Talk:Mumbai/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Name of the city

MUMBAI, which is the economic capital of INDIA.

Since Mumbai is no more officially known as Bombay, we can consider rephrasing the following part of sentence "Mumbai /mʊmˈbaɪ/, also known as Bombay" as "Mumbai /mʊmˈbaɪ/, previously known as Bombay"

Chaitrechait (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Chaitanya. Chaitrechait (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC) 03-Nov-2013

You can say that the official name was Bombay until 1996. But you can't say that it's previously known as Bombay since the city is still sometimes referred to by that name. It's not to us to say this is wrong or right. Actual usage and the official situation are two different things.--Wester (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Due to this issue continuously popping up, can it finally be put to rest now? The "also known as" right at the start in the lead has proven to be an inviting target of drive-by edits. I'm adding a comment there too and I really don't see any proper reason for adding "formerly known as". -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made it into "also known by its former name, Bombay", this seems like the most accurate wording compared to the other two choices. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not really right, either. "Bombay" isn't the former name, it's an older style Anglicization of the name. The form "Bombay" is also still in use in many places. --Khajidha (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me, besides you both, previously I recall there was one more user who supported this. Also I see that nobody is actively opposing it. But if this issue comes up again, for all its worth, I remember to direct them to this discussion. There has been some edit-warring over this before and I won't be surprised if it happens again. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Khajidha, I'm sorry, I don't see the connection between your recent removal of material about the name "Bombay" and this discussion. I don't have strong feelings either way, but I'd appreciate knowing why you removed that material. Also, for what it's worth, in my opinion, "also known by its former name, Bombay" sounds nonsensical. If a substantial number of people still call the city "Bombay", then "also known as Bombay" would be correct. (I have to say, though, that "Mumbai" is a little difficult for English speakers to pronounce; "Bombay" is easier to say and has a more pleasant sound; personally, I'm sorry the name was changed.) CorinneSD (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This topic ISN'T related to that removal, the section at the bottom of the page is. --Khajidha (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

I have removed the following text from the etymology section. The removed section has citation needed tags on statements that contradict cited statements in the second paragraph of the etymology section. "A widespread popular etymology of Bombay holds that it was derived from a Portuguese name meaning "good bay", as bom is Portuguese for "good" and baía (or the archaic spelling bahia) means "bay". This cannot be correct, as baía is a feminine noun, and the feminine form of "good" is boa, so the actual Portuguese would be boa baía. Portuguese scholar José Pedro Machado in his Dicionário Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa ("Portuguese Dictionary of Onomastics and Etymology", 1981) rejects the bom bahia hypothesis, suggesting that the presence of a bay was a coincidence (rather than a basis of the toponym) and led to the misconception that the noun bahia, "bay", was an integral part of the Portuguese name. However, it has also been pointed out that baim, as in Bombaim above, is an archaic Portuguese masculine word for "little bay"." --Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you removed all this material. There are several "citation needed" tags in the material that remains in the Etymology section, and the second part of this material has two sources. CorinneSD (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the etymology section states that Bombay is derived from "bom baia", this states that that is impossible. These are two definitive statements that contradict each other, they cannot both remain in the article as is. I simply removed the section with cn tags. One could put all of this material into a single paragraph that says that the "bom baia" hypothesis is popular, but appears to have some flaws. --Khajidha (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. However, if you write, "...but appears to have some flaws," won't some readers want to know what those flaws are? I think the part you removed was a bit wordy, anyway, and I agree that it kind of went in circles. What do you think of the part giving José Pedro Machado's ideas? Regarding the last sentence that starts "However, it has also been pointed out...," I think that's interesting for two reasons: 1) because the masculine adjective "bom" goes with the masculine noun "baim" and 2) because, I believe, a final "m" in Portuguese is not pronounced as strongly as is a final "m" in English, so "baim" with a barely pronounced "m" would approach the sound of "bay" in "Bombay". CorinneSD (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Khajidha's suggestion that two definitive, contradictory statements can't coexist in an article, that's not always true: competing views can be included in an article with attributions (with citations, of course). As in "Joe said blah. But Suresh said blahblah." Multiple views should be included, to provide balance, if the views are from reliable sources and properly cited. The article shouldn't choose a side by saying one view has flaws, unless that opinion is also attributed to an expert and properly cited.

However, the paragraph that Khajidha deleted wasn't well cited or communicated. The first sentence might have been based on the same source as the third sentence, since the third sentence addresses the hypothesis, but no citation was given for the first sentence. The second sentence sounds like opinionated rubbish, being too absolute to be credible, and cites no source. The third sentence seems relevant, except that it's responding to a theory in the first sentence that was removed due to having no citation. The fourth and final citation is just unclear – it says "it has been pointed out" without saying who pointed it out, and the sentence discusses the meaning of an archaic portuguese term without making it clear whether the cited source or the Wikipedia author was pointing out its connection to "Bombaim". The actual source has a detailed discussion about Bombay's etymology, including who said what, but I think the information/argument was boiled down too much into a single vague sentence the Wikipedia article. That's just my opinion though; I think it has too little detail, and CorinneSD above found the paragraph "too wordy". :-) Agyle (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD: I wasn't trying to give the exact phrasing, just the general thrust of the rewrite. Of course any flaws in or objections to the theory should be spelled out. What I was pointing out is that you cannot say that Bombay is definitely derived from Portuguese in one sentence and that it most assuredly was not derived from Portuguese in another.

Agyle: Those aren't definitive statements. Those are reports of opinions. If the paragraphs were phrased as such it would satisfy me. --Khajidha (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps when I said the paragraph was "wordy" I meant that it contained several sentences that did not seem to cohere, and each sentence by itself was insufficient to explain the etymology. If you both think a thorough discussion of the etymology of "Bombay" is needed, then we need a coherent paragraph and we need to find sources for each statement. Would it be possible to find the editor who added these sentences to begin with and see if he/she has the sources? If not, then, Argyle, does the source you mentioned have sufficient material that the needed information can be paraphrased from that source? Or do we need more than one source? Perhaps we need to do a little searching. Khajidha, don't opinions as well as statements of fact need to be sourced? Including opinions is fine, but we need to be able to say who said what, as Argyle said. As an aside, I think just the fact that no one seems to know definitively where the name "Bombay" comes from is interesting in itself, and that presenting the various ideas makes for interesting reading. CorinneSD (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, opinions need to be sourced. But there is a huge difference here that you are missing. For example, I could not have an article that states "The sky is blue" in one sentence and "The sky is green" in another. I could have an article that states "Prof. Doofus says that the sky is blue" in one sentence and "Dr. Dimwit says that the sky is green" in another. --Khajidha (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not missing anything. I see that the first sentence describes "a widespread popular etymology" (but does not give a source, as it should); the second sentence (presumably added by someone who knows Portuguese) calls that into question (in a rather absolute tone, which Agyle pointed out) due to a point of grammar; this sentence is also not sourced; the third sentence, which is sourced, gives Machado's idea that the presence of a bay had nothing to do with the name of the city; the fourth sentence ("However, it has also been pointed out...") gives another piece of information related to Portuguese vocabulary that gives some support to the idea that "bom" and "baim" (which go together grammatically) might be the explanation for "Bombay", kind of supporting the first sentence. These are all ideas of different people. The problem is that for the first and second sentences, the name of the person who put forth the idea and the source are not given. Because of that missing information, the paragraph ends up being vague and confusing. I think it is all right that you removed those sentences until such time as the missing information can be added. I agree with Agyle that it is all right to have conflicting explanations in an article as long as we know who said what and in what reference it appeared. Either you agree with that, or you think the sentences should be left out permanently. Is there another alternative? Also, perhaps more details need to be added (as Agyle suggested), rather than fewer. Also, I'd enjoy hearing your responses to the suggestions and questions in my previous comment. CorinneSD (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Without a name or citation the sentence "This cannot be correct, as baía is a feminine noun, and the feminine form of "good" is boa, so the actual Portuguese would be boa baía." is not a statement of opinion, it is a bare statement of fact. A fact which contradicts statements made earlier. I repeat, if the paragraph were rephrased to say something like "Dr. Soandso argues that this cannot be correct, as baía is a feminine noun, and the feminine form of "good" is boa, so the actual Portuguese would be boa baía." I would have no problem with it. It is the presentation of the statement as a fact and not as an opinion or argument that I object to. At no point have I argued that the objections to the theory be left out, only that they be presented properly so as to make a coherent whole and not a confusing, conflicting mishmash. --Khajidha (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, and I don't think Agyle would disagree with you. You are arguing with two editors who don't disagree with you. All I said is I think we should be looking for the names of the people who said those things, and the sources. CorinneSD (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2014

Mumbai is the sixth most populous city in the world, not fifth Noobswag99 (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2014

203.192.249.7 (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

I would like to add this in native_name: मुंबई thanks 94.205.102.166 (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as would contravene WP:INDICSCRIPTS - Arjayay (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

Marine Drive, Mumbai, India

Arunthumbayil (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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. — Abhishek  ^Talk 12:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest that this photo is added, you will need to suggest where in the article it should be put, what the caption should be, and obtain consensus for that on this page - we have numerous photos of Mumbai, and cannot show them all. - Arjayay (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2014

I know this

thank 65.95.40.177 (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Settlement type

Mega city status update for Mumbai, as the population crossed 1billion. Ref: Population of UAs/Towns (5. Mega Cities) definition.--Vin09 (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2014

Ridership per day for Mumbai metro is 7.5 million daily. 99.226.24.79 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2014

Malini Kaushik (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Spelling correction request in Notes - History of Midieval India, p. 126 to History of Medieval India, p. 126

Done and thanks for catching that Cannolis (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015

Mumbai Metro image caption should add the year of opening - currently it shows only the opening date and month (8th of June)
PrimusUrbisIndis 09:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added. Thanks, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

In the first line, please change 'also known as Bombay' to 'formerly known as Bombay' 103.225.100.51 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done See archived discussions about this: [1].--Earlgrey T (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Metropolis" term misused

The article indicates a "metropolis" population of about 12.8M. This is the population of the municipal corporation, or the "city of Mumbai." Metropolis is a synonym for metropolitan area and should not be used to denote a part of the metropolitan area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.159.70 (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Nicknames ... utterly incorrect.

I live here and the one and only famous nickname for Bombay is

"THE MAXIMUM CITY"

it's what everyone calls it, of course, obviously.

Many of the other items listed under "nicknames" are really silly.

For example, Mumbai is the film center of India - it is Bollywood - but nobody would ever say "India's Hollywood!" as a nickname. it's just silly.

For example, you might say that Melbourne is the "paris of Australia" and people often say that, or they say "Australia's most European city". But it's not in any sense a "nickname".

It's rather insulting / peurile to describe Mumbai that way (the film one) ... the Indian film industry is massive, ever expanding, powefful, and these days far more dynamic than the Hollywood scene. To make an example, you wouldn't call London .. "the Wall St of Europe!". Nor would you call Tokyo regarding copuyer games "The seattle of Japan!" .. it just doesn't make sense.

in any event, it's quite simply **not** a nickname .. it's more along the lines of, as in my example, "Melbourne is the Paris of Europe" .. type of thing. Hardly a "nickname".

It's a very bad list and needs to be changed!

Again, everyone knows, everyone says, Bombay is the "Maximum City" - obviously. it's as common as NY being the big apple or chicago the windy city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.25.178 (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Bus image

I have spent hours adding the category BEST to images on the Wikimedia Commons. Please have a look if you intend to replace the image of the 56 right now. I will be adding more images to the category soon. Also, please do not replace the image with that of an NMMT bus. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2015

I don't think this article showcase the Mumbai truly, its the best city of India and no good picture is shown in the article, there are many places that we can show to tell people what the real Mumbai is. I just watched other big cities of world they have done it superbly, but Mumbai, being the alpha world city isn't show truly, I request you let me add some pictures that shows what the Mumbai is. Thank you, Ayush Bhat Tfeayush (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 14:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tfeayush: If you have any good images, please upload them to the Wikimedia Commons, and then list them out here and then maybe we can discuss this issue. Also, please do not upload copyrighted images. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks, --Rsrikanth05, let me add some pics that are already in the Wikimedia Commons, I checked them out some of them are pretty good, so till I get some un-copyrighted pictures, I am adding some of them. Tfeayush (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss the addition of newer images here. Please avoid cluttering the article with a flurry of images. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead regarding name Bombay

Lead mentions that "Mumbai(also known as Bombay)" which is officially wrong, Mumbai was "formerly" known as "Bombay" not "also". Like they rightly wrote in article Kolkata(formerly Calcutta), in article Chennai(formerly Madras). Same rule should apply to Mumbai. Thank you. --Human3015 16:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey there again. Nope, we had consensus at this old discussion at Talk:Mumbai/Archive_15#Etymology. So if you disagree, you'll have to start a new discussion or use this one. I've took part in the old one but otherwise I'm neutral as to what has to be changed. -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

We are not really removing word "Bombay" from the lead, its a fact that "Bombay" was "former" name of "Mumbai". Simplest logic we can apply is that in article Kolkata they wrote (formerly Calcutta) while Kolkata is still widely known as Calcutta. Better option could be like in Chennai they wrote both "also known as formerly Madras". Ugog Nizdast it is nice that you are neutral. Human3015 17:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm but you might want to check Bangalore or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Like I said before, I'm busy today, maybe tomorrow will be free. I'm assuming to want to start a new discussion? Then message the others involved in the old discussion to come here. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Instead of messaging all, if this page is on their watchlist or they are still interested in this matter, they will automatically come for discussion, like you came automatically. Just wait for couple of days before making change. We will wait for interested people. Cheers. --Human3015 17:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Would be great if you read the entire earlier discussion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have read it, there should be official reference that "Mumbai is also known as Bombay", there is not a single reference for that. But there are several references for "Mumbai was formerly known as Bombay". You may talk about "Bombay High Court" etc but its a name of court not city. So I think that word "formerly" is the proper word. --Human3015 18:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think these BBC, The New York Times and The Guardian articles will help you. Mumbai/Bombay? - BBC , also Mumbai Not Bombay -The New York Times, also Bombay or Mumbai? How UK media outlets are finally moving with the times - The Guardian . Thank you. --Human3015 19:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Several institutions, [the HC, Bombay High] still use the word Bombay, it is still used in the media [albeit controversially], and several institutions like BEST/BMC still retain the B from Bombay in their abbreviation [although the B now stands for Brihanmumbai]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

In the "Utility services" section, the last sentence is: "Mumbai has highest number of internet users in India with 16.4" while it should be: "Mumbai has the highest number of internet users in India with 16.4 million." or "Mumbai is the Indian city with the most internet users, at 16.4 million." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.224.248.201 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Demonym

A user added Mumbaiite as a demonym, and another user added a ref. Ever since, an IP has been repeatedly removing it, adding a comment stating it is not common. Please discuss the issue here first. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is very common and used by many mumbaiites and many esteemd Mumbai news papers.Prymshbmg (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that other demonyms, including Bombayite are listed on the demographics section, perhaps it is better to leave this out of the infobox. However, let us see what others have to say. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Bombayite and Mumbaikar are more commonly used, Mumbaiite is sparsely used and yet to get the traction of the other two. —SpacemanSpiff 17:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So which do you suggest remain in the Infobox? Just Mumbaikar? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

All or none I'd think. While the first two are in wide use (and about equal), the third is still in minority use. —SpacemanSpiff 17:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• So we should add all three in the infobox.Prymshbmg (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Karthikndr:, @Trinidade:. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Mumbaiite is not yet as common as the other two words. Bombayite is the older english word while Mumbaikar has marathi origins. Mumbaiite is a mix up of the two and I think we should leave it out of the Infobox for now. If we are going to have more than one demonym in the infobox, i'd rather prefer Mumbaikar and Bombayite. Trinidade (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This is also an acceptable option for me. —SpacemanSpiff 06:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Pinging new user Prasannarane61993 who just removed it from the infobox. Join this discussion. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User seems to be the same IP who was edit warring yesterday. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Koli vs Agri Koli change in etymology

Neither the original nor the new version is supported by the source, it's at best conjecture in the voice of Wikipedia. Either a source has to be found or the mother tongue of "this community" bit has to go. —SpacemanSpiff 17:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The fact that Marathi is the official language of the state should suffice. Deleting that community bit.—Trinidade (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

What kind of a source are we looking for here? My main contention is that, when Mumbai was probably coined, Maharashtra did not exist. Thus, the name came from the language spoken by the locals, the Koli fisherfolk. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The new reference added

पण या सर्व कथांपैकी सगळ्यात सयुक्तिक कथा म्हणजे पूर्वी मुंबई परिसरात कोळी-आगरी समाजाचं मोठ्या प्रमाणावर वास्तव्य होतं. पैकी कोळी समाजातील मुंगा किंवा मोंगु नावाच्या एखाद्या कोळीणीने या देवीचा स्थापना केली असावी आणि तिच्याच नावाने ही देवी मुंगादेवी म्हणून नावारूपाला आली असावी. मात्र पुढे कालौघात मुंगाचा मुंबा असा अपभ्रंश झाला असावा. कोळी समाजात आजही मुंगा, मोंगु अशी नावं सापडत असल्याने, मुंबईची ग्रामदेवता असलेल्या मुंबादेवीचं नाव कोळी समाजातूनच आलेलं असावं; हीच तिच्या नावाची उपपत्ती संशोधकांनाही योग्य वाटते[2]

is far more nuanced than our statement makes it out to be. In addition, it says that this is the most popular version of the etymology, not the only one. I'm not entirely sure that this content belongs in its current form but am also not sure yet as to how it ought to be addressed, @Trinidade: do you have access to any sources for this? My books don't seem to cover the etymology. —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I can ask a few of my Marathi research associates for some sources.I'll get into that later today. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)`

Image in box

The image in the infobox has been deleted. Please find an alternate one: Deletion details: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mumbai_Montage.jpg --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pinging: @SpacemanSpiff:, @Karthikndr:, @Trinidade:. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: I think we would be able to find many pictures from Commons; Gateway, CST, Haji Ali, Marine Drive in the Bottom of Collage. Other suggestions are welcome. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left the caption in the infobox. It can be used for the other images. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added a new image Nikkul (talk)

Thank ye, kind editor. --04:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Mumbai vs Bombay argument

Over the last few months, we have seen repeated instances of minor edit warring where people have been trying to remove the 'also known as' bit and replace it with 'was', or 'formerly' in the opening sentence. In order to avoid this, I have reworded to intro to say Mumbai, (also known by its former name, Bombay). What are your opinions on this matter? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO it should say "also known as" since Bombay isn't just a former name, even in India, but a current name, used by entities such as Bombay High Court (official website: http://www.bombayhighcourt.nic.in/ ) and Bombay Stock Exchange (official website: http://www.bseindia.com/ ). Thomas.W ^talk 07:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"Also known as" would be the right syntax here, at Chennai, Kolkata, Odisha, etc etc —SpacemanSpiff 08:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the Chennai page addresses it best with "also known as" pointing to the list of renames done. Though that list requires a lede to provide better context. —SpacemanSpiff 08:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what I had done, I had linked the also known as to the list of renamed cities. As for former name, entities such as BSE and the HC are independent. They have no obligation to use the city name. This proposal is only because of the off late increase in the number of chauvinists editing the page anonymously. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

"no obligation to use" doesn't change the fact that they use the other name. Article content shouldn't be decided by chauvinists, POV pushers, or vandals. "also known as" is the correct representation and should stay, irrespective of whether fringe elements like it or not. —SpacemanSpiff 09:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Good to see that this issue got revisited once again. I think we should make some kind of a notice on top of this talk page linking all the necessary discussion pages (like Talk:India/FAQ). Here Talk:Mumbai/Archive 15#Etymology the very same thing was proposed. Didn't dig into the older archives. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A very good idea. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice box draft

I've made it based on this and the other discussion which I know of. It turns out, in 2011, the wording was "formerly known as". If no issues with it, I'll add it later. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the piped link for "also known as" provides sufficient context for "former official name". It might not be a bad idea to use the same format of FAQ text for any other article where such edits happen. One other alternative may be to expand it to "also known by the former official name Bombay" or something that reads better than what I can come up with. —SpacemanSpiff 10:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Almost what I had suggested in my original edit, except, I did not use former and official. Just former. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

When you can discuss without indulging in polemics, we can revisit this section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mumbai was the oldest name of city when locals use to call it "mumba aai cha gao" mean "village of mumba aai" then portuguese name it bombahia mean "good bay" then corrupted to Meaningless name "Bombay" by britisher. In 1996 the name changed to Mumbai from name of holy goddess mumbadevi (mumba+aai=mumbai) goddess of native first settelement koli,agri people. then its clear that Mumbai is original name not accepted by migrants because of their racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Can you please learn to be civil? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC) civil yes i am civil but i have studied people mindset of patna,bihar where i lived three years and how they treated me so i have some experiences that has made me strong to stand tall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC) THis is NOT the correct forum for you to talk about your life experiences. This is an encyclopedia, please treat it as one. Please read WP:NOT. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC) you asked me personal question so was the answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Yes Law is there Censorship see http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150213/entertainment-bollywood/article/here%E2%80%99s-list-words-banned-censor-board-india bans use of bombay name by Government Of Maharashtra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC) 1. I never asked a personal question. 2. Censorship is not the law. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC) what a joke Government makes law to censor film but then also see The Central Board of Film Certification comes under Ministry of Information and Broadcasting proves it is a law.Your Questioning bias as Government always acts through law example according to you beef ban should not be law but it is in Maharashtra animal preservation act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC) I used word "censorship" but let me make you clear its not censor ship but The Central Board of Film Certification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC) please refer again to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/150213/entertainment-bollywood/article/here%E2%80%99s-list-words-banned-censor-board-india will make you clear what i am saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Ultimately I won the debate. Thankyou.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC) You have not 'won' any debate. Just because the I&B ministry censured one word, that does 'NOT make it illegal to use that word. Your distorted view of the law is plain stupid. I'm pinging more admins to be part of this discussion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I think current proposal also known by its former name Bombay is good one. Some people giving argument about "Bombay High court" and "Bombay Stock Exchange", but one should be clear that "Bombay high court" is not city court, its court for entire Maharashtra state. High court is still known as Bombay HC by its "former" name. You can see address on official website of Bombay High Court. We can say "Bombay High Court is in Mumbai". Still buildings are known as "Bombay Stock Exchange" and "Bombay High Court" not the city. Still many people call Mumbai by its former name Bombay, thats why lead should speak also known by its former name, Bombay. Is there any evidence that Mumbai as a city officially known as "Bombay"? No. Even official website of Bombay High Court gives their address as "Mumbai". But court is still known by "former" name "Bombay".--Human3015 knock knock • 19:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  Nobody has said That the city is known by its former name officially. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thats fine, "Bombay" was "former" official name, but still Mumbai also known by its former name Bombay, so what you have proposed is good. Moreoever, what is the stand of community on another common name Bambai? Bambai is also most commonly used in north India. So we can't add all names, a city can be known by many names, it is un-disputed fact that "Bombay" or "Bambai" are "Former" names of Mumbai, but if those former names are still in use then we should mention it but properly. The current proposed version is most neutral and I think should satisfy everyone. Current proposed version includes both words "Also" and "Former". Both words are correct. --Human3015 knock knock • 20:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Central board of film certification comes under culture ministry of central and state government and their decision to ban the words listed cannot be violated and if violated punishment will be given.But today situation is that wrong teaching have been given in schools example they say "hindi is our national language" which is a lie proof go to India locked Wikipedia page and also in India constitution doesn't specify any language as National.but then also people spread lies which are accepted.India shame! Today other state people in their own interest decide for a state what to do not to do?

• Fresh proposal that incorporates what we've discussed:

Mumbai (/mʊmˈbaɪ/), also known as Bombay (the official name until 1995), is the capital city....

• I think this reads a bit better than a clunky piped introduction to Bombay. —SpacemanSpiff 03:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  Bambai technically was the Hindi word for Bombay. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Marathi is Official language so mumbai is only official name.According to you we will also give marathi names to cities of UP Bihar and then specify it as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasannarane61993 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, please sign your comments. Marathi being the official language has NOThing to do with the above discussion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Censor board related comments

Central board of film certification comes under culture ministry of central and state government and their decision to ban the words listed cannot be violated and if violated punishment will be given.But today situation is that wrong teaching have been given in schools example they say "hindi is our national language" which is a lie proof go to India locked Wikipedia page and also in India constitution doesn't specify any language as National.but then also people spread lies which are accepted.India shame!

Today other state people in their own interest decide for a state what to do not to do? -- Unsigned comment by User:PrasannaRane61993

1. Please learn to sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. You have been reminded of this, on multiple occasions. 2. This dicussion is done and dusted. As I pointed out, if you can show me where the law states that such words cannot be used, please do so. You can use hhtp://lawmin.nic.in for it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)