Talk:Mumbai/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Tremendous amount of High quality References have been added to the History section. Any suggestions, additions are welcomed. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 05:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Images need to be aligned in all possible directions in an oscillatory serpentine fashion. Kensplanet^T_C 06:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks weird to me. I searched for it but could not find an FA that uses it. There was some discussion on in Wikipedia, but it does not look like a well-accepted stuff.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I myself am not comfortable with the template. But we cannot help it since we are not using the {{

harvnb

}} template for books. If you check REF23

Dwivedi, Sharada; Rahul Mehrotra (2001). Bombay: The Cities Within. Eminence Designs.
It has been referenced 6 times. All References have different page Numbers. How do we solve this then. The current rp template seems to solve this problem. Something different for Harvnb since all books go in a seperate section below References.
One solution could be including the citation just after the sentence : These islands, were in turn leased to the British East India Company in 1668 for a sum of £10 per annum by the Royal Charter of 27 March 1668 (Dwivedi & Mehrotra 2001, p. 21). The population quickly rose from 10,000 in 1661, to 60,000 in 1675.
Although scholarly, but not popular, wastes spaces and is embarassing and uncomfortable for many readers.
But for implementing HARVNB as in Mangalore FA, the entire article will have to be restructured. It will consume a lot of time and is not much required. Mysore uses this kind of template. Kensplanet^T_C 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I can help in using Harvnb and associated templates, if this change sounds good. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The {{

harvnb}} with websites/news reports athat don't have an author ? Or do, we we use the template only for books and journal papers ? Abecedare (talk

) 18:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am jsut picking one article from FAc:

Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Its clear that Harvnb need to be used only or Books whose page nos go on varying depending on the statement. It need not be used for Online Websites/news etc...Kensplanet^T_C

19:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be using cite book (as against Harvard reference), which is usually good if a url like google book link is available. But, if Harvnb is used, it will show a link in notes section, but that link target will work only if Harvard reference is used. Else, if cite book is used, typically we can use ref like <ref>Writer, p. 150</ref> as this FAc is using. --GDibyendu (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Kens actually used Harvnb for a source. But then I told that if we use Harvnb, we have to use them in all book sources, in order to maintain regularity of ref style. Now, the article already has many cite book refs, and converting them to Harvnb will taks a lot of time. Given that we are in a FAR, my opinion was to try to improve the article overall and provide new references, rather than giving a lot of time to concert to Harvnb. However, Harvnb is definitely preferred choice. On the other hand, if we use cite book (with rp as needed), time needed will be much less. In case we decided to convert all present book refs to Harvnb, we can ask the FAR to give some more time than usual, as active work is going on. Still, it would take a lot of our time. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, as such I can spend time on doing this. But, there are issues. 1) Suketu Mehta's book has been cited twice, but the two use different publishers and isbns: if someone has access to this book, then please confirm that both citations appear in that or not. 2) Typically, the link generated by harvnb reads as 'lastname, year'. What should it be for Manorama yearbook?--GDibyendu (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not compulsory that HARVNB should always have the (last name Year, p. xyz) format. For Manorama yearbook, it should be, (Malyalam Manorama 2003, p. 21). HARVNB sometimes can also have title of the book, instead of the preferred last name style. This is preferred for Government sources and PDFs, who do not have authors. In such cases, we can just mention title of the PDF, (Crime statistics 2004, p. 5). We can adjust HARVNB as per our convenience. Kensplanet^T_C 08:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Dwapayanc, its better to continue with harvnb. Readers reading our articles may not be interested in Page nos. For them only the Prose and text matters. As already mentioned by Abecadare, for citing a range of pages ^{: pp. 213-215}, it looks ugly Kensplanet^T_C 08:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am now done with the cite books except that I left out 5-6 links from Maharashtra Gazetteer links, which I believe should be cite web (though I did not change them to cite web).--GDibyendu (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Great work GDibyendu!!!. Gazetters also have to be in the Reference section since they are high quality published books not ordinary low quality web pages. I'll soon move it. Anyway, do books without Page nos constitute as valid references. Some books do not have Page nos Kensplanet^T_C 13:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that some books do not have page numbers mentioned. But, I do not have copies or those are accessible in google books. I tried to check if a copy of Manorama yearbook can be procured or downloaded, but did not succeed in either. Maybe I should move to computer related projects, where I have books and ebooks :) --GDibyendu (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know what sections or aspects of the article still need work ? I am going to be busy till mid-week, but can put in some hours after that. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Some new 'citation needed' tag has been added. We need ref for those. I think that's all for now. BTW, someone change the pic in Infobox today. Personally, I think it is not a better pic than previous one.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to address that later this week (unless someone beats me to it :) )

As for the infobox image: I would prefer using a Gateway of India image there since that seems to most common symbol of the city; but I don't really have a strong opinion on the issue. Most of the images in the article are pretty poor, and it would be good if we can look for alternatives at some point. Abecedare (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is with reference to [1]

How could you remove 11 Citations and 2,440 bytes? Please do not revert to previous revisions henceforth thisway.

Regarding your statement reverted img edits. please discuss on talk page before making such drastic edits to a featured article

There is no need to discuss anything now. This is on a FAR. Break the rules. But save the article from being delisted. Kensplanet^T_C 10:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. This page is not going to get delisted! If you look at the

WP:FA

guidelines, this page is one of the best featured articles out there!

Some images are gone again. How often does this happen! Hometech (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that User:Nikkul has done similar mass reversions of sourced content before and been warned about it. I suggest that if he repeats his disruptive editing, we propose that he be topic ban from this (and possibly other Indian city) pages. Abecedare (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry the mass revert was an honest mistake. There is no need to get upset. I have put a lot of effort into making this page the best article it could-- it would be stupid for me to make disruptive edits on this article! (And I don't intend to).

I have left a message on User:Hometechs page asking him to please discuss his image additons on the talk page before he inserts them on the main page. The addition of undiscussed images to this article by new users will only decrease the quality of the article, especially when it is under Featured Article Review. Nikkul (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the need to discuss the ancient statue images. There's none so i added 2. Hometech (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a need to discuss important changes here before you make them on the page. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be complete chaos if everyone added whatever they like! Thanks for discussing on the talk page. Happy editing! Nikkul (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. But If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. In this case, the rule is the discussion. Ignore it if it prevents you from improving the page atleast for now in this FAR. Kensplanet^T_C 07:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think we need one more image in the History section showing the development of the city. I would suggest the following images. However, any image showing some development will do. Kensplanet^T_C 18:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Kanheri Caves served as a centre of Buddhism during ancient times (Ancient Period, Ashoka)
• 
  The

  Haji Ali Dargarh was built in 1431, when Mumbai was under the Gujarat Sultanate

  (Medieval Period)
• 
  Ships in

  Bombay Harbour

  (c. 1731) (British period, Any image showing development of the city will do)
• 
  Samyukta Maharashtra

  movement (Post-independence)

The reason being the Gateway Image is already present in the montage. Repeating it cannot be tolerated. Secondly, we haven't mentioned anything about GOI in the History section. So, having it is violation of policies. The GOI doesn't have extreme historical significance. It was just built to commemorate the arrival of King George V and Queen Mary in India in 1911. I strictly suggest removal. Kensplanet^T_C 19:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

GOI is the place from where the last British troops ceremoniously exited India. What is not so "extreme historic(ally) significant" about that?

Pizzadeliveryboy (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway. GOI already appears in the Montage. So, it cannot be repeated again. Kensplanet^T_C 09:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Before the adding/removal thing kicks off again, how about a discussion? I think the image is appropriate - it adds to the text and covers an internationally important aspect of Mumbai. Khcf6971 (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I, as a reviewer at the recent FAC had pointed out that this page lacked an image of Mumbai slums, where 60% of the population lives, while having several generic shots of Mumbai highrises/skyline. The File:Dharavi Slum in Mumbai.jpg seems to be a good addition to me, since it is not just a bland image of a row of shacks, but depicts depicts bustling life and activity. Of course, if somebody has other image(s) to propose, we can discuss them too, but I am not sure why the image is being repeatedly removed from this page. Given User:Nikkul's long term disruption at this page, is it time to implement a page ban ? See earlier discussions: 1, 2. Abecedare (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Yes, an image of Dharavi was identified as important at FAC review, and the image was initially added per that. And I concur with the addition, I was going to report User:Nikkul for 3RR but decided not to, as I wasn't aware of any history. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And to add on, I would support a topic ban related to Indian cities + India. The same thing happened on Talk:Chennai too. First it was open a TP discussion, now he ignores this and reverts again. This is the second 3RR vio in three days. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Support the inclusion of the image, but would go further and suggest consideration of its inclusion in the montage, in place of one of the two skyline shots, if technically feasible. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I have been a productive member on Wikipedia for the last three years. AT-LEAST 50 percent of images on the Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, New Delhi, Bangalore, Hydrabad, etc. were added by ME. I have contacted hundreds of Flickr users and brought their images to Wikipedia. So DO NOT tell me I'm a "disruptive user" when no one else has bothered to bring decent images to Wikipedia India City pages.

Secondly, I agree that we should include a Dharavi image. BUT you can't just add any random image on here without discussion about THAT SPECIFIC image. This is pure Wikipedia rules.

We have always discussed SPECIFIC images before adding them. Why not do the same for this one?

My opposition to this specific image: What does a alley in Dharavi with people wandering around show? Is there anything unique about that? This image could just as well be a slum in Sao Paulo or Johannesburg, or Rio or Bogota, or Karachi or Mexico City...

Nikkul (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason you are disruptive, despite some good contributions. You act as if you own the articles, you belittle other people's contributions and finally top it off with sanctimonious prattle about being the only one on Wikipedia who is concerned with the betterment of the project. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 13:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh Really? When have I acted as if I "own" the article? I have always insisted that things be discussed specifically before they are added to the page. And if you have a problem with that, please discuss that at Village Pump because that is purely Wikipedia policy.

If you would like to continue arguing, please post it on my talk page and I'd be happy to reply to you. Otherwise, please help find better photos of Dharavi. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

support the inclusion. agree with Hamiltonstone that it should be included in the montage. would support similar images for all Indian cities. dont understand this perpetual denial from some. --

I C

21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please add your opinion here. Let's get consensus here about the best image for the Demographics section instead of edit waring on the main page.

Please wait for consensus here before adding any images on the main page.

• 
  Image #1
• 
  Image #2

For Image 1

• Nikkul (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Per Nikkul. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

For Image 2

• I prefer the current choice (i.e. Image 2) since it gives a better idea of the construction of the housing/shops, alleyways, electric infrastructure, street-side commerce and bustling life in the slums. Abecedare (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• As a choice between 1 and 2, I prefer 2, but I've also proposed another alternative below. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• I prefer 2, as above it shows more of the infrastructure. Khcf6971 (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• I prefer Image2. It shows infrastructure, houses, economy. Image1 shows only economy. Kensplanet^T_C 09:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• I prefer image 2 per the above ***Adam*** (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Another option

Image 1 in the Montage, Image 2 in the article

• But if it comes to just one of the two, them I'm going with Image 2, comments below. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I personally support Image 1 because:

• Shows Dharavi, an important township in Mumbai
• shows Dharavi's economic nature. Dharavi is not just a slum. It's a business hub as well, generating more than a billion dollars in GDP
• shows the disparities in Mumbai's demographics
• shows "blue collar" economy...the economy and the livelihood of the poor
• shows Indian culture- pottery.

I personally oppose Image 2 because:

• It only shows people walking
• There is no subject in this image
• This alleyway could be any slum in the world. Nothing unique to Mumbai, nor Dharavi. Nikkul (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments 2

I personally support a combination of both or Image 2 alone:

• Image 1 does not work on its own because:
  • It doesn't show Dharavi, it shows a couple of shops in Dharavi, and therefore a very small aspect of it.
  • Doesn't show any disparity, this could be any place from Mumbai to Jhansi to Chittoor to Malgudi.
  • It shows blue collar economy, but not Dharavi/Mumbai
• Image 2 is better because:
  • The subject is Dharavi, the bustling streets and alleyways
  • If it gets confused with Sao Paolo, then there's just the parallel for similar slums in multiple cities
  • It shows Dharavi.

However, Image 1 is visually pleasing and shows another aspect of Mumbai - small shops and traders, therefore, it is a good picture to have in the Montage as suggested by both Hamiltonstone and L I C. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support pots image for montage FAC pointed out that Taj hotel is repeated. Hometech (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose pots image for montage: The Pot images doesn't represent the Economy of Bombay in general. So, I oppose addition. Kensplanet^T_C 09:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a disagreement within the article on when the renaming took place (toponymy para 1 vs. article heading para 2); other sources tend to indicate the official rename was late 1995 but the heading section shows 1996. StrontiumDogs (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

The article is plagued by some anti-marathi editors who are putting up nonsense like Bhimdev brought Pathare prabhus from Gujrat to Mumbai. That is not true. Pathare prabhus are not gujjus. The language used on board near Gateway is Marathi, devnagari is the name of script which Marathi uses. Thirdly, Hutatma chowk is itself a iconic landmark,it doesnt need to be supplemented by flora fountain.

Lastly Marathi is the sole official language of state and widely spoken.Its speakers make the biggest chunk of the city. Putting sentences like 16 major indian languages are spoken and clubbing them with Marathi is foolish. Thats not unique to Mumbai. Major cities of India like Delhi, Kolkata, Bengaluru all have speakers of all major indian languages residing in them. Please keep these marathi haters out of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.20.44 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My Request

Do not encourage the above person's request

Pathare prabhus came from Gujarat - http://theory.tifr.res.in/bombay/history/ethnic/pathare-prabhu.html

flora fountain is very important becuase the shootings took place there and not at hutatma chowk

http://www.lingref.com/isb/4/141ISB4.PDF page 1804 the pai 2005 ref clearly states "Sixteen major languages spoken in Mumbai are: Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, Telugu, Tulu, Kannada, Malayalam, Bengali, Oriya, Sindhi, Assamese, Punjabi, Kashmiri, and Konkani."

We must rely on references not on orals statements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.59.3 (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there are many books which shall prove the 'theory of pathare prabhus from gujrat' wrong. I shall provide the reference. In history of Mumbai, flora fountain as such is not important. Samyukta Maharashtra movement martyrs were gunned down in this square (which is named after them). The Samyukta Maharashtra memorial is important than flora fountain as far as history is concerned.

All the metropolitan cities have speakers have all major languages of india. Many foreign languages are also spoken. Mumbai is not unique in that sense. So this statement is not relavent. i request to remove it asap. It hurts sensibilities of natives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.3.186 (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is pushpa pai? a amateur case study is not enough to force this nonsense of 16 languages in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.3.186 (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

get references and books then speak..pathare prabhus migrated from gujarat to bombay..

both flora fountain and hutatma chowk square are very very important. the protests and procession took place at flora fountain. maybe the gunning took place at chowk.. both should be included..during the firings, memorial didnt exist...it was buils later..only fountain existed that time

wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia.. we donot care about natives, americans , australians, tamils, sindhis, guaratis, marathis or anyone. we mention facts w/o bias.

read something about Dr. pushpa pai before commenting. she is the head of department of applied linguistics in SNDT univ. in bombay check here http://books.google.co.in/books?id=I7n75tb1vI8C&pg=PR10&lpg=PR10&dq=pushpa+pai+SNDT&source=bl&ots=p8IxIwv2HV&sig=OXvE3XTpfXzAgvPLvfF6I8BUxVc&hl=en&ei=WzPKSsGVCcPIkAW58P3bBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=pushpa%20pai%20SNDT&f=false

she is an expert on languages. hence her research on languages is very very very very reliable, and scholarly. the paper has been reviewed by experts like Cohen, James; McAlister, Kara T.; Rolstad, Kellie; MacSwan, Jeff. it was presented at Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism. it was published by worldfamous Cascadilla Press. one of the best sorce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.28.53 (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Use common sense please. Its obvious that metropolitans like mumbai would have speakers of all indian languages. thats is not unique or significant to Mumbai alone. The source ur quoting is not a book. Case study and university research papers are not really best source to quote. I can show umpteen sources where only 3 languages are mentioned, of course Marathi is the most widely spoken and understood language.

The picture of Hutatma chowk displayed is representing Samyukta Maharashtra movement. U may think flora fountain or dharavi a prominent spot, but in the context of history of Mumbai city, the movement and that monument is important. Thanks.

I agree that Pathare prabhus may be natives of Gujarat, but they were all Marathi speaking (pathari-dialect of Marathi with kathiawari and gujju words in it). But there are other views in minds of historians. I saw the source u mentioned. I will get others too.thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.23.144 (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It may not be unique in having many languages spoken there. It is also not unique in this being mentioned in it's Wikipedia entry. From the lede of London "London has a wide range of peoples, cultures, and religions, and more than 300 languages are spoken within its boundaries." I don't see the problem. Thehalfone (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed the new addition made to the transport section. The image of the bridge at night is a rather poor image and was added in poor judgement. I would like to discuss removal of this as it was added without any consensus whatsoever ***Adam*** (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, the previous image was no better in terms of picture quality. I suggest that all images of the sea link be removed from the page until a good-quality picture of it is uploaded. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the new picture is probably even worse than the old one (and its addition does seem to follow the familiar trend on this page of unilateral decision-making on picture choices...) but would agree that neither image is ideal. Khcf6971 (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Both pictures are equally bad, although the first one had a little bit more clarity, until something better is found, I agree it's better to not have a picture. -SpacemanSpiff 13:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This image seems to be a lot better quality. Nikkul (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree - I would stick with having no picture until a better one can be found. Khcf6971 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Khcf6971. This image is no better; not having an image is currently a better option. -SpacemanSpiff 21:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on this new image. It's a LOT better than all the previous ones. Nikkul (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

.nothing to comment. picture is very poor and dull quality. plz wait for some time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.32.91 (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree once more, getting a decent image for this seems to be plain trouble; all images so far don't offer any clarity to the viewer. -SpacemanSpiff 14:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some things that need to be fixed:

• Alpha city listing is unnecessary in the lede, especially when it's covered in better format in the economy section. (I reverted once, but it was added with a ref, so I'll wait for consensus).
• Economy section, Mumbai's GDP is incorrect per the ref cited (curr ref 129). The value is for Mumbai metro area including Thane and other suburbs. Either that has to be mentioned explicitly (since we have
  Mumbai metropolitan area
  , I don't think that's right) or changed back to the Mumbai GDP value.

-SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Even I am against the mention of Alpha World City listing in the Lead. The primary reason being many people may not be aware of what is an Alpha World city. It is much better covered in the Economy section, with proper explanation. Secondly, how can a listing by the Loughborough University be given so much importance, so as to feature in the Lead. I am not challenging the reputation of the institution, but for such titles to feature in the Lead, we require a much global organization such as the United Nations.

Regarding that GDP thing, I find nothing wrong with it. It says According to Indicus Analytics, the current price GDP for the fiscal year 2006-07 stood at Rs 2,00,483 crore for Mumbai region, including suburban Mumbai and Thane, and contributed. It says suburban Mumbai, which means the Bombay suburbs like Andheri, Mulund, which are a part of Greater Bombay. It doesn't say it is the Bombay metropolitan region. Kensplanet^T_C 07:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Including it is fine, don't mention metro, but it needs to be noted that suburbs and Thane are included because Thane for sure isn't counted in Greater Bombay. I'm not hung up on terminology, just needs to be noted that it isn't exactly per the definition of Mumbai in the rest of the article. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The terminology "Mumbai" might be confusing and can have many meanings. But for this article,
MUMBAI as an urban entity =

Borivali National Park + Defence lands + Mumbai Port Trust lands + Forest lands + ....
The bold terms indicates Greater Bombay under the BMC, while others indicate areas under Indian Navy, Forest Department, out of the jurisdiction of the BMC. Anyway, Suburban Bombay is very much and a vital part of Bombay. The problem is only with Thane, which is not a part of Greater Bombay. Do you suggest adding a seperate section like Notes as in Europe article, where we can mention that even Thane is included. Kensplanet^T_C

18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, anything like that should suffice, either a consistent definition or a note explaining the inconsistencies would be good. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 21:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

By 'Mumbai Port Trust lands', I guess we mean just the 'port area' and not the other properties it owns like the big housing society at Wadala, the housing colony at Worli including the seafront, the housing colony at Colaba, the Radio club at Colaba, huge chunk of land at Govandi, the Taj mahal hotel (not exactly sure about this but i think its owned by MBPT) and others. For all you know, half of Colaba's eastern side must be owned by MbPT but on lease to others. Just my $0.02. Ninadhardikar (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)