Talk:Kolkata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kolkata article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Featured article star Kolkata is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 26, 2006.
Kolkata is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8


Contents

[edit] Trivia merge

  • The ugly box at the top of the page, linking to a trivia page which was marked as a merger candidate over 6 months ago seems rather useless with no reasoning given behind the initial merger proposal. --Stalfur (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yea it would be good if it was merged AriS (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a FA article. Trivia does not belong here. This has already been discussed in the past. I am going to go ahead and remove the proposal. --Blacksun (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on images

Hi! I am partially copy-pasting an argument in favor of inclusion of two particular images in the article, from the talk page of User:Nikkul who is opposed to the inclusion of this and this images.

Regarding the slum image, you tell that slums do not represent all of Kolkata demographics. Yes, I agree that it does not represent all of Kolkata demographics. For that matter, there is no single image that represent all of the demographics of any city. As the article says, "1.5 million people, who constitute about a third of the city's population, live in 2,011 registered and 3,500 unregistered (occupied by squatters) slums." So, the slum image does represent almost one third of the dwellings. So, it is not merely ornamental in that article.

Regarding the flower vendors image, you say "flower vendors have little to do with economy". Well, it could be vendor of any other kind, like fruit vendor, grocery vendor, or, other hawkers. I am not argumenting in favour of flower vendors only. What I wanna say is, vendors are a part of informal sector of economy, which, according to the article, "until recently ... comprised more than 40% of the labour force." For example, "roadside hawkers generated business worth Rs. 8,772 crore (around 2 billion U.S. dollars) in 2005" (I admit I do not have recent data though). The economy section of the article, so, will be very much representative of the city economy if there are two images—one from IT sector (the booming sector of the day), and one vendor (or any other informal sector image), which has traditionally been a major part of the economy of the city.

Moreover, if you see the FAC of the article, you will see that these two images were particularly praised for giving ,"...an almost tangible understanding of the city to the page" by an uninvolved reviewer. So, I don't see any reason not including those 2 images. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both the points that these two pictures conveys the intended information. However, image of flower vendors can be replaced by roadside cloth vendors, whom I see as more prominent (and probably they generated a large chunk of that 8772 crore), if such an image is available. On the slum image, earlier, I had some minor objection against the usage of the word 'slum' here, not against the picture and what it represents. In many areas of Calcutta, there are houses like that belonging to families in lower income strata, who were never able to upgrade their household conditions. But, that's what 'slum' means. --GDibyendu (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
User: Nikkul is removing images added by others, probably because he wants to prove that majority of the images in this page has been added by him (as shown in his user page). It seems from his talk page that he does similar image removal from the other pages, where he had added images. I think the current images on this page are fine, unless better alternatives are found. Any views? GDibyendu (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Images in a section that intrude into the next section should not be there (especially in a featured article). So, if needed, images may need to be removed. Now, the question is, which ones to remove. In the "sports" section, for example, there is no need to give 3 images. This is over-crowding. Eden gardens or saltlake stadium is enough, in my opinion. In "culture" section, I would personally like to remove the Dakshineswar temple image and the Jagaddhatri image, and add one Durgapuja image instead. In "Transport" too, there is crowding, 3 images are not needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the first point that some images can be removed. My suggestion is to remove Mohun Bagan AC ground image, and to keep the other two: Eden Gardens and Salt Lake Stadium. About culture section, I agree with your suggestion. Personally, I never heard about the 4th image before. In Transport section, I would suggest removing 'Howrah Bridge at night', already there is another pic of Howrah Bridge (in Climate Section). Also, replacing the 3rd image (minibuses in Howrah Station) by some image of metro rail would be better I guess.GDibyendu (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on the image on Demographics section

the slum image
the slum image

Thanks Nikkul for uploading the pie chart of distribution of religion in Kolkata. Graphs or maps are quite suitable for demographics section, especially when there is no images significantly representing the demographics of the city/state/country in question.

However, the slum image does significantly represent the demographics of Kolkata, becasue:

1. "...about a third of the city's population, live in 2,011 registered and 3,500 unregistered (occupied by squatters) slums", as mentioned in the article. And a third of population of a city is definitely significant.

2. The adequacy and appropriateness of the image had been established in the FAC of the article. No editors (whether directly involved in the article or not) questioned the image's appropriateness. Rather, as I have mentioned earlier, one uninvolved editor particularly praised this (and another image) for "tremendous quality and interest", and, giving "an almost tangible understanding of the city to the page".

While the pie chart of religion is a very good one, and does represent significantly the demographics, it is nothing extra-ordinary (a graphical representation of numerical data already present in the text adds no additional value). Since we have something extra-ordinary in the slum image (almost tangible understanding), the pie chart should be replaced by the image.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The slum image DOES NOT represent the demographics of Kolkata when 66 percent of people DO NOT live in slums. It is understandable to have an image of the slum if 70 percent of people lived in slums, but this is not the case in Kolkata. Every city has slums, Kolkata is not the only one. If you feel that a third of the population is significant, than 2/3 is more "significant" and hence the image should not be there.

The image is pointless. It doesnt even show on full hut. It shows a roof, which is irrelevant to the section. Nikkul (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So, your objection to this image has two aspects. First, according to your opinion, the image does not represent demography of Kolkata, as a third (and not the majority) of the population lives in slum. As I have previously described, it is difficult, if not impossible, to portray/represent the demography (or, for that matter, any aspect such as culture, sports, or, education) of any city of the world in one or two images. Indeed, one-third of population's usual dwelling quite ably represent a part of demography—this is my point of view.
Second, you are telling that the image does not even wholly present a single hut. Indeed, in slums, it is tough to find a solitary hut. Usually huts are sticking to one another. Moreover, the image portrays portions of several huts.
In any case, you are telling that the image is not appropriate and of inferior quality. Contrary to your opinion, the editors in the FAC of the article not only considered the image appropriate, but one editor even particularly praised it. So, the consensus is, the image is ok in the article.
Wikipedia honours consensus. So, if you feel the image is not appropriate, I request you to bring the article for Wikipedia:Featured article review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you agree it is difficult to describe the demography of Kolkata, then how can you say the slum image represents the city when 66 percent of the population doesnt live in slums? Wouldnt it be more appropriate to add a picture of non-slum housing as it would be more appropriate for the demography section? And the editors of the FAC praised the article itself not the slum image. The article includes text, references and other images. So there is no real consensus about this particular image. And I dont think the article needs a featured article review because the text and the article itself is first class. The slum image, though, is very inappropriate for the article. Nikkul (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletion of this image. It reflects a significant aspect of the city and its population. Kolkata, for all of its qualities, has slums in which large numbers of its citizens reside. Excluding the image and the living conditions it represents would diminish the balance of the article and its representation of its topic. It should stay. --KenWalker | Talk 22:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To Nikkul: One of Featured article criteria (criterion 3) is "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status". In the FAC of Kolkata article, nobody objected to the inclusion of this slum image. So, the consensus was this image can be included. In addition, one reviewer (Giano) praised the image.
Since you have the opinion that this image is not appropriate, so you are going against the consensus. But first you have to refute the previous consensus, because you (or I, or anybody else) do not own the article. That is why I told that you are free to bring the article to FAR citing the reason that the article do not satisfy criterion 3. If you think it is not enough reason to bring the article to FAR, you are welcome, and the image stays. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There was never consensus to keep the image specifically. There was just no opposition against it. Fortunately, Wikipedia is a dynamic website, which means that even after an article becomes featured, images and content can be changed. I am not going against any consensus because There was never consensus to keep the Image. To say that an article must be kept untouched after it becomes featured is ridiculious! If I add an image of a house, wouldnt it mean it was more appropriate than the image of a slum since more people live in houses than in slums? Nikkul (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have said correctly that there was no opposition to the image. And to answer you, there was never a consensus to delete the image. In featured article candidacies, we see opposition against inclusion of certain images, because of various reasons, such as inapropriateness, or, inadequacy of copyright status. But in this case, there was no opposition. Since this image did not recieve any oppostion for inappropriateness or inadequate copyright status, the image can be inferred to have appropriately included with adeuate copyright status (in the FAC consensus). However, your opinion is the image was inappropriate. So you have to build a consensus that the image is inappropriate and replace the image with a more appropriate image (more appropriate by consensus, not only your own judgement).
Of course you can replace this image/add one image of a house (or anything else), whether the cconcerned article is a featured article or not, if that image is cosidered more appropriate by consensus. That's what I am telling. Please give the proof of a consensus against this image, and in fvour of another image, and then remove this image. Meanwhile, this image stays (since nobody opposed this image's inclusion in the FAC or afterwards, except you, and you do not own wikipedia). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Under this topic, "Discussion on the image on Demographics section", Nikkul has objected to what he considers the overly-squalid-looking slum image, and under "City of Palaces" someone has objected to what he considers the overly-affluent-sounding "City of Palaces" epithet. Do a one-sided epithet and a one-sided image perhaps balance each other out?

D.achyuta (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] City of Palaces

Calcutta, was often called the city of places, between about 1780 to 1840, because parts of the city consisted of mile upon mile of mansions built by employees of the East India Company. 90% of these imposing buildings either no longer exsist or are in a terribly ramshackle condition, moreover, in the last 70 or 80 years, I would strongly argue that there has been very little noteworthy construction in Calcutta - not even a very tall office building, let alone a new "palace". To call modern Kolkata a "city of palaces" is quite rediculous, indeed it's a mockery of the urban poor, but the article says that modern Kolkata is often described as such. This is made up. I have never heard modern Kolkata described as a city of places, the term in fact means such a cluster of palaces in one area, that they constitute a city unto themselves. So where is this cluster of palaces in Kolkata?

TB

Under this topic, "City of Palaces", TB has objected to what he considers the overly-affluent-sounding "City of Palaces" epithet, and under "Discussion on the image on Demographics section" someone has objected to what he considers the overly-squalid-looking slum image. Do a one-sided epithet and a one-sided image perhaps balance each other out?
Actually, "City of Palaces" occurs twice on the Kolkata page, once under the History section –
Richard Wellesley, the Governor General between 1797–1805, was largely responsible for the growth of the city and its public architecture which led to the description of Kolkata as "The City of Palaces"
and once under the Culture section –
The "City of Palaces", as Kolkata is often called, is dotted with colonial buildings.
Presumably TB has no objection to the first occurrence.
D.achyuta (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's good catch. "city of palaces" now removed from the culture section, but retained in History. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] India Images

Nikkul, I enjoyed browsing the images of India that you have collected. Valuable work! Thanks for doing it. I have some I took myself earlier this year which I have stored at hq23 that I could upload to Wikimedia commons if any of them might be useful. --KenWalker | Talk 23:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sister Cities

Can anyone please add the list of sisiter cities of kol? Rohitom (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sister Cities

Can anyone please add the list of sisiter cities of kol? Rohitom (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rationalizing Kolkata sites

There is a Wikipedia article at wiki/Kolkata_Municipal_Corporation. According to its name it should logically be the Wikipedia's most in-depth article about the KMC, but it is very short and says less about the KMC's political structure, for example, than does the "Civic administration" section of this Kolkata article.

Then there is an article at wiki/Kolkata_district. It contains only four sentences, the first of which is "Kolkata is an administrative district of the Indian state of West Bengal" and the last of which is "The area is under the administration of Kolkata Municipal Corporation." Readers will ask, "If Kolkata is an administrative district, why does it need to be under the administration of a municipal corporation?" It should be explained that the district is "under" the KMC in terms of civic infrastructure only.

Then there is an article at wiki/Neighbourhoods_in_Kolkata. By "neighbourhoods", it means municipal areas which are part of the Kolkata Metropolitan Area – for example, Barasat Municipality. But in this present Kolkata article, "neighbourhoods" is used as follows: "A characteristic feature of Kolkata is the para or neighbourhoods having a strong sense of community. Typically, every para has its own community club with a clubroom and often, a playing field . . ." The Neighbourhoods in Kolkata article could perhaps be merged into this Kolkata article, but in fact is not even linked to from this article, except in a footnote.

There may well be an existing Wikipedia term for the kind of coordination of different pages whose need I have pointed out here, but I don't know what that term is, so I have used the term "rationalization" of different sites.

D.achyuta (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)