Jump to content

Talk:Kolkata: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 103: Line 103:
:*Another point mentioning "cultural capital of India" is a vague term considering the quality of sources it has provided. A politician and an Indian actor claim that point. The politician is also the current Chief Minister of the state. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' source elaborates clearly on this issue. I would urge you go through the source and do what is good for the article.--[[Special:Contributions/202.78.236.6|202.78.236.6]] ([[User talk:202.78.236.6|talk]]) 05:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
:*Another point mentioning "cultural capital of India" is a vague term considering the quality of sources it has provided. A politician and an Indian actor claim that point. The politician is also the current Chief Minister of the state. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' source elaborates clearly on this issue. I would urge you go through the source and do what is good for the article.--[[Special:Contributions/202.78.236.6|202.78.236.6]] ([[User talk:202.78.236.6|talk]]) 05:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Ganbaruby}}: Thank you for your edits. The use of [[WP:PUFFERY|puffery]] as well as [[WP:UNDUE]], was not parameterised or consciously done. The character of the city was more of a concern here, as is in the case for pages on other cities of India.
::{{ping|Ganbaruby}}: Thank you for your edits. The use of [[WP:PUFFERY|puffery]] as well as [[WP:UNDUE]], was not parameterised or consciously done. The character of the city was more of a concern here, as is in the case for pages on other cities of India.

== Changing some picture ==

I really thinks that there is a strong need to change some picture in this article with the one, which are more clear and looks good [[User:Ultimateoutsider|Ultimateoutsider]] ([[User talk:Ultimateoutsider|talk]]) 19:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:41, 27 December 2020

Template:Friendly search suggestions

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleKolkata is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 26, 2006.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2006Good article nomineeListed
April 6, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 4, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
March 29, 2012Featured article reviewKept
October 13, 2019Featured article reviewDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 23, 2004.
Current status: Former featured article

Calcutta History - DUBIOUS sentence

It says: "By the 1850s, Calcutta had two areas: White Town, which was primarily British and centred on Chowringhee and Dalhousie Square; and Black Town, mainly Indian and centred on North Calcutta." This simply isn't possible, the European element of Calcutta according to the 1901 census were 11,425 British in the city, the total population being 949,144 - so the British were roughly 1% of the population. Even though the Europeans may have enjoyed more personal living space, it's abundantly clear that aside from a few streets and tiny enclaves like Chowringhee and Dalhousie Square, the metropolis was (demographically speaking) overwhelmingly Indian in virtually all geographical areas. To say that the Indians mainly centred on the north, presumably leaving the other vast areas of the vast city (East, West, South, central) dominated by or with a substantial presence of Europeans, is clearly FALSE. One source given for this statement is this tiny article: https://web.archive.org/web/20120112023055/http://www.laits.utexas.edu/solvyns-project/hardgraveportrait.html - in this short article I can find no reference to anything about any so-called "white town" nor any information about Calcutta's erstwhile racial demographics, nor anything relating to the 1850's! Instead it's about an artist that drew some nice drawings of city life between 1791-1804. The second source given was a book "Calcutta through 300 years: Changing visions, lasting images" - which I admit I haven't read, but it appears to be a coffee table picture book, with postcard and artists impressions of the city over a period of a few centuries, a glossy unofficial souvenir book published to mark the city's 300th anniversary (1990), very nice I'm sure, but not really an academic source I think. Zac 26/11/19 -

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2019

Central Kolkata Nazni Begum (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 10:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think "The City of Joy" should also be added as another nickname of Kolkata along with "The Cultural Capital of India" Bruce Lightener (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Unofficial Stats

Please remove the unofficial "Metro GDP/PPP" numbers from the Infobox and from the main article both in lead/economy section. Three different sources given are unofficial; none of them from Govt of India or State Govts source. So please remove those figures.--103.218.236.58 (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: all of the sources given reliable sources. Don Spencertalk-to-me 19:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GDP can't be given from three different sources that to in a range. GDP must always be from official Govt source. And govt does not publish city wise gdp data; we already have state wise gdp data. The range figures are given very old too. Please scrape these data. @Goldsztajn: pls help. Thanks--103.218.236.58 (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: There is no consensus that “GDP must always be from official government sources,” and I don’t see why there would be. I also don’t see anything wrong with multiple sources being cited. Please establish a consensus for your changes on this talk page before using the {{Edit request}} template. — Tartan357  (Talk) 15:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unhealthy edits

I feel very sad this article has lost its FA status. This article was my inspiration behind Allahabad. Somebody had played deadly with this article. I will try my best to help it to achieve FA status again. Thanks--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  05:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will be great if you can help. I do not have much time now. A very first step would be updating the data/statistics in different sections.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
25 Cents FC thumbs up Great! ~ Amkgp 💬 02:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

Top para of the lead section states "the birthplace of modern Indian literary, artistic and political thought and several Nobel Prize winners have been known to be associated with the city" is recently added by User:Rbhu23 on 25 August, but, the sources provided on the para does not confirm this statement. Kindly remove that statement. And, simply put Kolkata is called the "Cultural capital of India" as per source.--103.102.116.123 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for WP:NPOV concerns. Nobel Award mentions is also not that significant, as every major city likely has a few laureates.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 09:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 03 September 2020

A new editor User:Rbhu23 added information on 1 September in the lead section of the top para, it clearly violets WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Kindly remove those information immediately from the top para and restore its earlier version, which was a stable version. Thanks--202.78.236.6 (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Rbhu23. I wouldn't call this WP:SOAP necessarily, but use of puffery as well as WP:UNDUE is more of a problem here. The lead paragraph is supposed to be a general overview of the entire city, and mentions of Nobel/Oscar winners are too specific here. So here's what I changed:
  • Phrase about "liberal arts" is unreferenced and removed.
  • Nobel mention is now in third paragraph. "Greatest work" and its wording is too far, just state it as it is.
  • Oscar mention is removed. Ray is mentioned in the "Culture" section already, and his work belongs with the rest of the Tollywood information.
Let me know if there's any other questions.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 21:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganbaruby: Thanks for correcting the lead. Overall the lead is looking somewhat satisfactory.
  • But, mentioning the Nobel in the third para of the lead section is ridiculous because no city article mentions Nobel in the lead I'm pretty sure about that. Rather mention it in the "education" section of the article since only two Nobel laureates were born and brought-up in the city, while others laureates either studied or worked briefly in the city. Moreover, other city articles would start mentioning Nobel in the lead if somehow they find any connection with it.
  • Another point mentioning "cultural capital of India" is a vague term considering the quality of sources it has provided. A politician and an Indian actor claim that point. The politician is also the current Chief Minister of the state. The Daily Telegraph source elaborates clearly on this issue. I would urge you go through the source and do what is good for the article.--202.78.236.6 (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganbaruby:: Thank you for your edits. The use of puffery as well as WP:UNDUE, was not parameterised or consciously done. The character of the city was more of a concern here, as is in the case for pages on other cities of India.

Changing some picture

I really thinks that there is a strong need to change some picture in this article with the one, which are more clear and looks good Ultimateoutsider (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]