if we cannot obtain the flickr one we could use the one that Lalit tried to use which is kind of similar.I also agree that should find an interior pic for the railway station, and I do believe that there is one on commons although it is of low resolution. I am not quite fond of the black and white image either. I will post a few possible replacements later on.        Adam (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is consensus on reducing one image from transport. If we are going to reduce images from the transport section, I think the bus image should go. The other two images are representative of the transport system in Mumbai. Victoria Terminus is the local gateway to Mumbai and plays a huge role in moving people around the city. Mumbai Airport is the global gateway to India and plays a huge role in air traffic in India and South Asia...so those two images are good.

For the other sections, let's wait until we find better replacement images. Nikkul (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll
These are the three pictures currently in the Transport section of the article. Focusing on just one picture right now, the proposal is to replace the bus picture (picture (A)) with the road transport picture (bottom). Please vote below and explain. let us see where it leads us to.

Support (B)

 * Comment & support B I would support B because it shows more of the surrounding area than that of choice A. I don't think that having people in front of the best bus should be an issue because the images shows other forms of transport as well, such as bikes trucks and cars. Choice B also shows more forms of transport than choice C. Even though the image quality isn't all that good at the higher resolution it still looks fine as a thumbnail.        Adam (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Support None of the choices

 * Hold - as suggested below, need better choices. Both B and C have people/ vehicles in front of the BEST bus. VasuVR  ( talk,  contribs ) 17:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I kinda agree...there are scooters in front of the taxis and the bus which block the view. Also, there are no private cars in this photo even though a large portion of Mumbai's traffic/transport consists of private cars. Nikkul (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

General discussion

 * I suggest that we hold off a couple of days, and spend the time to find more/better alternate images from commons, flickr etc. Good to see some constructive efforts being made! Abecedare (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should have a photo of a red double decker bus because it is unique to Mumbai and has to do with transport. Nikkul (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * it is not about uniqueness. we are to show road transport, which ought to mean a crowded road with all kinds of vehicles. by the way, i also contest the uniquness. see Double-decker bus and dd buses in chennai. -- Docku:  What's up?  04:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Red double Decker buses, isn't that what the two pictures above are showing.        Adam (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I live in London and I see an awful lot of red double-decker buses every day - unique to Mumbai they are not. Khcf6971 (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Red Double Decker buses are unique to Mumbai and tell the story of its culture and influence from the British Empire. No other city in India runs soo many double decker buses and red double decker buses today are a moving symbol of Mumbai. BEST once tried to stop all double decker buses, but there was opposition because people see them as a symbol of the city. They also tried changing the color to saffron, which people also opposed. Nikkul (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If these double decker buses are unique to Mumbai then this is what B and C illustrate, the other modes of transport in view even though blocking the best logo illustrate other modes of transport relevant to the city. Maybe there should also be a picture of an auto richshaw as well.        Adam (talk) 10:22 am, Today (UTC+10)


 * We need a photo which doesnt block the main subject like the double decker bus. User:Adam probably doesnt know this, but scooters are extremely rare in Mumbai compared to other vehicles and compared to other cities in India, hence they aren't a popular form of transport for most people. Nikkul (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree bikes are not as common as in other cities. As I understand Nikkul, you wouldnt mind having pictures of cars but not bikes. Is it because you want to tell me there are more cars than motorbikes? may be there are more cars in South Bombay than motor bikes. -- Like I  Care  12:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'd rather have pics of public transportation like a bus because more people in Mumbai take buses and trains than cars or bikes. Buses and trains are the most popular means of transport in Mumbai, which is why we need a photo of a bus (we already have a photo showing VT for trains). Nikkul (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai mills
An article on Mumbai mills now exists. This is a important part of the Mumbai history and utilization of mill lands is still a (hotly) debated issue. Therefore I suggest that a line about Girangaon could be added to the article if appropriate. --Belasd (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

date of change of name belongs in FIRST sentence
1. the article appears to be "protected" or "semiprotected" without a padlock icon on article's page. why not?

2. i come here seeking date of change of name from bombay to mumbai (when writing about city during certain period, one wants to use name at that time.  one would expect first sentence to include such data.  thus proposed version:

"Mumbai (Marathi: मुंबई, Mumbaī, IPA: [ˈmʊm.bəi] (help·info))— formerly Bombay (name changed date month 1995), is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. "

as an unregistered editer, i can't make a change to a padlocked article. perhaps some registered editor will come along, concur with my proposed emendment, and make the change.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont agree. If someone really wants to know what date the name was changed, they can go to the history section. There is no need to give the exact date of the name change in the intro (which is supposed to be a summary). I support the current version. Nikkul (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nikkul. The lead is supposed to be a summary. Also see WP:LEDE and guidelines at WP:INCITIES. Abecedare (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

FAR works
To sail through the FAR, the article needs much more work and attention than only debating over images. There are several citation needed tags that need to be addressed (main concern in the FAR is referencing). Thanks to edit war over images, the article has been blocked. As a result, it was not possible to edit it for other concerns, such as referencing. Please try to address those concerns, images - while very important for any article - can be addressed a little bit later even.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FAR-Citation needed for precipitation-temperature graph ..found two sources on the net..i don't think we can use them directly..but can we use their data and create our own graph and cite them as sources ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/results.shtml?tt=TT002260 and

http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/INXX0087?from=36hr_bottomnav_business

Ninadhardikar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC).
 * So far as I remember, weatherbase data was used to generate the climate image (or, may be some other weather data website). Will ask Saravask for mentioning the source he used to create the image. This should not be a problem. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good one mate. That was quick Ninadhardikar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC).

Edits ?
Sorry been away from editing Mumbai. Saw that editing has been blocked. Any idea when we get to edit again. If the article is up for review, I guess we do need edit access.

I suggest we maintain status quo on images..till we do the article review stuff..and then we can fight again. Ninadhardikar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC).
 * asked admin to allow edits on the article Ninadhardikar (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now semi-protected. So please start editing and save the FAR. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed
1) The media industry is another major employer in Mumbai.[citation needed]

Not able to find any figures to support this. Have added citation to support Bollywood as one of biggest film industries, so I guess we can safely delete the above claim. Ninadhardikar (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * May be a good idea to add tags whenever you find such statements. That way, it will be easy to see which statements need to be cited or excised. Abecedare (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed link "the media industry is another major employer" - cant find figures to support and in my opinion is redundant..we are already stating that bollywood is a big industry and major television channels are based here..so i think its more or less obvious it is a major employer. If we do find supporting data we can add the line back. Ninadhardikar (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

2) Sydenham college oldest in Asia or India. Found citation for oldest in India..emailed Sydenham college website administrator to ask for proof for oldest in Asia..for the time being listed as oldest in India Ninadhardikar (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

3) In sports section, do we really need these 2 lines. "Other fairly common sports played in Mumbai are tennis, squash, billiards, badminton, table tennis and golf.[citation needed]" and "Sports like volleyball and basketball are popular in schools and colleges.[citation needed]". According to me we reword to "Other sports played in various clubs and gymkhanas are Lawn Tennis, Squash, Billiards, Badminton, Swimming, Table Tennis and Golf.". Dont understand why we need citation for this. Ninadhardikar (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

4) Do we need this "The middle class in Mumbai is the segment most impacted by this boom and is the driver behind the consequent consumer boom.[citation needed] Upward mobility among Mumbaikars has led to a direct increase in consumer spending.[citation needed]". This is apt for economy for india article..but for this one ?? can reword to "Similar to the rest of the country, the rise in income levels of Mumbai's lower and middle class has led to a direct increase in consumer spending" - wont be hard to find citation for this. Ninadhardikar (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In regards to your fourth point, I recently taped a four-part documentary about the Indian economy which I think mentions Mumbai society. You alright with using television references? Ottre 09:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, documentary/movies/television shows are ok as source in appropriate settings and appropriate credibility. See Template:Cite video for necessary parameters that will be needed when adding that documentary as a source. Ninadhardikar's rewording is more crisp.
 * For point 3 in Ninadhardikar's response, yes your version of prose is good and more compact.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

History
"Recently the city has seen a series of politically motivated assaults on the North Indian population by the members of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena.[24]" is not a significant event in Mumbai's history. Similar events against South Indians and North Indians have happened in the past. Also bandhs and torching of buses/trains and other minor events happen from time to time. I dont think it needs mention in our article but only in the History of Mumbai article. Ninadhardikar (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. You may remove it. Kensplanet TC 06:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Economy
Should mention in the economy about major oil installations and refineries on the north-eastern coast, partly because of oil imports through Butcher island and partly because of Bombay High oil fields. Another point is Mumbai Port covers 1/8th of the city which is a major chunk. (Ref needed), and some mention of salt-pan land which is another big area. Ninadhardikar (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree indeed Butcher island and oyster island are important islands of mumbai. We must also include info of refinaries-- Suyog talk to me!  16:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits to History
I may be indulging in some edits to the History section. The reason being that I have significantally contributed to the History of Mumbai article and raised it to GA status. I have observed a lot of inaccuracies in the article. Kensplanet TC 08:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead
Some work done by me to have a new lead section. I seem to write in a hyped up way..so please correct it if you can..also feel free to change prose..re-arrange..etc

"Mumbai (Marathi: मुंबई, Mumbaī, IPA:Mumbai_pronunciation.ogg [ˈmʊm.bəi] (help·info))— formerly Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. The city proper, is an island city, and is the most populated city in the world with approximately 14 million people[1] and, along with the neighbouring suburbs of Navi Mumbai and Thane, Mumbai forms the world's 4th largest urban agglomeration with around 19 million people. Mumbai has a rich history dating back to the 16th century when the Portuguese arrived in the area and called it by various names. The area was sold to the British, who anglicised it to Bombay and which was later renamed in 1996 to Mumbai, after the Hindu goddess Mumbadevi.

Mumbai, the largest city in India, lies on the west coast of India and is the industrial and financial hub of India. Many of India's big corporates and multi-national companies are headquartered in the city and Mumbai's per-capita income is almost three times the national average. It is home to India's two premier stock exchanges, the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange.

Mumbai is the birthplace of Indian cinema and the home of Bollywood, India's Hindi film and televison industry. The metropolis is also the hub of many international media corporations, with many news channels and print publications having a major presence.

The 'city of dreams' as it is often called, is a potpourri of many communities and cultures and attract migrants from all over India for its high standard of living and its entrepreneurial and employment opportunities. With a population density of 22000 people per sq km, Mumbai suffers some major urbanisation problems like many fast growing cities in a developed country.

Mumbai has a deep natural harbour on the eastern side, which serves the Port of Mumbai and the neighbouring Jawaharlal Nehru Port. The western coast is a mixture of promenades, and Chowpattys(beaches) which often are the prime spots for Mumbai's roadside cuisine.

Similar to the rest of India, Mumbai's most loved sport is Cricket. Many consider Mumbai to be the home of Indian cricket, as many of the past recognised players have been from Mumbai and the Mumbai Cricket team remains the most successful team in the Indian domestic cricketing circuit."

Ninadhardikar (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice draft, here are my comments:


 * I wouldn't use the phrase "city proper" since it isn't Wikipedia convention. Either "city" or "municipality of Mumbai"
 * The lag part of "Mumbai has a rich history..." doesn't read well. Rephrase?
 * Was the city originally called "Mumbai"? If not, it would be wrong to say it was anglicized to "Bombay". We can't say it was anglicized to anything unless the pre-English name for Mumbai can be established.
 * Just a question: is Mumbai really the industrial hub of India?
 * corporates -> corporations
 * Is there any need to highlight per-capita vis-a-vis the rest of India? Wouldn't this be similar to the urban-rural imbalance in India and other developing countries? Highlighting per capita without highlighting cost of living gives only half the story
 * Is the television industry part of Bollywood?
 * "The City of Dreams, as Mumbai is often called...". Also, refs for the moniker?
 * High standard of living? I think this is a questionable statement. Just saying "for its economic opportunities" will suffice I think.
 * "suffers from some major urbanisation problems..." -> "suffers from the impact of urbanisation"
 * No logical connection between the first part of the "The western coast is a mixture of.." sentence with the last part of the same sentence.
 * "Many consider Mumbai to be the home of Indian cricket" is a debatable statement. You can just say something along the lines that several prominent national cricketers come from Mumbai and that Mumbai has the most number of domestic cricket championships (Ranji).


 * Thanks, AreJay (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Rearrangements
Some rearrangements on your work on lead:

"Mumbai (Marathi: मुंबई, Mumbaī, IPA:Mumbai_pronunciation.ogg [ˈmʊm.bəi] (help·info))— formerly Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. The city proper is an island city, and is the most populated city in the world with approximately 14 million people[1] and, along with the neighbouring suburbs of Navi Mumbai and Thane, Mumbai forms the world's 4th largest urban agglomeration with around 19 million people. Mumbai has a history dating back to the 16th century when the Portuguese arrived in the area and called it by various names. The area was sold to the British, who anglicised it to Bombay and which was later renamed in 1996 to Mumbai, after the Hindu goddess Mumbadevi.

Mumbai, the largest city in India, lies on the west coast of India and is the industrial and financial hub of India. Most of India's big corporates and multi-national companies are headquartered in the city and Mumbai's per-capita income is almost three times the national average. Mumbai has a deep natural harbour on the eastern side, which serves the Port of Mumbai and the neighbouring Jawaharlal Nehru Port. The western coast is a mixture of promenades, and Chowpattys(beaches) which often are the prime spots for Mumbai's roadside cuisine.

The metropolis is a potpourri of many communities and cultures and attract migrants from all over India for its high standard of living and its entrepreneurial and employment opportunities. With a population density of 22000 people per sq km, Mumbai suffers some major urbanisation problems like many fast growing cities in a developing country.

Mumbai is the home of Bollywood, India's Hindi film and televison industry. The metropolis is also the hub of many media corporations, with many news channels and print publications having a major presence. Similar to the rest of India, Mumbai's most loved sport is Cricket. the Mumbai Cricket team remains the most successful team in the Indian domestic cricketing circuit."

observations Things that need a little bit of mention: climate (mention of monsoon), and transport (mention of local train). Another point that may be mentioned is the name of BMC. The BMC can be somehow incorporated right after the sentence where urbanisation problem is mentioned. The length of the lead should be no longer than 4 paragraphs. Once all points are covered/mentioned, this can be further summarized as much as possible.

The city of dreams epithet is probably the "hype" you mentioned. Can be got rid of. Further improvement of the language and lessening of "hype" can be done by others. Excellent job, man! Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Climate and Transport
The city lies in a tropical zone, with dry (March to October) and humid (November to February) being the two seasons. The monsoons lash the city from June till September, delivering an average 2200 mms of rainfall, with the highest for a single day being 944 mm.

Mumbai is supported by multiple public bus and suburban rail transport systems, with an additional monorail and metro under construction. These two systems ferry over 10 million passengers everyday.


 * Do we need to add BMC into this? i mean its just a municipality or a council..every city has one....we might add MMRDA and the World Bank program to develop transportation after urbanisation to show how it is being tackled. Ninadhardikar (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was also not so much sure of BMC. Anyway, now, the climate and transport need to be incorporated within the four paragraphs. Have to find out the most befitting place.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, mention of monorail and metro (which are under construction),IMHO, is not necessary in the lead. And that 10 million figure will need some reference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest? I would have put the transport ones after the urbanisation line and the climate one after the chowpatty line. For the 10 million I just added 6(train)+4(BEST)..i think we have citations for those.Yep the monorail and metro can be removed..better off in the main section. Ninadhardikar (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be 10 million trips and not 10 million passengers..as same person might use both in a day. And they might be counting the return journeys as well...Ninadhardikar (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Probable lead with climate and transport
"Mumbai (Marathi: मुंबई, Mumbaī, IPA:Mumbai_pronunciation.ogg [ˈmʊm.bəi] (help·info))— formerly Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. The city proper is an island city, and is the most populated city in the world with approximately 14 million people. Along with the neighbouring suburbs of Navi Mumbai and Thane, Mumbai forms India's largest and the world's fourth largest urban agglomeration with around 19 million people. Mumbai has a history dating back to the 16th century when the Portuguese arrived in the area and called it by various names. The area was sold to the British, who anglicised it to Bombay and which was later renamed in 1996 to Mumbai, after the Hindu goddess Mumbadevi.

Mumbai lies on the west coast of India and is the industrial and financial hub of the country. Most of India's big corporates and multi-national companies are headquartered in the city and Mumbai's per-capita income is almost three times the national average. Mumbai has a deep natural harbour on the eastern side, which serves the Port of Mumbai and the neighbouring Jawaharlal Nehru Port. The western coast is a mixture of promenades, and Chowpattys(beaches) which often are the prime spots for Mumbai's roadside cuisine. The city lies in a tropical climate zone, with humid (March to October) and dry (November to February) being the two seasons. The monsoons lash the city from June till September, delivering the most of the city's annual average rainfall of 2200 mms, the highest ever recorded for a single day being 944 mm.

The metropolis is a potpourri of many communities and cultures and attract migrants from all over India for its high standard of living and its entrepreneurial and employment opportunities. With a population density of 22000 people per sq km, Mumbai suffers major urbanisation problems, like many fast growing cities in a developing country. Mumbai is supported by multiple public bus and suburban rail transport system, which register over 10 million passengers everyday. Mumbai is the home of Bollywood, India's Hindi film and televison industry. The metropolis is also the hub of many media corporations, with many news channels and print publications having a major presence. Similar to the rest of India, Mumbai's most loved sport is Cricket. the Mumbai Cricket team remains the most successful team in the Indian domestic cricketing circuit." --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mumbai has a history dating back to the 16th century when the Portuguese arrived in the area and called it by various names.
 * The History of Mumbai dates to BCs. Kensplanet (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep that's right, it should be "origin of the name Bombay has history back to the 16th century" or scrapped altogether. Ninadhardikar (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Probable Lead (some more changes)
"Mumbai (Marathi: मुंबई, Mumbaī, IPA:Mumbai_pronunciation.ogg [ˈmʊm.bəi] (help·info))— formerly Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra. The island city is the most populated in the world with approximately 14 million people. Along with the neighbouring suburbs of Navi Mumbai and Thane, Mumbai forms India's largest and the world's fourth largest urban agglomeration with around 19 million people. The islands were known as Heptanesia to the Greek geographer Ptolemy in 150 CE. The Gujarat Sultanate ruled from the 14th century till 1534, before being appropriated by the Portuguese. The former name Bombaim has its origins in this period, which was later anglicised to Bombay by the British. The city was renamed to Mumbai in 1996, after the Hindu goddess Mumbadevi.

The city lies in a tropical climate zone, with humid (March to October) and dry (November to February) being the two seasons. The monsoons lash the city from June till September, delivering the most of the city's annual average rainfall of 2200 mms, the highest ever recorded for a single day being 944 mm. Mumbai lies on the west coast of India and is the financial hub of the country. Many of India's big corporations and multi-national companies are headquartered in the city and Mumbai's per-capita income is almost three times the national average. Mumbai has a deep natural harbour on the eastern side, which serves the Port of Mumbai and the neighbouring Jawaharlal Nehru Port. The western coast is a mixture of promenades and Chowpattys(beaches), which often are the prime spots for Mumbai's roadside cuisine.

The metropolis is a potpourri of many communities and cultures and attract migrants from all over India for its better standard of living and its entrepreneurial and employment opportunities. With a population density of 22000 people per sq km, Mumbai suffers from the impact of urbanisation. Mumbai is supported by multiple public bus and suburban rail transport system, which register over 10 million passenger trips daily.

Mumbai is the home of Bollywood, India's Hindi film and televison industry. The metropolis is also the hub of many media corporations, with many news channels and print publications having a major presence. Similar to the rest of India, Mumbai's most loved sport is Cricket. the Mumbai Cricket team remains the most successful team in the Indian domestic cricketing circuit."


 * Thanks Dwaipayanc, Kensplanet and AreJay for inputs. Ninadhardikar (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Kensplanet

 * Documented evidence of human habitation dates back to 250 BC, when it was known as Heptanesia.
 * This is incorrect. It was known as Heptanesia to Ptolemy in 150 CE, not 250 BCE. Kensplanet (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The islands were under the Islamic rule from the 14th century till 1534, when they were appropriated by the Portuguese.
 * Islamic looks very artificial. Use Gujarat Sultanate and so on. Kensplanet TC 05:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, both the mention of the name Heptanesia and Gujarat Sultanate are too much detail for the lead. In the proposed lead by AreJay, Gujarat Sultanate has almost one sentence, while British period just a fleeting mention. IMO, let's remove the clause "when it was known as Heptanesia. " Also, the period of Islamic (or, more properly, Gujarat sultanate) rule need not be mentioned. It can be done as follows, "Portuguese appropriated the seven islands from Gujarat Sultanate in ..." Then it needs to be mentioned that Bombay prospered under the British rule and the modern city came into being.
 * Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that above change inputs from Kensplanet have been added to the probable lead. I didn't copy paste the whole lead again. Ninadhardikar (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Dwaipayanc on writing about Bombay prospered under British rule, though also think Heptanesia points out to how old it is which generates interest. Ninadhardikar (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What I meant was to drop the mention of the name "Heptanesia" (and, as a consequence, drop the clause "when it wqas known as Heptanesia", thereby reducing the lead size) but to retain the fact that archeological evidence dates back to 150CE, in the lead. That it was known at that time as Heptanesia and that the seven islands were ruled by Gujarat Sultanate from 1391 to 1534 are perfect content in History section, but too much detail in the lead (given that the sultanate period has hardly anything to do with the modern city, unlike, say, Delhi, which was the capital of Delhi sultanates).--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Heptanesia need not be mentioned in the Lead. It was not the official name of the city. It was just a name used by Ptolemy to describe the islands in his books. Kensplanet TC 06:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Dwaipayanc that Gujarat Sultanate need not be mentioned seperately in the Lead. The reason being for them, it was only Mahim which was strategically important, not the entire city which consists of 7 Islands. Mahim is just one of the 7 Islands. Kensplanet <b style="color:black;">T</b><b style="color:green;">C</b> 06:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The former name Bombaim has its origins in this period, which was later anglicised to Bombay by the British.
 * There is no proof that Bombay has been anglicized from Bombaim. Portuguese and English Scholars are just of the view that it has been. So such controversial sentences cannot be mentioned in the Lead. Kensplanet <b style="color:black;">T</b><b style="color:green;">C</b> 06:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The city was renamed to Mumbai in 1996, after the Hindu goddess Mumbadevi.
 * This is not clear. The name of the city was Mumbai in Marathi even when the name of the city was Bombay in English. The sentence seems to say that Mumbai was lost somehere. Mumbai was never lost. Kensplanet <b style="color:black;">T</b><b style="color:green;">C</b> 06:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The city lies in a tropical climate zone, with humid (March to October) and dry (November to February) being the two seasons. The monsoons lash the city from June till September, delivering the most of the city's annual average rainfall of 2200 mms, the highest ever recorded for a single day being 944 mm.
 * Too. much details. Needs to be condensed. Kensplanet <b style="color:black;">T</b><b style="color:green;">C</b> 06:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Many of India's big corporations and multi-national companies are headquartered in the city and Mumbai's per-capita income is almost three times the national average.
 * You need to mention atleast 1 or 2 Companies or else the first part has no encyclopedic value and is peacock. Kensplanet <b style="color:black;">T</b><b style="color:green;">C</b> 06:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bombay is not anglicised from Bombaim. Well that's what our article says in the etymology section. --> "which finally took the written form Bombaim, still common in current Portuguese use. After the British gained possession in the 17th century, it was anglicised to Bombay"
 * This is not true. You can check the next paragraph A widespread explanation of the origin of the traditional English name Bombay holds that it was derived from a Portuguese name meaning "good bay". This is true. Scholars are of the view but not 100% Sure. Kensplanet <b style="color:black;">T</b><b style="color:green;">C</b> 06:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reword : The city was renamed to Mumbai, derived from Hindu goddess Mumbadevi, in 1996.

The city lies in a tropical climate zone, with humid (March to October) and dry (November to February) being the two seasons. The monsoons lash the city from June till September. (cutting the sentence to be short)

Dont agree with giving examples of corporations..we will give them in the main body...doesnt have to be in the lead.

Agree with removing of Gujarat Sultanate and name Heptanesia.

Reword: Archaeological evidence suggests the history of Mumbai dates back to 150 CE. The former name Bombaim has its origins in the 16th century, when the Portuguese appropriated the Bombay Island. The islands were leased to the British in 1668.

Ninadhardikar (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)