Talk:Sanjay Gandhi National Park

Mumbai World's most populous city?
Corrected it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pravictor (talk • contribs) 16:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Area ?
As far as I know the area is 110 sq km out of which 6 sq km is occupied now by slums. Does this mean we reduce the area in the article? Ninadhardikar (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

move
I moved the article from to, since the latter is more common name with 216k hits + 76k hits for  compared to 30k. This title also suggests region where it is located. Common name is chosen for title than official name like here. Doorvery far (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also new title better for POV, while the former is POV of people of mumbai. Doorvery far (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the move. If you want to move this page, start a move discussion. - Spaceman  Spiff  20:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As a compromise between two titles, i propose move to Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Borivali. Doorvery far (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why ? Abecedare (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Most national parks are named after place, see Template:National Parks of India. I have justified the why move in first sentence that ~300k google hits for Borivali comapred to 30k of Sanjay Gandhi park, that is an order of difference. Clearly the current title gives no clue of the place. Doorvery far (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most parks are named by place because that's their name! No, you haven't justified anything, Google hits isn't an indicator of anything at all.--- Spaceman  Spiff  04:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Doorvery far, Google hits might be a helpful barometer if you were to use Google Books and Google Scholar - both of which have a far higher level of those ever inconvenient Reliable Sources. Google books gives 288 for the parks actual real name, vs. 183 total for your two combined preferred names. Google Scholar is 112 to 66 in favor of the actual name of the park. Newspapers (in Google's news archive search), which are also more reliable than random websites, blogs, etc., are even more consistent about using the park's actual name, by 667 to 122 (combining your names). In other words, there isn't a single honest justification for this move. But all of this is irrelevant. The article needs to be at the park's actual real life name, not a made up one. Priyanath talk 05:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Common man including me hardly uses Google Scholar/Books. Maybe for history and such things the goog books can be used as indicator, and now even google's book deal itself is in danger. Google hits indicate a thing when there is an order of difference, what I'm pointing is 10 times the difference not some 10-20% difference. Again, if nobody comes on my side I cant proceed. Doorvery far (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, a Wikipedia policy, says, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." Most of the references in the article use the actual name of the park, but the policy says "such as", which would be the very sources that typically show up in Google Scholar, News, and Books. Priyanath talk 07:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but day is not far before we leave behind relics of paper, web is growing and truth will prevail. I tried google news, but it is in hundreds. Statistics works better when number is greater such as 10s of thousands. Even ref's in the article can be changed, i suspect foulplay of article creators here who inserted initial refs in this article, who there tried to block moving over redirect. Doorvery far (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a "concern" that you have to understand, it's just that your move logic is incorrect. Also, stop tilting at windmills - Spaceman  Spiff  07:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Df, leaving behind 'relics of paper' doesn't mean we leave behind the truth and write whatever we think should be true. I know how inconvenient it is to have Reliable Sources (electronic or paper) getting in the way all the time, but that's just how articles are sourced here. That's not going to change, so you might as well adjust to this new non-paper reality. I've just added the standard Welcome template to your talk page, since it appears that you never received one. Read all the links and learn all about how Wikipedia really works. Priyanath talk 16:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The official name of the park is "Sanjay Gandhi National Park" as seen in this photo of the gate entrance. Hence my opinion is that the Wikipedia article should also be titled Sanjay Gandhi National Park and not Borivali National Park. Belasd (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * @SpacemanSpiff, one who loses first to win big later is called baazigar. @Priyanath, I generally go by spirit of law so i avoid reading written rules. @Belasd, just i mentioned above, Bandra_worli_sealink, where official name is some Gandhi-link, is named after common name. And common name of a thing may change over time. Doorvery far (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * @Belasd, thanks for the photo link, now I can give more reason to move it to Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Borivali as i suggested above! (Notice even "," in the image)Doorvery far (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Official website says Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Borivali, Mumbai. Doorvery far (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Going by precedents in Wikipedia, looking at Grand Canyon National Park and Central Park, I see no reason to add the "Borivali" or "Mumbai" suffix to the name. Belasd (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no loss in adding a suffix. When 'Borivali park' is more common among common man according to google, though maynot be among "scholars", adding it as a suffix should rather help a lot. Doorvery far (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again I've reverted your move, stop saying there's consensus when there clearly isn't any. - Spaceman  Spiff  05:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310212824/http://mdmu.maharashtra.gov.in/pages/Mumbai/mumbaiplanShow.php to http://mdmu.maharashtra.gov.in/pages/Mumbai/mumbaiplanShow.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041123060729/http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19980604/15551494.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19980604/15551494.html
 * Added tag to http://www.bhramanti.com/kanheri.html.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210193131/http://www.mahaforest.nic.in/SNGPborivali.htm to http://www.mahaforest.nic.in/SNGPborivali.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002125207/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/To-spot-the-Bengal-tigers-visit-Borivali-National-Park/310431/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/To-spot-the-Bengal-tigers-visit-Borivali-National-Park/310431/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503002921/http://www.caves.res.in/journal/c.htm to http://www.caves.res.in/journal/c.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)