Talk:Kolkata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 26, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 31, 2006 Good article nominee Listed April 6, 2006 Peer review Reviewed May 4, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details
WikiProject Cities     (Rated FA-Class) This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) High This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.
WikiProject India (Rated FA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) This article is maintained by the Indian cities workgroup. This article is maintained by the West Bengal workgroup. More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale by the India project. This article is a selected article on the India portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality India-related article. This article is a selected article on the West Bengal portal. This article was the India Collaboration of the week (week of March 17, 2006). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.

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.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Template:Archive list/root/undefinedTemplate:Archive list/nobr/undefinedTemplate:Archive list/links/undefined

Template:Archive box/box-width/undefinedTemplate:Archive box/image/undefinedTemplate:Archive box/image-width/undefinedTemplate:Archive box/auto/definedTemplate:Archive box/1/undefined

[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)

[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

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)