Talk:Thiruvananthapuram

Another round of discussion

As the page is now protected, I am initiating another round of discussion to try reach a consensus. All editors, please make your views.

The statement that got flipped back and forth is as follows:

It is the first international airport in the state and one of the major advantage of the airport is the flights can be operated on all weather conditions.[77] Apart from regular scheduled flights, many chartered flights like First Choice Airways from London Gatwick and Monarch Airlines land here during peak tourist season, thus accelerating Kerala’s growth in becoming a prime tourist destination in India.

I am separating it into the three assertions, which could be treated separately.

Assertion 1 : It is the first international airport in the state.

There is no question about it. It is a well known fact. No reference is needed for that. It must be retained.

Assertion 2 : one of the major advantage of the airport is the flights can be operated on all weather conditions

This is essentially correct, but not precise to the fact. TRV has a CAT-I equipped runway, which qualifies it as an all-weather and night airport as per DGCA norms. Most of the major airports have that distinction. The real distinctive feature of TRV, compared to COK and CCJ is the prevailing weather pattern at the location. The weather pattern rarely goes to extremes that prevent the operation of flights. As a matter of fact, the airports in TN also have that distinction, along with the ones in the middle region. To be precise and encyclopediac, I suggest the following statement

The airport is qualified for all-weather and night operations. One of the major advantage of the airport is the prevailing weather at the location that does not go to extremes, allowing flight operations without disruption year around

Assertion 3: Apart from regular scheduled flights, many chartered flights like First Choice Airways from London Gatwick and Monarch Airlines land here during peak tourist season, thus accelerating Kerala’s growth in becoming a prime tourist destination in India.

DGCA records http://www.dgca.gov.in/pub/Pubb09-10/chap-5.pdf shows that TRV is no longer a significant destination for charter flights. First Choice and Monarch no longer fly to TRV. However, it is true that charter flights of tourists does land there, as can be seen from the DGCA document. The statement should be re-phrased to align with reality. I suggest the following statement:

Apart from the regular scheduled flights, charter flights, primarily carrying tourists, also serve the airport

Need to find a reference that backs this up however.

That is my take. If we can resolve this, an appeal could be made to remove the protection on the page.

DileepKS(talk) 07:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Aarem, Binoy, Samaleks, Lower Fourth, Induzcreed, Sudheesh and any other interested editors. Please comment. DileepKS(talk) 03:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Assertion 1 : It is the first international airport in the state.

Your point : "There is no question about it. It is a well known fact. No reference is needed for that. It must be retained."

No reference is needed for that. ???!!!!!! It's a well known fact only in Kerala friend, Wikipedia is used worldwide. In this page, (Wikipedia:Verifiability), it say's The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Keep this in mind always dileep. but reference is already there. so no problem!!!!

Assertion 2 : one of the major advantage of the airport is the flights can be operated on all weather conditions

Your point: "This is essentially correct, but not precise to the fact. TRV has a CAT-I equipped runway, which qualifies it as an all-weather and night airport as per DGCA norms. Most of the major airports have that distinction. The real distinctive feature of TRV, compared to COK and CCJ is the prevailing weather pattern at the location. The weather pattern rarely goes to extremes that prevent the operation of flights. As a matter of fact, the airports in TN also have that distinction, along with the ones in the middle region. To be precise and encyclopediac, I suggest the following statement"

Your new statement : The airport is qualified for all-weather and night operations. One of the major advantage of the airport is the prevailing weather at the location that does not go to extremes, allowing flight operations without disruption year around

well, i think there is no need to mention the city has no extreme bad weather in the airport page. also, do you have any references about the "night operations"?? anyways don't take this as last words. comment's from more experienced users or users have knowledge about the city is needed.

Assertion 3: Comment's from more experienced users or users have knowledge about the city is needed. Lower4th . TalK  04:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Calicut airport page http://www.aai.aero/public_notices/CALICUT_amendment.pdf says The aerodrome is licensed for use in IFR (all weather) condition..

The AAI FAQ at http://www.aai.aero/public_notices/aaisite_test/faq_Gen.jsp says However, only Instrument Flight Rules airports (Airports equipped with all weather day and night operational capability) can be permitted to be used for night operations.

The DGCA licensing procedure at http://dgca.gov.in/manuals/ProceMan_Aero.pdf says 3.3 Is a licence for NIGHT USE/ ALL WEATHER required? and 15. The aerodrome is licensed for use in IFR (All weather) / VFR (Day) conditions.

So, according to the authorities, all weather means IFR qualification. IFR qualification can be verified for any airport from its technical page from AAI.

Hope it is clear.

DileepKS(talk) 06:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, so my opinion is given below:.

Assertion 2 can be written as "The airport is qualified for all-weather and night operations. One of the major advantage of the airport is the prevailing weather at the location that does not go to extremes, allowing flight operations without disruption year around".

Assertion 3: since there is no reference about the "First Choice Airways from London Gatwick and Monarch Airlines", it can be written as "Apart from the regular scheduled flights, charter flights, primarily carrying tourists, also serve the airport".

it's only my opinion. other editors comments needed, especially from experienced editors. Lower4th . TalK  11:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Lower fourth. --Samaleks (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Circular reference removed.

The rediff article on India's hottest IT destinations, [[1]] is a circular reference. It is dated March 5th 2010.

The old version of this article [[2]] dated 1 Sep 2006 shows the same text, and it essentially continued throughout the history.

The ref is removed. The assertion is not removed, because the other refs show 75% exports from Technopark.

DileepKS(talk) 04:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no proof that the rediff ref is a circular one. It says about the IT export, and not a copy from wikipedia. Are you the editor in rediff to make such assertions? Please do not start edit war again; you are very nororious for editwarring. Thank you, Sunil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.160.9 (talk) 09:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The proof is in the text. The rediff article, dated March 2010, have text that is copied from the article dating back to 2006. Evidently, rediff editor copied the text from the Wikipedia article. That is called circular reference which is unacceptable as reference.

DileepKS(talk) 09:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice joke. Are there many ways to say the simple sentence "city contributes 80 per cent of software exports from Kerala."? It is a FACT and it is there in the article. And Trivandrum was selected as one of the hottest IT destination in INDIA because of many these kind of factors. If you keep on doing your edit-warring, I will add another sentence there, stating Trivandrum is one of the hottest IT destinations in India, and will quote that ref. I dont see any other way to handle with BIASED and CLUELESS editors like you. Thankyou, Sunil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.160.9 (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Statements removed, and the reason

The following statements are removed, which are reinstated by IP Editor 192.193.160.9. I am listing the reasons, so that it could be discussed.

1. Due to the strategic importance of the city, the Indian Air Force authorities have planned to establish an aerospace command in SAC. The reference is a news clip from 2005. No action is being taken on this, and it is not even an active proposal. There is news that the govt is not keen in doing this. This is just a forward looking statement that is no longer valid. It must be removed.

2. The plan for setting up a new "Tri-Service Command", which will integrate all the three forces under a single command, is also in the pipeline. This also have seen no action. IT must be removed.

3. Exports of perishables and medicines from Trivandrum International Airport run to full capacity on the daily flights to Maldives and Sri Lanka. Citation was sought in February. None was provided. Web searched yielded no supporting information. This must be removed, unless a reference could be provided.

4. The reference [[3]] have text directly copied from the article dating back to 2006, making it a circular reference. It is inadmissible as a reference, and must be removed.

IP Editor 192.193.160.9 has not given any acceptable argument, except allegation of bias, the threat of edit war. Please provide valid reasons for reinstating the removed text/ref in each of the cases.

DileepKS(talk) 11:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice joke. Are there many ways to say the simple sentence "city contributes 80 per cent of software exports from Kerala."? It is a FACT and it is there in the article. And Trivandrum was selected as one of the hottest IT destination in INDIA because of many these kind of factors. If you keep on doing your edit-warring, I will add another sentence there, stating Trivandrum is one of the hottest IT destinations in India, and will quote that ref. I dont see any other way to handle with BIASED and CLUELESS editors like you. Thankyou, Sunil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.160.9 (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

DileepKS is back here, again edit-warring. Now his meat puppets may also come out of the shell.
For points one and two, how you know no actions are taken yet ? The news clip says it is in the pipeline. This is not a kindergarten business, that will get completed as soon the decissions are made. This is India, my friend, and the project executions may take longer time.
Since it talks about projects on pipeline, it will remain in the article, as long you can prove that those projects are dropped.

For point 3, i wish you construct positively rather than destructively. You could have checked yourself before removing sentences.
Point 4, is not a circular reference. Who told that is circular ref? YOU? What you expect from other editors? Since you are telling so, we should concur? Rediff links says 80% of the software exports of Kerala are from Tvm. Since it is a FACT, they had given that sentence. It is childish to claim circular reference for that.
For eg; Many sources says Trivandrum is the capital of Kerala. Since the same is mentioned in wiki, would you call the source a circular ref, for the simple reason that the source is updated after the wiki page? --Samaleks (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

IAF proposed an aerospace command, but the Ministry of Defence did not approve. There had been no action on that thereafter. It had been six years thence.

Also, the tri-service command proposal was in fact an extension of the aerospace command proposal, as evident from its reference that says Earlier, there was a proposal to set up an Aerospace Command here, Air Marshal Savur said, adding that on account of the larger responsibility it had been decided to integrate all the three forces under a single command. .

I suggest the following statement based on this. Due to the strategic importance of the city, the Indian Air Force authorities have proposed to establish a "Tri-Service Command" , which will integrate all the three forces under a single command to take responsibility of the military aspects of space.

Issue 3, yes, I did search. I always do the research before taking action. There are no sources justifying the statement. After the search, the citation request was placed. Now almost two months passed, and no one provided a ref. As per the norms at Wikipedia, a statement that fails to get a sought reference must be removed.

Issue 4: I call it circular because most of the text is directly lifted from the article. If it was just the statement about software exports, it would have been given the benefit of doubt.

And it is NOT a CURRENT fact, my dear sir. It WAS in 2006. As per data of year 2009-10, it is 66%. The ONLY documentary support it has is the Economic Review that copy/paste the old information and claim Technopark does 75%. This misinformation is being worked upon, but as per the norms of Wikipedia it does stand as valid as of now.

To make it clear, I am not asking to remove the statement, but only the reference, which is circular.

DileepKS(talk) 04:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Who told it is 66% ? Again YOU!! do you have any valid ref for that ? Dont act kiddy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.160.9 (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC) YOu provide the proof that the plans by IAF is dropped. Dont try to promote your wet dreams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.160.9 (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The 66% is calculated from official data provided by SEZ and STPI authority(who track the exports from SEZ and non SEZ respectively). But the calculated result would be inadmissible as reference for the article, because even though the data is reliable, the calculation arriving at 66% is original research.

IAF haven't dropped the proposal yet, hence the suggested edit. Also, it is very clear from the ref that the tri-service command proposal is a newer avatar of the older aerospace command proposal.

DileepKS(talk) 05:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dei Payyans.. You please come with some valid points to support your fight here :-) If IFA have'nt dropped the proposal, there is nothing grammatically wrong in the current statement in the article. It is also conveying the same meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.164.9 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate you being civil in the discussions. Please read up on WP:Etiquette.

No, it doesn't convey the same meaning. Where does it say or even imply the proposal is due to the strategic importance of the city? Also, the tri-service command is a newer version of the original aerospace command proposal, as clearly mentioned in the reference itself. You are just adding nuisance value to bona fide edits, which is evident from the slander you have, and often in the past had, used.

And does this response mean you agree on the other two points? Please clarify on them.

DileepKS(talk) 02:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

he...he..... he just want to prove "this city has no strategic importance"!!!!! for that he is doing all these. Old Man, when will you change??? Better you want seek medical attention.... seriously... don't take it as personal... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.15.2.9 (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP 49.15.2.9. Do you have any argument to present on the edits, other than the alleged motive? If so, please present them. Thanks. DileepKS(talk) 10:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well; I see DileepKS69 is again back with his edit-wars. I am now fed up seeing he and his meat puppets always arguing vigorously over very silly things, and drag the argument for weeks and months.

Coming to the points, the present state of the article is correct, and I STRONGLY OPPOSE the suggestions made by Dileep. The reasons are well evident from the argument provided by other editors here. I need not repeat them. Even if I repeat, Dileep is gonna beat around the bush. --Samaleks (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That only means you have no arguments. the points are clearly made. Refute if you can/want. DileepKS(talk) 12:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Point 1: Due to the strategic importance of the city, the Indian Air Force authorities have planned to establish an aerospace command in SAC. The reference is a news clip from 2005. No action is being taken on this, and it is not even an active proposal. There is news that the govt is not keen in doing this. This is just a forward looking statement that is no longer valid. It must be removed.

1)Due to the strategic importance of the city, the Indian Air Force authorities have planned to establish an aerospace command in SAC.- OK

2)The reference is a news clip from 2005. -That's also. OK

3)No action is being taken on this, and it is not even an active proposal..- How do you know that? Are you any personal in SAC? If so, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH HERE

4)There is news that the govt is not keen in doing this. - That say's its active.

5)This is just a forward looking statement that is no longer valid. - Again, How do you know that? Are you any personal in SAC? If so, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH HERE

Point 2: The plan for setting up a new "Tri-Service Command", which will integrate all the three forces under a single command, is also in the pipeline. This also have seen no action. IT must be removed.

1)The plan for setting up a new "Tri-Service Command", which will integrate all the three forces under a single command, is also in the pipeline. - OK

2)This also have seen no action. - Again, How do you know that? Are you any personal in SAC? If so, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH HERE.

Point 3: Exports of perishables and medicines from Trivandrum International Airport run to full capacity on the daily flights to Maldives and Sri Lanka. Citation was sought in February. None was provided. Web searched yielded no supporting information. This must be removed, unless a reference could be provided.

1)Exports of perishables and medicines from Trivandrum International Airport run to full capacity on the daily flights to Maldives and Sri Lanka. - OK

2)Citation was sought in February.- Ok.

3)None was provided. - Ya, that's true.

4)Web searched yielded no supporting information. - Mmm, i dont know....

5)This must be removed, unless a reference could be provided. - There is no special law to remove all unreferenced content. We can't say it is correct or not directly. That's why Citation was sought there. If everyone knows it is false it will be removed from there instead of asking citation. A reader can understand that. That sentence will not affect any problem to the world.

Point 4: The reference [4] have text directly copied from the article dating back to 2006, making it a circular reference. It is inadmissible as a reference, and must be removed.

1:The reference [5] have text directly copied from the article dating back to 2006, making it a circular reference. So what? There is two more references which shows it's true. If you think its wrong, give the latest reports. And remember, NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

And this time, please don't repeat your previous reasons here. I don't want to repeat all these once more. Cheers, Regards, Thank you... Lower4th . TalK  05:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanx for the rational arguments, Lower.

Points 1 and 2: The reference of point 2 clearly states that the tri-service command proposal is an extension of the older aerospace command. This fact MUST be mentioned in the article. Also, there is no reference for the strategic importance of the city from the citations. Please obtain them before that could be asserted. The two statements must be combined to reflect the fact as evidenced by the second reference.

Point 3: You are wrong. Wikipedia demands all information to be referenced. An editor have the right to seek one, and to demand the unreferenced information to be removed. You yourself (and many other editors too) have used that upon my edits in the past. You can't interpret rules to suit your POV. It doesn't matter how trivial the assertion is, still you must provide verifiable reference.

Point 4: The ref is acceptable for the statement of fourth hottest destination, so I am dripping the argument on that.

DileepKS(talk) 11:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought of staying away from this. Anyways, let me put my 2 cents.
1. and 2. Triservice command and aerospace command are not the same thing. Both are differnt things. Aerospace would be directly under the control of the AirForce. A fully fledged aerospace needs support from army and navy as well. The Tri-service command need not be under the full control of the AirForce. The CO for this is more likely to be on a rotation basis between army, nave and airforce (like the strategic forces command). Even though the proposal to setup a Tri-Service Command in Trivandrum might have originated from the proposed Aerospace command there, both are different things. So, I feel that the sentences need not be merged. The current sentences are good enough to convey the information.
3. An information added without a valid reference can be challenged and removed. So, Dileep may challenge / remove the sentence in question if you feel that it is not a Correct Information.
Thats all from me.. I am not going to pitch in again for counter arguments. Cheers; -- Aarem ^(Talk)

The cited reference for 2 says Earlier, there was a proposal to set up an Aerospace Command here, Air Marshal Savur said, adding that on account of the larger responsibility it had been decided to integrate all the three forces under a single command. Isn't it enough evidence that the Tri Service command is the newer avatar of the Aerospace Command? Doesn't this aspect need to be made clear?

DileepKS(talk) 11:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dileepks,

3)Yes, i know Wikipedia demands all information to be referenced. But for removing the unreferenced info, it must have to cause some harm to the society,...... etc OR some one have to challenge to remove it from the article. Usually, editors challenge very serious problems to remove it from the article if it cause some serious problems. Because there is BILLIONS of UN CITED content is in Wikipedia. How can all those can be removed? I don't know why you are trying this hard to remove that silly thing. It will not harm anyone. Do you believe it is not true? (it you provide that info, it would be easy to remove). "Citation required" tag is there and anyone can understand it is not completely true and if you give time anyone in the future (NOT SO FAR) would add the info.

And Wikilaws are Laws. I just mentioned the above thing. If you think it is not true, you can remove.

1&2) Yes it's true "Earlier, there was a proposal to set up an Aerospace Command here, Air Marshal Savur said, adding that on account of the larger responsibility it had been decided to integrate all the three forces under a single command." But The Hindu which is more reliable than Web India 123.com published the same news on the next day stating that, The chances of establilshing a tri-services command in the capital as a pre-cursor to a full-fledged aerospace command were also high.

Here it is:[6] Lower4th . TalK  13:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

lower fourth and cronies Please use civil language This is a global encyclopaedia not your coconut backyard. Lower fourth - yes it does not harm society nor does it benefit society So get rid of your crappy nonsense cos nobody is interested in our small world.

Dear LowerFourth. There is no Wiki concept of harmless material. WP:Verifiability clearly states that a reference is REQUIRED when CHALLENGED. The triviality of the claim is immaterial. I CHALLENGE that claim, and demand it be removed.

That Hindu ref is an excellent one, please re-phrase the claims according to that. There is no mention of strategic importance of the CITY anywhere. So, that must be removed. I propose the following edit based on the provided reference:

A Tri-Service command is proposed at the city, which would be expanded to a full fledged aerospace command. Proximity to international sea-routes and various facilities of the Indian Space Department gave the capital an edge over other cities to host the command

And no unverifiable claims please.

DileepKS(talk) 03:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dileep, Donot try to push your POV here. As Aarem said, Triservice command and Aerospace command are different things. From the citation it is evident that because of the proposal for an aerospace command there, setting up a Triservice command for greater responsibility is more easier. This doesnt means Aerospace command proposal is dropped and only Triservice command proposal stands.

Also, I am not understanding what is the problem with you on the strategic importance of the city? It is mentioned in the citation that setting up the command is because of the strategic importance of SAC.

Dileep, You are a Kochi booster and Trivandrum hater. Please go back to your forums like KochiNow and Skyscrapercity, if you cannot agree on consensus here. Regards, Sunil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.160.10 (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Strategic importance of SAC is NOT equal to strategic importance of CITY. And the reference doesn't say that the tri-service or aerospace command is happening because of the strategic importance either. And motives doesn't matter at Wikipedia. Verifiable facts does.

The two claims do not reflect the facts as available from the reference. They MUST be modified, whether it fits your POV or not.

DileepKS(talk) 05:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha.. Nice argument. The SAC is not in the CITY ? The strategic importance of the SAC came bacause of the location; which is the same that of the CITY. Please don't act stupid here. Wish you were mature enough to understand what all others are saying here. Regards, Sunil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.164.9 (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Calling someone stupid is not good wikiquette. The mention of strategic importance in the reference is not in context with the tri-service commands, and talking about location, SAC could very well have been at pretty much any place around the southern tip and served the same purpose. Nothing city specific about it. There is no evidence of the strategic importance of the city being mentioned in connection with the city, hence that assertion must go.

DileepKS(talk) 09:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Dileep, Please dont be stubborn. I really do not see any fairness in your suggestion. The strategic importance of the city lies in the fact that SAC is situated there. The city is close to international shipping route and air route. And being a capital city in such a location is its strategic importance. And it is due to this importance, the proposal was made to set up the commands there. Your argument, if SAC was in any other place, is irrelevant because SAC is in Trivandrum. We need not guess about if and then to contribute in wiki. I hope the discussion ends here. There are pretty more important things to do here. Cheers, -- Aarem ^(Talk) 11:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Aarem, the issue here is that the claims do not reflect what the references say. It would be too much of a tall claim to call "Due to the strategic importance of the city" based on what the references detail. The ref only says SAC have a chance of getting the proposed commands. We don't get any lead to justify the claim. If you wouldn't mind, propose a re-phrase considering the arguments raised.

About point 3, removal of uncited assertion doesn't really need any consensus. I am going to remove the statement on cargo flights, unless a reference is provided within 24 hours. Enough time had been given already, but the only argument we see is about the motive and/or triviality of the information, both of which are irrelevant.

DileepKS(talk) 06:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Man, the news paper report i mentioned above says, Proximity to international sea-routes and various facilities of the Indian Space Department gave the capital an edge over other cities.

An ordinary person can understand it is the strategic importance. It is the biggest city i the deep south of India and the biggest factor is it not an ordinary city, it is the Capital.

And how can the strategic importance of SAC will not be the strategic importance of the city? Man, SAC is in the city. Their technical center is about 6 KM from the city center and the proposed command is at Aakulam which is only about 4 - 5 KMs from the City center. And from the news paper report's its proven. Lower4th . TalK  15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames, Qualifiers Etc

Every place will have many nicknames. Some widely recognized, some not. To find a place in an encyclopedia, it must be widely known and used. "Gateway of Monsoon" is not one of them.

Yes, it was used in one book by an author with no special status. And there is no evidence of it being used anywhere else. Unless one can bring in evidence of wide recognition, the term can not be added. Do not put it back.

The editor mentioned "Evergreen City". that is already discussed on these pages. Do a google search and you can see widespread use. There is no comparison.

117.196.130.163 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I read the book "Chasing the Monsoon" By Alexander Frater, 1992 edition, and the name "Gateway of Monsoon DOES NOT appear in the book.

Being unreferenced, the caption will be deleted. If you want it reinstated, please add reference, including chapter/page number, so that it could be verified.

117.196.144.37 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor who is adamant to insert the title, seems to be totally unaware of how Wikipedia works. Please see Wikipedia:CITE to learn how to cite sources.

The source quoted by him does not have the phrase. I have a copy of the said book. So, either a scan of the page, or transcript of the actual paragraph need to be provided for verification. Burden of proof lies with the editor here.

And the issue of whether the information RELEVANT here comes after that. As mentioned earlier, just ONE author calling the city something, on ONE book doesn't qualify it to be a title of the city!!

I am sorry to mention that the editor ignored all the principles, including using civil language.

The title WILL NOT be allowed to stay.

117.196.138.149 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Tie-up with Barcelona Abandoned

The Twinning or Tie-up with Barcelona has expired and has been abandoned. Hence removing the mention from the Twinned cities table. See here: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/shashi-tharoor-denies-reports-on-mp-funds-spending/articleshow/9361163.cms - MountainWhiskey - talk 05:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The twinning is still on.. It is said that since there is no support from the LDF, the twinning is likely to be banned. Please show more references, if you still want to remove. --Samaleks (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Samaleks: First of all, the twinning was never really "ON".

The newslink above clearly quotes Tharoor as saying "However, the project could not be implemented due to lack of interest shown by the LDF in the state, he said. The agreement only required approval by Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation. But as a result of petty politics by Left dominated muncipal authorities, the agreement was allowed to lapse', he added.

It is very clear from the above news article that the Twinning Agreement is not taking off. Lapse & Not Implemented means NOT happening in simple English.

FYI also, this article is worth reading.

I have posted a link which clearly says that it is not happening. Since you object to that, please provide a recent link which says that the Twinning Agreement has been renewed or that some action is happening on it. Cheers & I am not interested in an edit war. Fellow editors, please take note and contribute! - MountainWhiskey - talk 05:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeking Clarification: Inclusion of KL 21 / 22 in City Page

Hi Aarem OR any other sensible Editor(s),

Just checking if KL 21 (Nedumangad) and KL 22 (Kazhakuttom) come under TRV City (Corp) limits? I am pretty sure Nedumangad does not come under Corp, but maybe a bit of Kazhakuttom? Please clarify, thanks - 14.96.184.149 (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)