Talk:Chennai

Chennai will be IT capital by 2010

It is estimated by Economic Times that the city will be the IT capital of the country, knocking down its rival Bangalore, by 2010.Please visit this link http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Infotech/Software/Chennai_emerging_as_Indias_Silicon_Valley/articleshow/3000410.cms .The largest development facility of Infosys is located in Chennai's Mahindra City. This is a fact that can be verified on Google.Also Chennai IT companies focus on all over the world unlike bangalore which focusses on West.Slow down i West would bring down export revenue of bangalore but Chennai will be unaffected.This toocan be verified in Google on any news channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.255.198 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, now the city doesnot face any traffic problem and due to rain water harvesting, ground water levels are high and no water problem at all.I would suggest to remobe those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 09:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Chennai emerging as a IT capital of the country is a prediction, guess what, it can just be wrong. Even if it is correct, a lot can go wrong. WP:SPECULATION policy of wikipedia discourages listing future events in wikipedia unless it is verifiable and certain to happen. Besides, the article in Times of India by Rajesh Chandramouli may just be a over enthusiastic opinion piece. Is there more than one article and more than one source (newspaper or magazine) which predicts Chennai's emergence as an IT capital?

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=58257 Please go through this news site.It is quite big and clear article which points out the problems in bangalore and the reason for Chennai to be the silicon valley in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 12:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Chennai not having any traffic problem, do you have a sound source? --Like I Care 11:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

About the water problem: http://www.hindu.com/pp/2009/01/31/stories/2009013150010100.htm this news article shows the graphical representation of the increase in rain water harvest.It says A study of Chennai Metrowater shows that there has been a 50 per cent rise in water level in the last five years and the water quality has significantly improved. One more http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4302240.cms dated 2009 march.

Regarding traffic: http://in.truveo.com/Chennai%E2%80%99s-new-fleet-of-buses-to-ease-traffic/id/2854657046 show the video which says about the reduction in traffic. Also the following new flyovers were opened in Chennai in past 6 months alone, which removes the bottleneck problem of traffic. http://chennai.metblogs.com/2007/05/24/new-flyover-at-gn-chetty-road/ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Finally_Kathipara_flyover_opens/articleshow/3644159.cms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru coolguy (talk • contribs) 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding IT, the 2005 article in Express India predicts downfall due to Bangalore's crumbling infrastructure. It has been four years since the prediction and nothing has happened. Wikipedia is not a newspaper to write every indiscriminate information we can find. The information has to be solid and encyclopedic, please read WP:NOT#NEWS. --Like I Care 13:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe, ground water level info can be added to the article. Regarding traffic reduction, the IBN video just predicts traffic reduction and the new flyovers are expected to reducte traffic congestion. again prediction. let us just wait on this one as well. --Like I Care 13:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, i would like to know if the statement which says chennai has trafic congestion and water problems is from a valid source. There has been no reference for the same in the article and i feel it should have been removed immediately when it was inserted. Secondly, Chennai's infrastructure was well designed to provide large volumes of vehicles compared to obangalore.I have seen the worst traffic in Bangalore where vehicles dont move for 30 minutes or it takes 1 hour to cross some 1 km. So these statements should be in Bangalore's page not in Chennai. So please delete the lines for one obvious reason that they dont have any reliable source to prove it. Guru coolguy (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

fair enough. i removed the statement. --Like I Care 11:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

hi all ! seeing all your works i too feel like working on this article , soon will start my cntribution ...good luck all ...--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 16:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving talk page

This page is too long, so if there aren't any objections, I'm going to archive all discussions prior to March 2009 in (new) Archive 4. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image/map

The infobox image is neither representative of Chennai or one of the more important landmarks nor is it particularly pleasing, so I propose changing it. Also, the infobox is too long, so I'd suggest moving the map out to the article area.

For image choices, here are a few from commons:

• 
  Museum
• 
  Fort St. George during Chennai's early years
• 
  Santhome church
• 
  Santhome church
• 
  Kapaleeswarar temple
• 
  Kapaleeswarar temple
• 
  Rippon bldg
• 
  Egmore station (poor res)
• 
  kathipara
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

These are some of the better quality images, not much to choose from, but still better than Chennai Central. Any opinions? Cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

prefer the corporation image. --L I C 12:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

a similar montage can be made of the corporation building, Marina beach and some others. --L I C 11:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible, I'll try get a montage done, that might be better than a single photo. My choices - Kannagi, Kapaleeswar temple, Santhome church, one of the museum pics. Rippon bldg is already included in the article, so unless that's removed, it doesn't make sense to include it in the montage, and I'd say it needs to be a separate pic. Let me know anyone else has any other ideas. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Added few more pics. -Coolguyche17 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Madre de Deus church

I just removed the statement that said that the church was demolished in 1997. The only thing I could find on the web was on WP mirror sites, and everything was a verbatim copy. Also Page 38 of this book, pub 2009 talks about it in the present tense, S. Muthiah's book published in 2004 also talks about the church being demolished in 1894 and rebuilt then, but I couldn't find any ref about a subsequent demolition. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

City expansion

Based on the back and forth reverts, let's look at the following sources. All these report the expansion of the city in future tense, as something that will happen.

• Indian Express, Dec 31 -- "...the civic body’s Council meet slated for Thursday is expected to formally set the ball rolling on the merger and reorganisation by tabling the government order (GO) on the subject at the meeting."
• Times of India, Dec 31 -- "Moves to expand Chennai city’s limits from the existing 174 sqkm to 426 sqkm will be kick-started right away by the administration. The Chennai Corporation’s council, which is meeting on Thursday, will discuss the appointment of a high-level committee, headed by a special officer, to oversee the redrawing of the city’s map."
• The Hindu, Dec 30 -- "The area under the Chennai Corporation limit is set to expand by over two times, with the State government issuing an order for merger of several neighbouring local bodies with it."

All the above are in future tense as are the refs that have been added to the article. The merger has not yet been completed, and per the refs above, the merger plan itself is expected to complete only in about six months, after which it has to be approved and implemented. Until reliable sources report that the city has expanded and the population has changed (as in, past tense), please do not change the article. Until then, mention of this within the article as likely to happen is the only reasonable solution. -SpacemanSpiff 05:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a footnote to the article to explain the situation, to try and preempt the repeated replacement of the current araea and population statistics.. Feel free to tweak the language of the note, and placement/formatting of the superscripts. Abecedare (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

I want This image to go into the infobox, which illustrates the Chennai skyline, while the current image can be moved into the article. An infobox image should show how the city itself looks, rather than just a single building. Anyone agree?--RM (Be my friend) 01:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The Teynampet image is in no way representative of Chennai or its skyline, is not of particularly good quality or resolution and is a bad addition to the article itself, let alone the infobox. Getting a montage together for the infobox has been one of the goals, unfortunately there just don't seem to be enough representative images available for that. The Rippon Building image is there because it currently is the best of the lot, not because it's the ideal image.—SpacemanSpiff 02:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

images

the beach image can be better, may be, include part of the road and buildings on the other side. Kathipara intersection choice looks silly. come on, guys. --CarTick 11:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree, the Kathipara image is very odd. —SpacemanSpiff 14:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

the beach looks so nondescript, it can be any beach. --CarTick 17:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Madras Tamil Nadu

The passports use the name Madras Tamil Nadu; see http://www.chessbase.com/news/2010/anand14.jpg. Chvsanchez (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

what r u trying to accomplish here, posting somebody else's passport. --CarTick 02:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image, again

Once more the infobox image has gotten a bit unweildy, it's too big and the infobox is bleeding into the second section below, which doesn't really give a very pleasing look to the article. I suggest we trim it down a fair bit to include just two or three pictures and get the infobox to a reasonable size. —SpacemanSpiff 20:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

---

I'll do it. These are the images I've picked for now. Suggestions welcome

• 
  perhaps a little cropping?
• 
• 
  Not sure about this one
• 
  With cropping to focus on temple.
• 
  Because it's an awesome picture
• 
  Unsure of whether this represents the city accurately. reasonable iconic imo

- Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 11:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Section break, infobox montage (to avoid clicking above the images)

Question: Do we really need a montage for this? I'd just included the Ripon bldg image a while back which seemed to be accepted until someone replaced it with this montage. I'm not sure these images make a good collage and it's not very pleasing to the eye. I'm not against this collage concept, it works well on Delhi where the image collection is good and the transition from one to the next is smooth, but not so with our limited pool. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsure. Just following the trend, I guess. If this test version isn't good enough, then leave it as a single picture. Incidentally, all the other metro articles also have infoboxes flowing into their second sections - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My biggest opposition to it here is the color conflict in the montage. See London for how a good pleasing montage is. Delhi and Bangalore are relatively nice too. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tried making it less contrasting. Thoughts? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 07:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks better, but can we play around with the colors a bit? Three different shades of blue in one layer for the same sky seems a bit heavy, no? Also, the red of Central is a little in your face (not the fault of the image though) don't you think? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Now two skies and a less red central :) - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 20:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely looks way better now, any chance you can reduce the brightness of the lower three to come to a level similar to the top one? If we go with this then we should think about a rolling image bit within the article (like on India), so that we don't get back the clutter. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, here it is. The image rotation thing is a great idea! I'm all for it. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 07:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Er, tell me if that blue is too...erm...blue - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 08:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Its soo blue. reduced gradient will do good i suppose. Srikanth (Logic) 09:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC) restored by Amog | ^{Talk • contribs}

This montage is too blue. I feel we should stick to a single pic of the Ripon Building or Central StationNashcode | Talk •

contribs 11:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Chennai montage new2.JPG

Here's my suggested pic. Nashcode | ^{Talk • contribs} 11:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair game if you want to keep only the ripon photo, but I'm not too happy with that photo of central that you used in the suggested pic - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 12:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Note Nashcode, in your previous montage, you didn't really list out the images you used. This is required by the Creative Commons license that governs those photos. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 12:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Another Note I just noticed you completely swallowed up a comment left by User:Logicwiki and signed your comments as me. This is unacceptable. I have restored his comment, and let this serve as your first warning. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 16:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture updated! No longer bright blue :) - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks better. On a related note, i dont fancy Chennai Central to be a symbol anymore. Its been used so much that its a mocking gesture to symbolise chennai. (You would know better if you had watched Tamil Padam). Time for us to portray a new symbol. Kathipara may be? Srikanth (Logic) 08:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of exactly that Tamil Padam scene when I was making this picture! I feel it's all the more a symbol because of it :P I can add one more row to the bottom if you like, but I really want central to be there! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 08:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been against the Central image for a while, but I think it's more representative than Kathipara. If we can get some good quality images of the High Court, War Memorial, Fort St. George then they could possibly replace the Central image but there seem to be none available (and I tried all over the web a few months ago). —SpacemanSpiff 08:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, if there is consensus, I'd gladly replace the picture! But the first thing I think of when I hear 'Chennai' is central! Anyway, what are your thoughts on Nashcode's stuff? - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 08:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with either plain old Ripon or with your current version of Ripon + Santhome + Central + VK. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we use the foll picture of the war memorial instead of the Santhome Church. Lets leave religious buildings with not much historical heritage out of the main montage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chennai_War_memorial.jpg

Nashcode | ^Talk

telugu script

There is an IP edit warring to include telugu script in the name. We use only the official language transcriptions to avoid this sort of edit wars. The "i speak language x and i live in this city; i want the name in my language" argument cannot be entertained. This has led to lots and lots of edit wars. So keep the transcriptions limited to official language only--Sodabottle (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention in infobox

There have been some edits in the infobox by an anon IP, adding some tamil script, and some listing Madras as 'other name', and such. Similar stuff is happening in the Mumbai article. Can anyone clarify on the naming conventions in the infoboxes? I have opened a similar discussion on the talk page of Mumbai. MikeLynch (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Chennai's Infobox current image change appeal

The present image at chennai infobox is not so great. But certainly we can make something more special than this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chennai_Montage_New.png). Its quality on higher pixel is great, but with its low resolution on the articles frontpage at infobox area is glary and quality lacks. For this reason we can go with other better ones that looks perfect and good.

Example, take a look on this (http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%9F%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D:Chennai_montage.JPG). See this image resembles more better and conveys good as per the introduction lead paras. It sounds more good and rightly fits there in the article. Unless someone can come up with better arrangement of images as we already have a big list here in discussion page itself, we can have this image now. Just to have a feel. Go here File:Chennai montage.JPG -- think this image in here Chennai. How neat and good it is. I feel so it presents the article in a nice way. I want the support of others also here.

Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reservations regarding the image of Marine beach in the second montage (from Tamil Wikipedia) which isn't very pretty (sorry but thats my opinion). As for improving the current montage, it might be nice to have pictures of modern structures (like Tidal park and flyovers) along with Ripon and Central Station buildings. I would rather prefer a montage that shows both old and modern Chennai. --Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 13:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

@Keyan20 I am unsure of what you mean by "glary". Please clarify. Also, there was a discussion regarding that image you just posted here.

@Wikiality Can you get consensus on adding those images? I'm happy to add more stuff to the image, if it helps any. Cheers! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 19:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

@PREVRAVANTH Can add Marina Beach picture if it is good

@Amog See that glary (too much brightness) image as of now in the frontpage instead of clicking the image and going in to its main page. Thats why I say, the present image is good viewing in a higher pixel but seeing in a lower pixel as of now in the frontpage of Chennai, it is more bright. Watch closely, the bottom 3 places of Santhome Basilica, Chennai Central, Valluvar Kottam - background color, which is pure white. The reason for this might be the person who did the work might have done that way during its pasting work. I still strongly feel we can make use of a better one, instead. Now have a look at this image that I suggest. It is natural. The coloring background is as per the time of the day. Again this is also pasted work, but it is natural and neatly covers the background of all those images individually. And the style the single images placed is good.

@others I feel anyone who can come up with a better image quality on lower resolution itself, along with better placement of individual images through pasting that looks natural lighting with neat look, can be used. But until that time as we already have one, we can use this ----> (http://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%9F%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D:Chennai_montage.JPG) ------ Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid you have confused "transparency" for "brightness". The bottom three images have had their backgrounds removed, since they were not aesthetically pleasing. The background it now has is the native Wikipedia page color. It is not "pasted work" as you say. Anyhow, if you can gather consensus for this, feel free to change it. As for me, I oppose the move. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Amog, Let me make myself clear here. I am just fine with the current montage on the article. The point on the adding more images was just in case we are changing the montage. To be honest, I think the current one with the background removed looks good enough. Moreover, as I said earlier, I do not like the montage on Tamil Wikipedia especially because of the Marina beach picture (which in my opinion, I repeat) is not very pretty.

I'm sorry Kenyan I am against the montage that you are proposing. No offence meant. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 11:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

@all Hi guys. Here I made some hard efforts in meeting what you all wish. Especially @Wikiality -- I made the change and removed the beach portion and modified with Tidel Park building which gives a great good shape and quality and looks natural and ideal. Here is the image --> (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Chennai_montage.JPG). Please do take care in support of this as it good and nice to view. Ideal montage with good appeal and natural view. ------ Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Image still is large and ungainly, one of the main reasons the original image was replaced. It is still an oppose from me. Sorry, keyan - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 15:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Common man. Have a look on other major cities infobox images. This is even smaller than those images and how can it be ungainly when it clearly represents the culture and customes of the city?? Its the right image than the present one. If anything more good montage with other mixing and combination of images is created, then we can use that. Time being it depicts the mood and culture of the city more clearly and very very importantly naturally and so it has to be used. If you refer it clearly with other city's, you can feel it. --- Ungal Vettu Pillai (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Keyan, i have had it with your disruptions. Here clearly people are against changing the montage and you are doing it unilaterally. I have reverted your change. Do not change the montage unless it is agreed upon here.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Keyan, please listen to Sodabottle. You have to realize that Wikipedia is a community project and acting against standing community consensus is never appreciated. I realize you may have a little difficulty in your communication, but it is causing you to repeatedly bite off more than you can chew. You are really, really close to an ANI report, and trust me, it isn't something you want to happen - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 11:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic missions

Have started this section after finding similar sections in other city articles in Wiki (e.g., Magati, Manila). To my knowledge, there are more than 35 foreign consulates/diplomatic missions in the city. So thought this is required. Please feel free to improve/modify this. Thanks Sodabottle (User) for all the guidance. Aravindk editing (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I am in two minds about this. By adding it, are we straying into directory territory?--Sodabottle (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't be added, as yeah, as Sodabottle said, it will be a directory of sorts. Maybe a paragraph which notes the presence of various consulates would do? A prose format is always better when compared to a list, or so WP:MOS says. What do you ppl say? TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 12:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

THis clearly doesn't belong here in list form. A sourced sentence on the number of missions may be acceptable if independent sources think so, but a list is entirely undue. —SpacemanSpiff 12:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image, part trois

User:Adam.J.W.C. has sharply criticized my redone image and has reverted it without informing me. The infobox image is now blue again, and I was wondering what the community wants to do now. What among these, do you feel is the best course of action:

• Replace the entire image with a new one, as suggested above
• Revert the change back to transparency
• Leave the image as is

- Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 05:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Until we get some decent quality images we should probably stick to just Ripon on the infobox and put the others within the article. I don't think we should go for a montage at the expense of quality. If we still want the montage, the transparency is far better. —SpacemanSpiff 05:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly fine with either. I really don't think quality images are going to turn up that fast though - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 05:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Stick with Ripon image, till "high quality" images can be found. Probably we can ask the chennai photo walk people for donations (Chandrachoodan has a flickr stream with excellent images, but commercially licensed. we can ask him to donate a few)--Sodabottle (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. And I've asked him! - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 08:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Some are governed by a CC-Attrib-Sharealike, so go ahead folks. Use any of my photos to composite a new montage, or to use as part of the article itself. I shall upload a bunch today to Wikimedia Commons under a GNU Free License. Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan -Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If the community can decide on which pictures of CC's that we want to use, I'd be more than happy to make a new montage - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 09:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)