Talk:Chennai

Good quality sources

Good quality sources:

• Association of British Scholars (India). Chennai Chapter (2008). Muthiah, S. ed. Madras, Chennai : a 400-year record of the first city of modern India. Palaniappa Brothers. ISBN 9788183794688. OCLC 419265511. 
• Penny, F. E. (1900). Fort St. George, Madras; a short history of our first possession in India. S. Sonnenschein. OCLC 9907254. 
• Muthiah, S (1999). Madras rediscovered : a historical guide to looking around, supplemented with tales of 'Once upon a city'. East West Books. ISBN 9788186852224. OCLC 43657497. 
• Neild, Susan Margaret (1977). Madras : the growth of a colonial city in India, 1780-1840. S.M. Neild. OCLC 3127500. 
• Muthiah, S (2005). Madras discovered : a historical guide to looking around. Ranpar Publishers. ISBN 9788190319904. OCLC 70168182. 
• Srinivasachari, C. S. (1939). History of the city of Madras : compiled for the Tercentenary Celebration Committee, 1939. P. Varadachary. OCLC 62429243. 
• Muthiah, S (1995). Madras, its past & its present. East West Books. ISBN 9788185938240. OCLC 5262944. 
• Ramaswami, N. S. (1977). The founding of Madras. Orient Longman. OCLC 5552855. 
• Madras : the architectural heritage. Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage. 2003. ISBN 9788190164009. OCLC 55139562. 

Auto Archive

I have set an auto archive for this page per request on my talk. Any discussion older tha 60 days will be archived. Feel free to change the setting. — Abhishek  ^Talk 13:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

FA review

I am nominating this article for an FA review as it has stayed in this state for a really long time and users will get a boost to fix it only if it is nominated and is on the verge of losing the status. The longer we postpone it, the worse it will become. Many issues have been fixed but some still remain, so I require the help of the reviewer to solve them. Delhi and Mumbai have lost their FA statuses and Kolkata is undergoing a review, and has been in standstill for a long time. X.One ^SOS 15:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Area expansion update

The area of Chennai has officially expanded to 426 sq.km. The bill has been passed by the legislative assembly in 2004 (http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/article2745099.ece) and (http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/article2745099.ece). I have updated it. Please comment if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stausifr (talk • contribs) 10:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The population for the new area has not released. Let's wait till the FA review gets over. Cheers. X.One ^SOS 13:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The population for the expanded area is 5.6 million according to the 2001 census. A brief explanation regarding this is already presented in the article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The population of the expanded area till 2011 is deduced to be 9 million. But there isn't any official release from the Chennai corporation. We'll have to wait for it. But the area expansion is in force already. Even the police commissionerate has been expanded to the needs. Hence making the Chennai commissionerate the biggest in India(I'll soon include the reference for this as well).-tausif r (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, I don't think it's true. The population of the Chennai Metropolitan area itself is 8.9 million :) —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about the population but the commissionerate in terms of stations, Chennai is the biggest in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stausifr (talk • contribs) 11:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Script in lead section

Adding script in the lead for majority articles especially including cities, states are necessarily meant for conveying or making understand for all non-english names how it is being represented in native languague. The only way to do is add native scripts in the articles. I agree that in the recently closed discussion on this, people bring some valid discussion against adding scripts. There is also a good enough reason for that. There are specific articles which has some complexity to include all scripts or one or totally none. But see that all these specific articles are more in number dealing individuals or single personalities. So applying the same formula on articles dealing or focusing the nativity like states, cities or towns is doing injustice to it. I may wish to know what makes those to remove script from here. I want to know on what view point they want to remove tamil script from this article. The complete need for creating articles in this encyclopedia forum is include and convey information in its broadest sense. ---- Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If there is a consensus not to do something we should follow that. This is not the place for others to listen to your ideas. If you feel something has to be changed start an Rfc. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 09:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Spoken Languages and Ethnicity

This discussion is to stop the edit warring going on about Spoken languages and ethnicity. I think we should start by analyzing the resources that we have. There are two sources provided about telugu. The times of India article says that telugu speakers form the majority among non tamil in the state. It does not say anything about chennai. The hindu article says that the population of chennai is composed of telugu people. It does not mention anything about telugu language. Coming to ethnicity, my opinion is that the info box should include only the characteristics of the city. I am not sure how much is ethnicity a characteristic of a city. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am against adding that, primarily due to the fact that "other spoken languages" is a vague parameter and does not mean that only the majority among the non-Tamil group should be included. Even Kannada, Malayalam and Hindi are spoken by a significant percentage of the population, even if it is nowhere near the Telugu population. X.One ^SOS 05:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, then I can say parameters like "official languages" are also vague. What about ethnicity? Has it got anything to do with a city? Is this a BLP or an article about a country? If you think "spoken languages" as vague, I see no reason for ethnicity to be included here. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would consider not including ethnicity for 2 reasons. One is that it doesn't explain anything significant about the city. Another is that, I think 'Dravidian' is the ethnicity and not 'Tamil'. I would also opine for not including Telugu as it is already explained in the prose and the fact that it lacks proper sources. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to my previous post, there is nothing like an official language for a city to my knowledge (Correct me if am wrong!). Generally the official language of a city/district would be the corresponding language of its respective territory. Besides, I see no special reason to include that in the infobox. Like you said, it can be defined in the "culture", "Administration" or "Demographics" sections. Take the case of Seattle (the one which doesn't have a field for "languages"), where apart from English, Spanish and other Asian languages are being spoken by a sizeable population. Chennai is neither a Province nor a UT (like Delhi, Pondicherry) by itself. So I would suggest, we better remove both.

There is no online data available for cities. Census libraries must be having them. There is a report from the CMDA stating there is a "sizeable population speaking Telugu in the city". —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The Chennai corporation website is currently down, but I think the corporation does have official language. If the Govt. of Tamil Nadu defines the official language, it is applicable through out the state, and for a person who doesn't know that Chennai is in Tamil Nadu, it becomes an important piece of encyclopedic information. --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The same report also says "Since Madras (presently Chennai) was the capital of the erstwhile Madras Presidency covering most of the areas now under the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala it has inherited a mix of languages [viz. Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam]." X.One ^SOS 14:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It looks like you haven't got my point or pretend as if you didn't get anything. It says there is a sizeable Telugu Population. I am not saying only Tamils and Telugus live in the city. There is a small population of Parsis in the city. This noway implies that it is a major language. My point is Telugu is predominant among the minorities. The other languages are no way near to it.

Comment to previous postThe Chennai High court has an official language (not Tamil). But why do we have fields for "Country", "State" at the top of Infobox. I guess that's sufficient for a reader to understand that Chennai is located in Tamil Nadu, India and the official language is Tamil. Take the case of Pondicherry (UT consisting if Pondicherry, Karaikal, Yanam and Mahe). Each of the administrative units of Pondicherry have different set of languages. It's Tamil and French for Pondy and Karaikal; Telugu, French for Yanam; Malayalam, French for Mahe. It would be worthwhile mentioning the languages for these places as they have different languages even though they are under a single UT (ignore the geographic entities). But that's not the case for Chennai. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding to our confusion, this article Official_languages_of_India says 'Tamil' is the only official language of Tamil Nadu and not 'English'. --Anbu121 (talk me) 02:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not withdraw out-of-topic here and bad faith assumptions lead nowhere. If Pondicherry's instance is not the same as that of Chennai, then why was it brought up here in the first place? Regarding the Malayalam population, this is proof for the abounding influence of the group in Chennai. Further, one of the reports in the article says that Kannadigas share a number equal to that of 1/3rd of the Telugu population. How can they not be a major group if Telugus boast of that status? X.One ^SOS 10:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)