![]() | 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. |
There is a comment on proselytization and forced conversion by the Portugese which I have removed since these things end up being controversial. I have added a line on Dr. Orta. see article for details. Moroever repititive comments on forced conversion and proselytization and alluding to the fact that the natives were "converts" sounds out of place. Also, Portugal managed capture large sections of west coast of india, but not much in the east coast.
some minor rephrasing was also done.
Pizzadeliveryboy 20:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
A new stub - Template:Mumbai-history-stub may be used for suitable articles Pizzadeliveryboy 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Should we mention regarding the change of names Bombay to Mumbai and VT to CST etc Doctor Bruno 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The statement:
is false, as these places are geographically located in the Vasai-Virar region and not on Sashti island. This false statement has therefore been removed.
60.243.34.15 11:49, 19 May 2007 (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. |
=Nichalp «Talk»= 20:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The Siddhis had also ruled Bombay at one point of time. See Sewri Fort. Belapur Fort also has some information on the Portuguese influence. To ramble on... the articles on the forts of Mumbai has some interesting historical information. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should worrying about the lead, or copyediting the lead at this stage. See User:Nichalp/FA. I'm currently adding to commons:category:History of Mumbai while this page is done. I'll have ago at copyediting and precis writing once the sections are developed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
# Government --> Lower case
After the text is done, we need to have it peer reviewed. This is what I propose:
=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Mehrotra will reply or even review the article; just saw his email id on a website. I'd like to review this article first before we get others to review it. It may take some time though. I have three people in mind who could review the page based on their works on Indian history. After they review, we take it to various PRs, before we email Mehotra. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The article "In 1995, the newly-elected Shiv Sena-led government renamed the city of Bombay to Mumbai, after the Koli Goddess Mumbadevi." implying Shiv sena proposed a new name but the name "Mumbai has long been the name of the city in Marathi and Gujarati, whilst Hindi-speakers called it Bambai." ref: Samuel Sheppard Bombay Place-Names and Street-Names (Bombay: The Times Press) 1917 pp. 104-5 ( Renaming of cities in India). Bombay was NOT the original name of the city, the name was given by the British, as per article. The city was officially renamed from Bombay to Mumbai in 1995, by the Shiv Sena, reverting to the native name. Ref: [6] [7] [8]. Using Bombay in " King Bhimdev founded his kingdom in Bombay in the late 13th century, and brought many settlers to the islands." or "After the end of the Satvahana rule in 250 CE, the Abhiras of Western Maharashtra and Vakatakas of Vidarbha held dominion over Bombay.", when Bombay word never existed is historically wrong. I propose replacing all occurrences of Bombay before British era by Mumbai or the correct name in use for the city in that era. British period (1661 - 1947) should retain "Bombay" til 1996 in "Post-independence and modern period (1948 - 2000)". Also as per Mumbai article, "The former name Bombay had its origins in the 16th century when the Portuguese arrived in the area and called it by various names, which finally took the written form Bombaim, still common in current Portuguese use." So Bombaim should be acknowledged in Portuguese period (1534 - 1661). The portuguese name was Bom Bahia (lit. "Beautiful Bay") as per ref [9]. Also ancient names if available must be used, in appropriate sections. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 09:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
2008 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with both points, but this needs to be addressed at an appropriate Manual of Style page. We have Istanbul and Beijing as similar models we can explore, but it seems odd to call certain portions in history as Mumbai. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
<reindent> Maybe I misunderstood you. Could you clarify your suggestion again? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Even the year 1995 may be wrong, it was 1996 as per references [10] [11] [12]. Though i found [13] which says 1995. Need a reliable reference for exact date. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 09:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
In the Ancient period, if we replace bombay by the names existing that time. Then what about Mahim, Salsette which we have used in the Ancient period section. Should we replace them too. by their names during ancient times. Kensplanet Talk Contributions 10:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I feel the setting up and flourishing of the Indian film industry (especially Bollywood) is quite significant. Like the 1st film studio...Any comments? -- KnowledgeHegemony Part2 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
My plan is to do an initial review and to follow it up with a more detailed GA review to check references and sources, etc. Some of the grammar is a bit stilted in the WP:lead but that should not be too hard to fix. What does worry me, at the start, is the number of WP:red links in the Islamic and Portuguese periods. These may result in the article going On Hold. I mention this at the start of the GA review, so that it can be considered now. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Congratulations, I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (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. |
There is a comment on proselytization and forced conversion by the Portugese which I have removed since these things end up being controversial. I have added a line on Dr. Orta. see article for details. Moroever repititive comments on forced conversion and proselytization and alluding to the fact that the natives were "converts" sounds out of place. Also, Portugal managed capture large sections of west coast of india, but not much in the east coast.
some minor rephrasing was also done.
Pizzadeliveryboy 20:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
A new stub - Template:Mumbai-history-stub may be used for suitable articles Pizzadeliveryboy 18:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Should we mention regarding the change of names Bombay to Mumbai and VT to CST etc Doctor Bruno 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The statement:
is false, as these places are geographically located in the Vasai-Virar region and not on Sashti island. This false statement has therefore been removed.
60.243.34.15 11:49, 19 May 2007 (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. |
=Nichalp «Talk»= 20:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The Siddhis had also ruled Bombay at one point of time. See Sewri Fort. Belapur Fort also has some information on the Portuguese influence. To ramble on... the articles on the forts of Mumbai has some interesting historical information. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should worrying about the lead, or copyediting the lead at this stage. See User:Nichalp/FA. I'm currently adding to commons:category:History of Mumbai while this page is done. I'll have ago at copyediting and precis writing once the sections are developed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
# Government --> Lower case
After the text is done, we need to have it peer reviewed. This is what I propose:
=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Mehrotra will reply or even review the article; just saw his email id on a website. I'd like to review this article first before we get others to review it. It may take some time though. I have three people in mind who could review the page based on their works on Indian history. After they review, we take it to various PRs, before we email Mehotra. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The article "In 1995, the newly-elected Shiv Sena-led government renamed the city of Bombay to Mumbai, after the Koli Goddess Mumbadevi." implying Shiv sena proposed a new name but the name "Mumbai has long been the name of the city in Marathi and Gujarati, whilst Hindi-speakers called it Bambai." ref: Samuel Sheppard Bombay Place-Names and Street-Names (Bombay: The Times Press) 1917 pp. 104-5 ( Renaming of cities in India). Bombay was NOT the original name of the city, the name was given by the British, as per article. The city was officially renamed from Bombay to Mumbai in 1995, by the Shiv Sena, reverting to the native name. Ref: [6] [7] [8]. Using Bombay in " King Bhimdev founded his kingdom in Bombay in the late 13th century, and brought many settlers to the islands." or "After the end of the Satvahana rule in 250 CE, the Abhiras of Western Maharashtra and Vakatakas of Vidarbha held dominion over Bombay.", when Bombay word never existed is historically wrong. I propose replacing all occurrences of Bombay before British era by Mumbai or the correct name in use for the city in that era. British period (1661 - 1947) should retain "Bombay" til 1996 in "Post-independence and modern period (1948 - 2000)". Also as per Mumbai article, "The former name Bombay had its origins in the 16th century when the Portuguese arrived in the area and called it by various names, which finally took the written form Bombaim, still common in current Portuguese use." So Bombaim should be acknowledged in Portuguese period (1534 - 1661). The portuguese name was Bom Bahia (lit. "Beautiful Bay") as per ref [9]. Also ancient names if available must be used, in appropriate sections. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 09:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
2008 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with both points, but this needs to be addressed at an appropriate Manual of Style page. We have Istanbul and Beijing as similar models we can explore, but it seems odd to call certain portions in history as Mumbai. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
<reindent> Maybe I misunderstood you. Could you clarify your suggestion again? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Even the year 1995 may be wrong, it was 1996 as per references [10] [11] [12]. Though i found [13] which says 1995. Need a reliable reference for exact date. -- Redtigerxyz ( talk) 09:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
In the Ancient period, if we replace bombay by the names existing that time. Then what about Mahim, Salsette which we have used in the Ancient period section. Should we replace them too. by their names during ancient times. Kensplanet Talk Contributions 10:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I feel the setting up and flourishing of the Indian film industry (especially Bollywood) is quite significant. Like the 1st film studio...Any comments? -- KnowledgeHegemony Part2 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
My plan is to do an initial review and to follow it up with a more detailed GA review to check references and sources, etc. Some of the grammar is a bit stilted in the WP:lead but that should not be too hard to fix. What does worry me, at the start, is the number of WP:red links in the Islamic and Portuguese periods. These may result in the article going On Hold. I mention this at the start of the GA review, so that it can be considered now. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Congratulations, I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)