Talk:Hyderabad

Mentioning de jure in the lede

@Omer123hussain, I see that you have restored the lede, which states that Hyderbad is the de jure capital of Andhra Pradesh by this diff. As Amaravati has been identified as the capital of Andhra Pradesh and even Survey of India maps were corrected few years back, I feel that there is no need to mention the dejure status in the lede. Arjunaraoc (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

you are right, but asper reorganisation act it will be de jure cap until 2024, so we need to accept the reality. Omer123hussain (talk) 08:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Omer123hussain, Thanks for your response. My view is that 'de jure' is not important enough to be retained in the lead at this time. It could be mentioned in the rest of the article, if desired. Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue to remove it, but that is the current status of the city by law (capital of TG and Dejure capital of AP) so it needed to be added in the city's introduction, hope you understand.  :) Omer123hussain (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Omer123hussain, Thanks. I have removed it. Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Telugu pronunciation

The Telugu pronunciation offered at the beginning of the page does not reflect the pronunciation used in the Telangana dialect of Telugu (it represents and Andhra pronunciation).

Either this should be changed or removed Bangarukodipetta (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

Why this article cannot be edited? I have also registered here. Nusrat Jahan 201999 (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The page has been designated as a contentious topic. Because it has suffered frequent vandalism and disruptive editing from new accounts, only editors who registered more than four days ago can change it. Certes (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Appears to be a question rather than an edit request Kpgjhpjm 08:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Dubious

@Omer123hussain: You have twice added the following citation:

• The Land of the Rupee. Bennett, Coleman and Company and The University of Michigan. 1912. p. 311. Retrieved 3 August 2023.

Please provide a quotation from page 311 of the book that supports whatever it is that the citation is meant to support. If you cannot do that I will remove the citation again. It clearly does NOT support these communities, of which the Hadhrami Arabs (locally known as Chaush) are the largest, declined after Hyderabad State became part of the Indian Union, as they lost the patronage of the Asaf Jahi Nizams., which is the statement that you parked it next to.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read the page 311, its link is cited. By any chance if you are unable to open the link please let me know.  :)

Omer123hussain (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the dubious tag. This source is over a hundred years old and so cannot support population statistics in the present tense. I've also tagged the other sources, as they do not support the article content either. DrKay (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This source is not for population statistics, infact its a comprehensive account of ethnicity settled while when Hyderabad was restablishing after the floods of 1908. This detail information is rarely available, in modern writings. I had placed 100s of citation in this article but this piece is comprehensive. Omer123hussain (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Then you agree that part of the sentence is not sourced. DrKay (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Which part? i think there is misunderstanding being formed here.

I placed it for ethnic settelment reference. As far as the sourse is reliable and comprehensive. Omer123hussain (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

See opening comment. DrKay (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It is already cited, you both are either misunderstanding the citation or got confused. Omer123hussain (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Only snippet view is available for this book on Google books. I can see some lines of page 311, but none of these support the content. In any case, a book published in 1912 cannot possibly be used as a citation for how the population changed after Operation Polo in 1948 (which is what it appears to be cited for).-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It is very strange that you are unable to access this li k, where as the entire book is degital and open to read. Omer123hussain (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not remotely strange. Google behaves differently in different countries. Full text is available in some but not others. DrKay (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thats why its strange. It should be easily accessible as its free from cr. Omer123hussain (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You claim that page 311 is a citation for something. Please type out a quotation from page 311 that you think supports whatever it is you think it supports.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I can do word searches, and can tell for instance that neither "Hadhrami" nor "Chaush" show up in a word search.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

You dont know the subject, Hadrami and chaush both are same, and chaush is WL.

These all are already cited and i added additional citation for support, Please i dont want to waste time in solving your confusions. Omer123hussain (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed that section. It's not properly sourced and your refusal to give any kind of proper answer evidently indicates that you cannot provide one. DrKay (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I've restored it, you removed without concessions, you cannot remove a sourced and well written section. Wait for some time. Omer123hussain (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not sourced or well-written. DrKay (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I have removed it again, but taking care to retain Omer123hussain's changes to the citation marked ref name="krank freitag".

Regarding languages spoken, I would have thought that the 2011 Indian Census was the most useful source. I cannot check it today, because the site is down (probably for maintenance – this sometimes happens at weekends). If there are things that you say are supported by particular sources, the most useful approach would be to quote from the sources, either in the citations or on the talk page. In the citation template the format is |quotation=.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

User DrKay,

U had been a strong support and defender of this article, though this article was declared FA on 10 August 2013, and it is still FA because you are regularly patrolling, you are aware that I could not give much time to defend this article but timely i am being trying to maintain its authenticity. Every few days I am visiting and cleaning anything outdated on this article.

As you advised and taged i had searched and replaced the dead url, and you had taged again the dead url of the hindu newspaper; though i can access its archive link, but as you want i will try to find some better source and replace it. While keeping your template i am Restoring to your version once again. Thanks for your support and defending this article from vandals and POV always. Regards :)

User Toddy1,

• 1) you don't understand the things/subject properly as per your above couple of arguments it is proven that simply you indulge editors in arguments leading to editwaring. and rather supporting or improving the work by doing something good.
• 2) you do not have proper access to check the sources, beyond you are deleting the cited work, that too an entire section from FA this is usually not done by any establish editor, they keep patients and try to improve if they find any error. this behavior of yours make me think that you are keeping some personal grudge, and in the name of "DrKay" you are trying to fulfill your ambitions to spoil this article and damage other users goodfaith work by indulging them in edit warring. Please be refrain from edit warring and let us do our work with patients, with all good work and understanding we are working and maintaining this article since 2012, you had recently been randomly visiting this page that to with destructive work-(as seen in your previous edits pattern on this article, as deleting montage or deleting an entire section which is cited).

This behavior of yours proves your intention to spoil this article and editors good name: You had wontedly deleted the section to indulge the editors in edit waring. Please refrain and have patients. Omer123hussain (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not tagging for dead links. I am tagging for verification failure. The cited sources do not support the content of the sentences they are next to. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Omer123hussain, you were asked to provide a quotation from page 311 of the 1912 book to show how page 311 supported whatever it was that you thought it supported. You refused to do this. Your reply regarding word searches on the book,^[1] was bizarre. I entirely agree with DrKay's response to that reply.^[2] -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Omer123hussain Please provide the quote as asked for. The WP:BURDEN is on you as you're defending to retain the reference — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Toddy1, if you wanted quote from that link;

• Instead of asking it on talk page with your reasons of access failure, why you reverted my work.
• Why did you contentiously keep revert my edit and and here will you apologize for it ?
• What make you revert this edit warring warning, do you want to run away/hide from your actions.
• Do you have audacity to go on other articles and revert the work which you cannot access, can you be openly let me know what make you doubt my work, or you are simply targeting me for xyz reasons.

DaxServer;

1) this user Toddy1 is contentiously indulging in edit warring 1 reverted without discussion and well cited work reverted by reasoning other users name and instigating other users also, but I don't see you giving a single warning to Toddy1. What is stopping you or are you biased?

2) i have placed citation and its link, I can quote it also, but the question is why should i do it? does this mean every book reference in every article should provide quote. it will also mean that any user who could not be able to access the link/source will go on articles and revert it or tag it "doubious", just because they do not have access to it in there region. why i am being targeted, which action/s of my is making you all to doubt my work here? Omer123hussain (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Omer123hussain, look at the post dated 08:46, 4 August 2023 at the top of this section. It says Please provide a quotation from page 311 of the book that supports whatever it is that the citation is meant to support.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As per WP policy you need to first discuss on talk page before deleting any edit, specially for those who are regularly contributing the article,

• but on 19:06, 3 August 2023you deleted my well cited linked edit check article edit history of without discussion on talk-page, just simply because you cannot access, and continuously keep involved in edit warring.

Omer123hussain (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

why should i do it? Because it is challenged. From WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ... The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. So, demonstrate its verifiability-ness. You seem to have access to the source, so you can provide the quotes. This will be the last time you'll be asked for such. Any replies without the quotations and/or other material that support the content will move you to ANIland — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Lets move. Omer123hussain (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

citation style changes

User:Toddy1, While you keep ignoring the requests made to you and adamantly keep deleting the good faith work without discussing on talk page, and did not restored the well cited sections even after requesting many times and in-fact you deleted the requests/warnings given to you on your talk page.

• I removed your duplicate ref name "McCann(1994)-p6" which you gave in this edit.
• It is a fa article, and it uses a certain style, which was suggested or decided during multiple stages of article's reviews, copyedits, and other processes. The article follows bundled citation style for single use ref's. I suggest you please go thru the articles archived talk pages before editing here and making any changes, because it will impact on the articles style and fashion of citation and other arrangements, which will lead to its delisting from fa, which i dont want in any case I am consistently working to its protection from last 10 years by repairing, fixing and updating the outdated or dead citations.
• If you do not give-up such adamant behavior in your editing pattern on this article, you will be barred from edit this page, which may also lead/impact to restrict your other rights. :)

Omer123hussain (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason I made the edit was that an earlier version had two different definitions of <ref name="Hyderabad_and_Bhagmati">. This showed up in "show preview" as: Cite error: The named reference "Hyderabad_and_Bhagmati" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). So I fixed the problem.

I think you misunderstood the edit I made. It was not a "duplicate name". "McCann(1994)-p6" was cited in two places. In the first place it had <ref name="McCann(1994)-p6"> followed by a citation template and then </ref>. In the second place it had <ref name="McCann(1994)-p6"/>. This meant that the citation was used in two places.

In your changed version, you now have exactly the same citation template for the citation to McCann in two places: (1) in the definition of "McCann(1994)", and (2) in the definition of "Hyderabad_and_Bhagmati".

By all means go to WP:ANI.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the concept of having a page number in a reference name is in case someone wants to cite a different page of the same book for something else.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Well in that case we are using template, that is why I suggested to read and go thru archives and articles style. .
• Definitely will reach there, because deleting reliable citation if not accessible without discussion cannot be justified.

Omer123hussain (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Now the article has 91 citations where the citation templates cite the page numbers, and 36 citations using the {{rp| }} system. By the way the {{rp| }} system is not compatible with bundled citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox images change with new pictures & latest features

Infobox images change with new pictures & latest features DaDeadzombie (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Telangana State Secretariat Front View.jpg

Telangana Secretariat

Birla Mandir

Buddha Statue

City view

Charminar

Mindspace campus in HITEC City

JP Morgan Tower

DaDeadzombie (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)