User talk:Batternut/Archive 1

Economy of Chennai
Hi Batternut i have provided a citation which was taken directly from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Corporation which has data relevant to what is being disputed on the economy of Chennai page. Please let me know if this is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaidy160490 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for mentioning it. But I don't see in your citation any mention of Kolkata, Bangalore, or of ranking the cities by any measure. Could you explain how it backs up the claim "It is the fourth metropolitan area in India, ahead of Bangalore..." in Economy of Chennai? Likewise it doesn't back up the "GDP of US$210 billion" and "GDP of $219 billion" claims in Chennai.
 * Your ref for the "third busiest airport" claim for Chennai is fine! Batternut (talk) 10:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Batternut, i will get some resources from known sources as well. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.27.211.72 (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Batternut can we cite this source from Brookings for the GDP update? It has clear evidence to prove that the Chennai metropolitan area is the fourth highest in the country after Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkatta. Vaidy160490
 * @ I think the Brookings report does prove that, and I have updated the Chennai pages accordingly. Batternut (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Take The Test game.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Take The Test game.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Public Library Association (July 24)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:World Public Library Association and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:World_Public_Library_Association Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:World_Public_Library_Association reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Pan Playthings Ltd has been accepted
 Peter Pan Playthings Ltd, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Libby norman (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Batternut help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Help me please?
Dear Batternut, i am enjoying the process of working with you on the Hoe page. I'm sorry to ask of you something, but would you possibly be willing to lend your voice here where i seem to be getting group tackled by a lot of hostility? I seriously want to make Wikipedia better. I want to be working on simple things in agronomy, but i got into Monsanto-related areas when i took an interest in glyphosate, the herbicide, and found potential dangers with its use, and it's gone so many layers deep now. It's a bit of reading, but if you are interested, i'd welcome your voice there. SageRad (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I ask you because it's really strange that both of the other editors working on the hoe article have jumped over and offered scathing opinions about me. That was so strange to see. I don't know how or why they both got over there. What are the odds? What is the motivation? SageRad (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, funny business. Looks like they're sniffing round your car and peering in your shed window! Batternut (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's really really strange. Thank you so much for adding your voice. It means a lot. SageRad (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Per capita income of indian cities
Hello the 2014 per ca pita of Bangalore is calculated from the 2012 figures of INR 320000 per year. Considering the 20% growth rate the present figures will be more than INR 400000, that is 80000 dollars. Please don't change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.241.87 (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the talk page at Talk:List of Indian cities by GDP (per capita) Batternut (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Practicalities
How about finding a suitable source yourself instead of indulging in such useless activities - maybe you did not realize it but i am just about to rewrite this article completely, including implementation of around 100 new sources - and believe me - this section will be taken care of - and i am well aware there is a citation needed, no one else is. IF YOU WANT TO HELP - CONTRIBUTE!!! ADD CONTENT - WE KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF WORK TO DO! Wikirictor (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you are talking of this edit of mine, where I removed a circular reference that you put in. I guess you did not realise that self.gutenberg.org/articles is a mirror of wikipedia. I could not find a reliable source for your claims in that section. You will know that verifiability is required, and that quoting a mirror amounts to saying "It is true because I said it was true last week"! It is shocking and disappointing to see that you re-instated your self-reference. Batternut (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

CONTRIBUTE
and yet i shout it out: ADD CONTENT. reminding people on policies is superfluous, when you concentrate on the essentials. pointing fingers is for those, who have nothing to sayWikirictor (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you have added a lot to Dark ages of Cambodia, and indeed thank you for it. Verifiability is one of the essentials though, and citation is best done at the same time as adding the content - otherwise the hundreds of wikipedia mirrors will just clog up any googling you do. You should be grateful actually for any extra eyes looking at your additions and picking up any errors - it will only improve the quality of the article. Batternut (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are very much concerned with personal things. This is actually something for places like Facebook. Here, i guess it is about the article. Hence, let's finish this useless conversation and let's concentrate on the creation of an informative and comprehensive encyclopedia, shall we? Wikirictor (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pointing out an error in a contribution of yours is neither personal nor finger-pointing. But we can agree on something - this is a useless conversation! I don't know why you started it. Batternut (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Mumbai
Hi, I have undone two additions of your to Mumbai. The article is only about Mumbai. By Mumbai, I'm referring to the ares within the Mumbai city and Mumbai suburban districts which fall under the jurisdiction of the MCGM/BMC. For the others, the content is better placed on the Mumbai Metropolitan Region article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your perspective is not a bad one. However both the article and in particular the leader talk a lot about the region rather than Greater Mumbai. The leader should only introduce or summarise the body of the article. For example the leader says that Mumbai is "... the second most populous metropolitan area in India, and the ninth most populous agglomeration in the world, with an estimated city population of 18.4 million and metropolitan area population of 20.7 million". Neither of these claims relate to Greater Mumbai, so they should be removed (if your approach is adopted). Likewise the infobox population stats should only give the population as 12 million and not mention urban or metro populations.


 * I simply wanted to provide a short description of the different scopes of the name Mumbai. Perhaps the "Mumbai Metro Region" section should have a main article link to Mumbai Metropolitan Region?

I'll open an rfc on the Mumbai Talk page if it seems that wider debate is required. Batternut (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't my perspective, but the perspective of a lot of people who worked on the article during its GA review. The point is, talking of non MCGM areas is redundant. The MMR article already serves that purpose. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And yes, by all means, please do bring it up on the talk/RFC. It would be great to have some constructive discussion for once that talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

IMF 2015 Nominal GDP
Could you please contact IMF, i am trying but it keeps giving me error. Croatia nominal GDP in 2014 was 58.5 and suddenly now is 48.5, it must be some kind of error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RepublicOfCroatiaContributionOnWiki (talk • contribs) 11:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alas I have no special contacts there! Lots of phone numbers, addresses etc on their Contacts page... Good luck. Batternut (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A few last examples if you thought the others were interesting








Also, Washington D.C., Houston, Seattle, Boston, Cleveland and Japan have stats in the lead and are WP:Featured Articles. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sirius
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sirius. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

List of European cities by population within their city limits
Hi. Why did you revert my edit after I provided reference links and my contribution was undid by Yeppiz? I want an explanation. Are you an expert in geography? Denghu (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I made referenced edits and they were simply reverted by Yeppiz with no explanation concerning the referenced materia. I already messaged him (her). The result is that you deleted my edits supported by references. Is that logical? I don't see why I have to discuss material supported by many references. Please go to that page and look at the several last edits, you will see what I mean.Denghu (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The best place to discuss this contentious subject is Talk:List of European cities by population within city limits. You have contributed a lot to wikipedia, and it will be best if your views are put in a more highly visible place, and should be most welcome and (I hope) respected there. Thanks. Batternut (talk) 10:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue has been discussed by a few users yet I have no idea how to take it any further. If a few people say Istanbul should be considered as a whole, and a few people say the opposite, is it the solution you are talking about? How is this issue going to be decided by competent contributors? I have left a message on the talk page of the article, also how do I respond to ungrounded accusations by user Yeppiz? Denghu (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What to do about Jeppiz's accusations - I suggest ride above them, he probably didn't think too much when making them. Put your efforts into the transcontinental cities/countries discussion (as you seem to be doing)... Batternut (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Bragg-Paul Pulsator) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Bragg-Paul Pulsator, Batternut!

Wikipedia editor Justlettersandnumbers just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"What a pleasure to see a proper article with proper references! Thank you!"

To reply, leave a comment on Justlettersandnumbers's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Re Wikisiki999 at Talk:Syrian Democratic Forces
Wikisiki999 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Human like you -- I removed his post under WP:BANREVERT. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I figured so (after a while alas), and ended up asking for a block on subsequent sock-puppetry from User:176.33.80.23. Talk page discussion, and dismissal, of official propaganda can still be useful though. Batternut (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Chennai's Economy / GDP of Indian cities
Hi Batternut. I am sorry for being so late but I would like to clarify the confusion regarding Chennai's Economy's ranking in India which began in July 2015. Please read my full message which firstly clears your probable confusion and then points out the actual facts. It may seem very long. I am sorry but please read it complete.

Well, I am writing this message after reading the discussion regarding this topic at near top of your talk page. After reading that, I know which "Brookings report" you are talking about. I would say that you also misinterpreted that report like all other users. This is the report. Well this report ranks "300 Largest Metropolitan Economies 2013–2014" on the basis of economic performance (judged by GDP per capita change in % and Employment change in %). This is clearly written at the top of column. See APPENDIX A on page 27/44 of PDF (well this page is numbered 25 in the "PDF book", you know like pages are numbered in a book excluding title page and CONTENTS pages). Delhi is ranked at 18, Kolkata at 32, Mumbai at 52 and Chennai at 57. This makes Chennai 4th! 4th in Economic Performance or growth but NOT in total GDP! The report does not rank cities on the basis of total GDP. Don't believe me ? Well, you didn't wonder how the global city leaders New York City, London, Shanghai, Tokyo etc. which must be on the top are not there on the top ? Instead comparatively very smaller cities Macau, Izmir, Bursa, Kunming, Fuzhou etc. feature in the top. This is because their growth rates of GDP and employment are highest and this list is based on these indicators. Economies of New York City, London etc. have attained a kind of stable condition after super rapid growth and are now growing relatively slowly.

Well, we come to the case of India. Mumbai is the financial capital and largest city economy of India but is beaten by Delhi and Kolkata in terms of growth rate of per capita GDP and employment as shown by the report. Mumbai is followed by Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore, Hyderabad and then Chennai in terms of total GDP (PPP). Here are all the sources. (The page of last source is divided into slides. It will take time in loading and opens with Mumbai at 1. You will have to click "Next" till you arrive at 6. Chennai.) So, all the three source agree with each other. These figures are actually official statistics either from 2008 or 2011. It will take even more time to find official sources but even these sources are perfectly reliable (it doesn't matter since these are probably the latest figures). According to all these sources, Chennai's economy of US$ 66 Billion ranks 6th after Mumbai ($209 Billion), Delhi ($167 Billion), Kolkata ($150 Billion), Bangalore (83 Billion) and Hyderabad (74 Billion). All figures are in PPP. I think you now got my point.

Unfortunately, this falsifying edit made by you (which you perceived true) wasn't noticed for about one and a half year by anyone until I found it out. Well, I will not point out exact ranking in article Chennai right now as I know I will have to get involved in edit war with some Chennai enthusiasts. You are a more experienced editor than me, so I pointed out this explanation to you. It took me a large time to figure out who made the edit. I had to search the page history of two years. Well, never mind. Perhaps, it will not matter for you much now. Don't take any offense please. Again sorry for the very long explanation. Waiting for your response. Vibhss (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Batternut (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I note the effort and care with which you put your case, and I thank you for that.
 * The Brookings reference that showed Chennai's GDP as 4th in India was not the one you reckoned, but their 2013–2014 Global Metro Monitor, as also cited at List of cities by GDP.
 * Of the 3 sources you found putting Chennai 6th, worldlistmania and mapsofindia both reiterate the Yahoo figures, and they date from 2008, ie 5 or 6 years older than Brookings.
 * You will need some better references to make your case (and for your falsifying accusation to stand...)
 * I have to agree with you that edit wars with city enthusiasts does make it difficult to keep articles accurate, which is why it is good to talk first!


 * Oh ! I apologize for being so much preoccupied. I hurriedly assumed that you edited after reading above mentioned report. Actually, article Chennai had been subject to vandalism for a very long time. Now and then, vandals changed population figures and rankings. That made me think the same regarding GDP. But I am still adamant that official OR PWC GDP FIGURES of 2008 are more reliable for GDP calculation. There are many forums which mention GDP figures for cities and rankings of all of them vary. Any one of them can't be acknowledged right and used as source on Wikipedia, specially Brookings. Brookings Institution's data deviate significantly from 2008 official or PWC figures. for Delhi: it goes from 167 bn to 293 bn (probably adding some more suburban areas for GDP calculation, it displaces Mumbai as financial hub), for Mumbai: its 209 bn to 150 bn (not removing any suburban areas from calculation as evident by population in Brookings source), for Kolkata: 104 bn to 60 bn (not removing any suburban areas from calculation as evident by population). How can this be acceptable ? Recently, Oxford Economics also released its list of cities by GDP creating huge controvrsies in India. Its data dethroned the traditional financial capital of India, i.e. Mumbai at the hands of Delhi but by a small extent. It stated Delhi's GDP as of 2015 as 370 bn $ and Mumbai's as 368 bn $ (again see the difference in figures here). However, the issue later resolved. But Brookings Institution's data creates a much bigger difference between Mumbai and Delhi; Delhi's GDP was mentioned 293 bn $ and Mumbai's 150 bn $; while 2008 official figures for Mumbai stood at 209 bn $ and Delhi's at 167 bn $. All I am saying is PWC seems to be more credible than Brookings as its figures are at par with official figures. So, it must be used as source in Wikipedia city articles instead of Brookings. I think my points and references are now better enough to make my case. Vibhss (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There are big differences between Brookings and PWC figures, indeed probably due to differing city/metro boundaries. But why do you say the PWC figure are at par with official figures? What official figures - please provide a source! The Oxford Economics figures for all Indian cities would be interesting to see, but alas that info does not seem to be openly available.
 * The argument that Brookings' smaller definition of Mumbai's metro area means that their 2014 figure for Chennai is worse than the 2008 PWC figure doesn't seem convincing to me. Batternut (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I pointed out Mumbai's example as argument for Chennai's economy to show you that Brookings' figures are unreasonably low and shrunken for all Indian metros except Delhi. 2008 PwC estimates showed Bangalore's economy of $69 billion to be ahead of Chennai's $66 BN economy. Brookings figure of $45 billion for GDP of Bangalore is much lower than 2008 estimate and places it way behind Chennai. I am not getting the procedure of Brookings for this calculation since population of city proper of Bangalore (8.44 million, 2011 census) is not much lower than that of designated UA/ metropolitan area of Bangalore (8.7 million). So, Brookings definition of city limits / metropolitan area definition seems questionable to me. Well, only this difference in definition is responsible for difference in PwC figures and Brookings figures, right! Moreover Brookings mention near to exact population figures for Bangalore.

For Chennai also, the GDP figure of $58.6 BN is lower than 2008 PwC figure of $66 BN. Now, take the case of Kolkata. Brookings reduced Kolkata's GDP to nearly half value. 2008 figures mention Kolkata's GDP $104 billion which is a likely figure for a metropolitan area in a developing country with population about 15 million. But Brookings drastically reduces this GDP to only $60 billion. Can this be as per its so-called definition ? This figure would have been credible if it was for the main part of city and for the population of that part only. But it is showing GDP figure for population of the greatest extent of Kolkata metropolitan area, i.e. 60 BN for population 14.9 million. Brookings itself mentions Kolkata's population as 14.9 million. Now, when we calculate per capita GDP of this city taking total GDP as 60 BN, it comes out even lower than national average which is impossible. In short, what Brookings is showing as the total GDP is the GDP of a smaller part of city but it calculates GDP per capita by dividing it's obtained figure by total or full population of city which results in much lower per capita GDP. How can this be credible ? I am not saying Brookings has calculated like this for all cities but it has indeed done this for five of the six Indian cities it feature in top 300 cities. (sixth is Delhi for which it has shown inflated figures; only these figures are credible and the per capita GDP of Delhi is also a likely figure). But the shrunken figures of other cities are neither credible nor possible as all these are growing cities. It is not possible to have such wide differences in per capita GDP in these cities as Brookings is showing since poverty is equally prevalent in all these metros.

That's why I am against use of Brookings as GDP source in any of the six Indian city articles including Chennai. Again sorry for very long explanation. Vibhss (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Brookings in 2014 ranked Chennai 4th in India, PWC in 2008 reckoned 5th, McKinsey in 2010 said 6th. They are all well-respected institutions and each has its own methodology. Experts disagree, particularly economists I would say. Thus to say Chennai has the {4th/5th/6th} biggest city economy is close to stating opinion as fact (see WP:YESPOV), ie the opinion of the cited thinktank. The natural tendency would I suspect be for editors of city articles to choose the stats that put their favourite cities in the best light. To achieve WP:Neutral articles a better approach would be to put something like Chennai's economy has recently been ranked between 4th and 6th in India.


 * I think it would be beneficial to have a consistent approach on all the city articles you mention. Thus this discussion should be held elsewhere. Possibly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Economy? Batternut (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

To be precise, please don't compare McKinsey figures of 2010 with PwC or Brookings figures of GDP because McKinsey figures mention nominal GDP while PwC and Brookings mention PPP GDP figures. Check List of cities by GDP. If you are into the source, then let me tell you that GDP without any mention of whether it is nominal or PPP GDP is treated as nominal. So, keep McKinsey out from calculation. Besides just because Brookings released its figures after PwC doesn't make PwC figures outdated. PwC has also projected 2025 GDP of all major cities.
 * In terms of city rank within India, PPP/nominal is irrelevant - 4th place nominal = 4th place PPP (because PPP/nominal ratio is the same for all Indian cities). And projections are irrelevant speculation. Batternut (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And you didn't get to the core of my previous message. I know Brookings is also a reputed thinktank. I didn't mean that Brookings mention wrong figures for all cities but it's peculiar figures for all Indian cities (way large for Delhi, smaller for Mumbai, almost half for Kolkata than previous estimate, smaller for Chennai and way too small for Bangalore and Hyderabad) astonished me and would seem questionable to anyone. Yes, discussion on this topic is needed but until the result of that discussion, we better mention 2008 PwC figures on the concerned articles. Vibhss (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is bloating my talk page! I have started a new topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Economy. Further discussion added here will be moved to that talk page. Batternut (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Population of Delhi
Hi. I am not sure whether you know all this or not but please read this very long message complete. Delhi is a peculiar case among Indian settlements. It is an unofficial state of India (having its own state government but still not regarded as state), a union territory (seat of union government) and also a city (area in limits of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Now, According to Census 2011, NCT of Delhi has population 16.8 million (97% is continuously urban; 16.35 million). This 16.3 million population is that of main urban agglomeration of "city-proper" of Delhi having population of 11 million. Whole UA is located in the NCT itself. Census of India regards Delhi's short UA as located in NCT limits only. Now we come to Delhi's EUA (Extended Urban Agglomeration) which is Delhi's metropolitan area (this includes UAs of mainly cities of Gurgaon, Faridabad, Noida and Ghaziabad along with NCT. This EUA form a much smaller part of much larger NCR. This EUA had a population of 21.7 million as per 2011 census. GDP figures of Delhi are calculated either for shorter UA of Delhi with 2011 population 16.3 million or for larger EUA of Delhi with 2011 population of 21.7 million. It goes like Delhi City (11 million)--> Delhi UA (16.3 million)--> Delhi NCT (16.8 million)--> Delhi EUA (21.7 million)--> Delhi NCR (46 million).

I want to tell you clearly that NCR is a much larger region which includes NCT and many surrounding districts of states Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and even Rajasthan (which does not share boundaries with NCT anywhere). Most of these districts are primarily rural and total population of this huge NCR becomes over 46 million and includes both urban and rural areas (total population is simply calculated by adding 2011 census population of NCT and the selected districts of above mentioned states). This huge NCR includes far flung cities like Sonipat, Panipat, Alwar etc. which are totally discontinuous with Delhi interrupted by miles of forests, farms and numerous villages. Actually, NCR is a large geographical region incorporating NCT and those districts of neighbouring states which are in extended vicinity of Delhi NCT.

So, we conclude that whole NCR is not the urban area of Delhi but a small part of NCR is urban area (EUA) of Delhi (incl. NCT of Delhi, Gurgaon, Faridabad, Ghaziabad and Noida; all these are extremely contiguous and hence make a continuous urban spread of Delhi). If you are not satisfied with my claims, I can provide you source. You can yourself see population source on article NCR.

Now, regarding your edits on Delhi, you provided a different year figure for urban area as per a Demographia source while other figures are as per 2011 census. Some of your edits regarding population have to be undone. All population figures must be as per 2011 census. Hope you understand. Vibhss (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Firstly thanks for your message, and for checking the edits.
 * My population edits ignored NCR - it is, I concur with you, irrelevant. I don't know why you talk about it at all.
 * When talking population stats we shouldn't worry about GDP - the are no official figures, other than GSDP which simply covers the NCT of Delhi.
 * Nobody is contesting the population of NCT of Delhi (16.8 million)
 * City population could be contentious, but the 11 million census figure is as used on List of cities in India by population.
 * With urban area, metropolitan area, urban agglomeration there is *generous* scope for disagreement!

Regarding your edits: Batternut (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Where does your density figure come from? I used the 2011 census figure (29,298 /mi2)
 * I don't see the point of short UA figure, 16.3 million, being almost the same as the whole NCT figure it's not very notable - the extended UA figure is more interesting.
 * Extended urban area / metro area is interesting: 21 or 25 million. We should talk about that on the Delhi talk page.

List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_India
This edit, it has 2016. But the page column mentions 2011. Please check that.-- Vin09 &thinsp; (talk)   14:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * True. The page needs some updating, I suspect most of the figure are no longer 2011. I might get round to it sometime - feel free to have a go yourself... Batternut (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Archived at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting/Archive_5. Batternut (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Archived at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_200. Batternut (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wilfrid Laurier University
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wilfrid Laurier University. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fatima
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fatima. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

(My RfC) archived to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_200. Batternut (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC on "misnomer", closed with "... yes, the phrase "Polish death camp" should be described as an inaccurate term - a 'misnomer'". Batternut (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Simon's Sircus
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Simon's Sircus. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment about sic usage, closed with "no consensus for the usage of sic". Batternut (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)