![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I dont know the exact figure, but if it were 436 km2, this would mean the city is a small patch of square (well almost!!!) land 20 km across on either side....thats BS!!! Pizzadeliveryboy 13:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
When was the name changed and where is a reference to when it was officially changed? This article says 1995 (with no attribution) and the timeline says 1996 (with no attribution). — BozoTheScary 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the redirect from Bombay appropriate? Constantinople is maintained as a seperate node from Istanbul... --belg4mit 18.124.2.224 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be good to have a (brief) reference to the fact that the choice of name used by inhabitants (Mumbai vs. Bombay) is somewhat politicised, AIUI being to an extent an indication of support or oposition to the party (Shiv Sena, according to Wikipedia) that changed the name. If someone with more local knowledge than I would care to add something, that would be great, otherwise I will attempt to do so Roy Badami 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the annual Mumbai Marathon in the sports section? - Aksi_gr eat 13:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Was the "Mumba"-derived name the original name and the Portuguese adapted it, or did the Portguese describe the island as having a good bay, "Bom Bahia" and that's what the cities collectively were called, and then changed into the local language? The article seems to imply that both or either happened. JesseRafe 01:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is Mumbai written in Urdu?There is no significant urdu speaking in Mumbai.
Does anyone have citations for the origins of Mumbai and Bombay? The are phonetically quite similar. AjaxSmack 04:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
An anon User:59.95.12.175 keeps removing the the Urdu spelling of the the name, quoting that there are not many Urdu speakers in Mumbai so it is not required. I would appreciate any outside intervention. Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 11:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The movies made in Mumbai Film Industry are in Hindi and not Urdu.No doubt considerable words used in Hindi nowadays are also of Sanskrit origin(but of arabic,turkish and persian) that does not mean movies are in Hindustani or Urdu. Please see Pakizah,which is an pure Urdu movie.You will note the differnece.
The history of creation of Maharashtra state(Sanyukta Maharashtra movement)is an important chapter in Mumbai's history.The monument of Hutatma Chowk where 105 ppl will shot dead is an important landmark in Mumbai and its pic/information should also added.
Jambhekar,Jagannath Shankarshet,Tata,Nariman are the important personalities of Mumbai city,but unfortunately their is no information about them here.I would request to exxpand the history section.
Bambaiya language does not have any official existance.This lingo is mostly used by underworld or illiterate gundas.Perhaps 'language with a strange mixture of Marathi,Hindi and Urdu words' would suffice instead of terming it as Bambaiya. Thanks.
Hyderabad has Telugu, Hindi and Urdu. So the rule quoted ( that only state language to be used for a capital)does not seem to be uniform. Removing Urdu and Hindi from Hyderabad is not the solution for it seems to be a bit of cultural policing in play here. Also the convention is not a Wikipedia global one but one made for India, by Indians users and with debate can be evolved. I think being inclusive is better and using a national rather than a state language should be allowed, I think the agenda get's a bit communalised and support or opposition seems to be based on religion rather than logic. Haphar 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we really need some kind of standardization on such issues: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)-- Dangerous-Boy 22:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
In Lucknow,Hyderabad and perhaps in Bhopal too,there are significant no. of Urdu speakers,which is not in the case in Mumbai.I strongly feel that Mumbai should be written in Marathi only. I am sure writing Chennai in Hindi will not be allowed by Chennaites and so writing a city's name in its official language (only) should be allowed.Morever Hindi is not the ONLY national language but all the languages authorized by Indian constitution are national languages.
Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement: After independence,several states were formed on the basis of language.Maharashtrians also demanded the same but Congress was not in mood to form a seperate state.Congress had also objected about inclusion of Mumbai in Marathi state.A lobby of Gujarati industrialists were in favour of making Mumbai a Union territory. Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement was sparked by famour writer Acharya Atre,Senapti Bapat,Prabodhankar Thackray,Annabhau Sathe,Shahir Shaikh and others.Acharya Atre wrote frank and fire brand editorials in 'Maratha'.His primary preys were Nehru,Morarji Desai and Sa.Ka.Patil who were opposing Maharashtra state.Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement got an drastic turn when 105 people were gunned in Hutatma Chowk(formerly known as Flora Fountain) In Mumbai.This created a lot of unrest between Maharashtrians. On 1st May,1960 the state of Maharashtra was formed with Mumbai as its capital and official announcement was made by Nehru in Shivaji Park.However Gomantak(Goa) and Belgaum was not included in new state.Yeshwantrao Chavan was the first chief-minister of Maharashtra state.
It is shocking to see that the Indian map used to show Mumbai's location,contains shades which show PoK and AkshaiChin.As Kashmir is an offical state of India,a normal map should be used.No need to elaborate about disputed region of Kashmir.
When Maharashtra was formed Goa wasnt a part of India but when it was reclaimed it should have been included in Maharashtra but Nehru denied that by claiming that Konkani is the main language in Goa hence it should not be a part of Marathi state which was not accepted Sanyukta Maharashtra Samiti. Yes 105 martyrs also include those who lost life in Belgaum,Karwar regions and also other incidents in Mumbai. Why isnt Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement still not included in article?
NPOV does matter but Kashmir is very much a part of India.All political maps show Kashmir as part of India.I respect wiki's policies;I feel very displeased about the shading as an Indian though.. Arunachal Pradesh,I suppose is undisputed land and still it appears to be shaded.Lakswadeep islands are also ignored.Are we being too considerate? And I would like to draw your attention towards wiki's article on Pakistan.NPOV is missing there...
I am very sad to hear ur views about Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement.Mumbai isnt a seperate entity,the city is very much a part of Maharashtra state.Its a matter of pride and an emotional issue for about 10 crore Maharashtrians.Mumbai was a ground zero for Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement.History of Maharashtra cannot be seperated from Mumbai.Perhaps not a complete section,but atleast a paragraph should be devoted to this topic.I request you to please consider ur views.
It is sad that u are being considerate about 'disputed regions' of our country but dont feel to include the history of creation of Maharashtra state..My sources are the books which I have read and speeched of Acharya Atre,but I dont recall its names.If u feel u can verify the details from any well-informed Mumbaikar. Raajiv
I agree that Wiki's Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement article is incomplete and not comprehensive. But dear friend,this does not mean that its mention in Mumbai article is not essential.I would request you to allow the details of Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement in Mumbai article too. I sincerely think that u r not honouring our emotions.I think Indian wikis are a bit insensitive.. Raajiv
Whatever you say,its very painful to see Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir shaded as disputed region.Pakistanis dont give a damn about NPOV.( mahawiki 16:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC))
People are free to claim whatever they want,so perhaps when others will claim our whole nation u r gonna show the Indian map completely shaded! ( mahawiki 07:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
I think there needs to be a sub-section on Mumbai in popular culture. For example we could mention that the novel shantaram is set in mumbai or we could mention famous songs about mumbai, and foreign made films shot in mumbai.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitganguli ( talk • contribs)
External links should pertain to the city as a whole, or be something rare. Linking to a forum/blog is that is hardly notable, or verifiable reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Besides, if there is a good resource for buildings it should be put in Tallest buildings in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Since all Mumbai buffs converge here, its a good idea to petition a review of all tags posted on Wikimapia. I saw a few errors, like the one on Eros Cinema!!! One more are the islands off Mumbai harbor - that requires checking.....
Pizzadeliveryboy 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Mumbai (1335) is now the fifth most tagged place in Wikimapia, after Portland (1427), Bucharest (1869), Taipei (2030) and Moscow (3892).....Last night it beat Seattle and Bangalore!!! Pizzadeliveryboy 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
How come there is no section on landmarks, wanted to add these pics i took recently somewhere -- PlaneMad| YakYak 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
We have:
Question: Why do we have two sentences saying "the opposing argument is". Second, do we have any evidence than anyone actually believes that the Portuguese and British "should get naming rights"? I would think the argument is that the city has been known as Bombay for centuries, including for several decades after independence, with nobody particularly complaining, and that the name change is nationalist posturing. The second "the opposing argument is" sentence is self-evidently stupid. john k 10:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone can provide a reliable source proving that the name "Bombay" actually derives from "bom bahia". The problem with this expression is that it is ungrammatical in Portuguese, as bahia (which would be "baia" in modern spelling) is a femenine noun, so "good bay" would be "boa baia". I don't think the noun "baia" has ever been masculine, so it is impossible for native speakers of Portuguese to have named the town or the original island "bom bahia", with a masculine adjective followed by a feminine noun. Furthermore, the traditional Portuguese name of the city is Bombaim, which also seems difficult to explain as an evolution of "bom bahia". Because of these considerations, I feel very sceptical about the credibility of the "bom bahia" theory. Although it seems to be quite common on the Internet and in other versions of Wikipedia, that may well be because of this Wikipedia article. So, can anyone confirm that the "bom bahia" theory has been proved? And, if so, what is the explanation for the incorrect grammar of such a name? AngelRiesgo 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Chirag 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the stuff of Bom Baia and Bombay coz most of that stuff is repeated in the sub-section "History" (xcept the corruption part). Besides it concentrated only on the Portuguese/British name's history with little mention of Mumbai or its origin which is equally important.
Also, I dont think its still known today as Bombaim by Portugal. They have probably accpted the name Mumbai. Case in point : Abu Salem's extradition to Mumbai from a court order of Portugal. I dont think the CBI lawyers in court there said "Your honour, please extradite Salem to Bombaim ". IAF
http://dn.sapo.pt/tools/imprimir.html?file=/2006/07/15/internacional/atentados_levam_singh_a_apontar_o_de.html. It uses Bombaim, just to prove the point. Name for the city in Portuguese, is part of the history. There is no issue against using Mumbai in current context. If the city name is Mumbai today, it should be called as Mumbai. But, if the city is name is changed, does not alter its history, just extends it. If someone changes name of Mumbai to something else tomorrow, as per the theory, they should invent NEW history, refute everything that is known. Chirag 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure why someone removed word Hindi from term Mumbai? Are they trying to agree to the fact that Mumbai name is only for Marathi, and Hindi language speakers are free to call it Bambai? Chirag 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned in Wiki T&C,name of city has to be in OFFICIAL language in that city.In case of Mumbai its Marathi and there's no need of mention of it in Hindi.If you want then plz apply the rule for all Indian cities.eg:bangalore,kolkata n chennai
Mahawiki, Is this a rule of Wikipedia? If it not, then it does not apply. If you still wish to implement the rule, why not convert entire article to marathi and update it in marathi wikipedia, why should someone even read this article without knowledge of marathi? Why do you even bother to update the article or even maintain the article here in first place?
Chirag 18:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes this is a rule of Wikipedia.Plz check it urself at bangalore , kolkata and chennai I am thankful for ur suggestion but I did read Kolkata's page without knowing Bangla..so Mumbai's name in Marathi has to be displayed.
And u dont need to tell me why or why not I should maintain this article.I am a Maharashtrian and I am a Mumbaikar is sufficient to this argument.I am sorry but ur being offensive.
No,Hindi has not being recognised as second offical language of Mumbai.Its only Marathi (~~).
I think it's greatly important to mention the past riots and regular terrorism acts that happened in the city. We need to highlight this information for the safety of the tourists and other visitors who come here. Thank you. August 16, 2006
Hi,
Please check WP:NOT. This is not a place to advt. I could tell you that, you are driving users from your site, by forcing your ad on this page, and not attracting them. Burrp!!!
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I dont know the exact figure, but if it were 436 km2, this would mean the city is a small patch of square (well almost!!!) land 20 km across on either side....thats BS!!! Pizzadeliveryboy 13:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
When was the name changed and where is a reference to when it was officially changed? This article says 1995 (with no attribution) and the timeline says 1996 (with no attribution). — BozoTheScary 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the redirect from Bombay appropriate? Constantinople is maintained as a seperate node from Istanbul... --belg4mit 18.124.2.224 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be good to have a (brief) reference to the fact that the choice of name used by inhabitants (Mumbai vs. Bombay) is somewhat politicised, AIUI being to an extent an indication of support or oposition to the party (Shiv Sena, according to Wikipedia) that changed the name. If someone with more local knowledge than I would care to add something, that would be great, otherwise I will attempt to do so Roy Badami 23:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the annual Mumbai Marathon in the sports section? - Aksi_gr eat 13:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Was the "Mumba"-derived name the original name and the Portuguese adapted it, or did the Portguese describe the island as having a good bay, "Bom Bahia" and that's what the cities collectively were called, and then changed into the local language? The article seems to imply that both or either happened. JesseRafe 01:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is Mumbai written in Urdu?There is no significant urdu speaking in Mumbai.
Does anyone have citations for the origins of Mumbai and Bombay? The are phonetically quite similar. AjaxSmack 04:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
An anon User:59.95.12.175 keeps removing the the Urdu spelling of the the name, quoting that there are not many Urdu speakers in Mumbai so it is not required. I would appreciate any outside intervention. Srik e it( talk ¦ ✉) 11:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The movies made in Mumbai Film Industry are in Hindi and not Urdu.No doubt considerable words used in Hindi nowadays are also of Sanskrit origin(but of arabic,turkish and persian) that does not mean movies are in Hindustani or Urdu. Please see Pakizah,which is an pure Urdu movie.You will note the differnece.
The history of creation of Maharashtra state(Sanyukta Maharashtra movement)is an important chapter in Mumbai's history.The monument of Hutatma Chowk where 105 ppl will shot dead is an important landmark in Mumbai and its pic/information should also added.
Jambhekar,Jagannath Shankarshet,Tata,Nariman are the important personalities of Mumbai city,but unfortunately their is no information about them here.I would request to exxpand the history section.
Bambaiya language does not have any official existance.This lingo is mostly used by underworld or illiterate gundas.Perhaps 'language with a strange mixture of Marathi,Hindi and Urdu words' would suffice instead of terming it as Bambaiya. Thanks.
Hyderabad has Telugu, Hindi and Urdu. So the rule quoted ( that only state language to be used for a capital)does not seem to be uniform. Removing Urdu and Hindi from Hyderabad is not the solution for it seems to be a bit of cultural policing in play here. Also the convention is not a Wikipedia global one but one made for India, by Indians users and with debate can be evolved. I think being inclusive is better and using a national rather than a state language should be allowed, I think the agenda get's a bit communalised and support or opposition seems to be based on religion rather than logic. Haphar 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we really need some kind of standardization on such issues: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic)-- Dangerous-Boy 22:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
In Lucknow,Hyderabad and perhaps in Bhopal too,there are significant no. of Urdu speakers,which is not in the case in Mumbai.I strongly feel that Mumbai should be written in Marathi only. I am sure writing Chennai in Hindi will not be allowed by Chennaites and so writing a city's name in its official language (only) should be allowed.Morever Hindi is not the ONLY national language but all the languages authorized by Indian constitution are national languages.
Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement: After independence,several states were formed on the basis of language.Maharashtrians also demanded the same but Congress was not in mood to form a seperate state.Congress had also objected about inclusion of Mumbai in Marathi state.A lobby of Gujarati industrialists were in favour of making Mumbai a Union territory. Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement was sparked by famour writer Acharya Atre,Senapti Bapat,Prabodhankar Thackray,Annabhau Sathe,Shahir Shaikh and others.Acharya Atre wrote frank and fire brand editorials in 'Maratha'.His primary preys were Nehru,Morarji Desai and Sa.Ka.Patil who were opposing Maharashtra state.Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement got an drastic turn when 105 people were gunned in Hutatma Chowk(formerly known as Flora Fountain) In Mumbai.This created a lot of unrest between Maharashtrians. On 1st May,1960 the state of Maharashtra was formed with Mumbai as its capital and official announcement was made by Nehru in Shivaji Park.However Gomantak(Goa) and Belgaum was not included in new state.Yeshwantrao Chavan was the first chief-minister of Maharashtra state.
It is shocking to see that the Indian map used to show Mumbai's location,contains shades which show PoK and AkshaiChin.As Kashmir is an offical state of India,a normal map should be used.No need to elaborate about disputed region of Kashmir.
When Maharashtra was formed Goa wasnt a part of India but when it was reclaimed it should have been included in Maharashtra but Nehru denied that by claiming that Konkani is the main language in Goa hence it should not be a part of Marathi state which was not accepted Sanyukta Maharashtra Samiti. Yes 105 martyrs also include those who lost life in Belgaum,Karwar regions and also other incidents in Mumbai. Why isnt Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement still not included in article?
NPOV does matter but Kashmir is very much a part of India.All political maps show Kashmir as part of India.I respect wiki's policies;I feel very displeased about the shading as an Indian though.. Arunachal Pradesh,I suppose is undisputed land and still it appears to be shaded.Lakswadeep islands are also ignored.Are we being too considerate? And I would like to draw your attention towards wiki's article on Pakistan.NPOV is missing there...
I am very sad to hear ur views about Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement.Mumbai isnt a seperate entity,the city is very much a part of Maharashtra state.Its a matter of pride and an emotional issue for about 10 crore Maharashtrians.Mumbai was a ground zero for Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement.History of Maharashtra cannot be seperated from Mumbai.Perhaps not a complete section,but atleast a paragraph should be devoted to this topic.I request you to please consider ur views.
It is sad that u are being considerate about 'disputed regions' of our country but dont feel to include the history of creation of Maharashtra state..My sources are the books which I have read and speeched of Acharya Atre,but I dont recall its names.If u feel u can verify the details from any well-informed Mumbaikar. Raajiv
I agree that Wiki's Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement article is incomplete and not comprehensive. But dear friend,this does not mean that its mention in Mumbai article is not essential.I would request you to allow the details of Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement in Mumbai article too. I sincerely think that u r not honouring our emotions.I think Indian wikis are a bit insensitive.. Raajiv
Whatever you say,its very painful to see Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir shaded as disputed region.Pakistanis dont give a damn about NPOV.( mahawiki 16:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC))
People are free to claim whatever they want,so perhaps when others will claim our whole nation u r gonna show the Indian map completely shaded! ( mahawiki 07:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
I think there needs to be a sub-section on Mumbai in popular culture. For example we could mention that the novel shantaram is set in mumbai or we could mention famous songs about mumbai, and foreign made films shot in mumbai.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitganguli ( talk • contribs)
External links should pertain to the city as a whole, or be something rare. Linking to a forum/blog is that is hardly notable, or verifiable reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. Besides, if there is a good resource for buildings it should be put in Tallest buildings in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Since all Mumbai buffs converge here, its a good idea to petition a review of all tags posted on Wikimapia. I saw a few errors, like the one on Eros Cinema!!! One more are the islands off Mumbai harbor - that requires checking.....
Pizzadeliveryboy 17:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Mumbai (1335) is now the fifth most tagged place in Wikimapia, after Portland (1427), Bucharest (1869), Taipei (2030) and Moscow (3892).....Last night it beat Seattle and Bangalore!!! Pizzadeliveryboy 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
How come there is no section on landmarks, wanted to add these pics i took recently somewhere -- PlaneMad| YakYak 19:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
We have:
Question: Why do we have two sentences saying "the opposing argument is". Second, do we have any evidence than anyone actually believes that the Portuguese and British "should get naming rights"? I would think the argument is that the city has been known as Bombay for centuries, including for several decades after independence, with nobody particularly complaining, and that the name change is nationalist posturing. The second "the opposing argument is" sentence is self-evidently stupid. john k 10:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone can provide a reliable source proving that the name "Bombay" actually derives from "bom bahia". The problem with this expression is that it is ungrammatical in Portuguese, as bahia (which would be "baia" in modern spelling) is a femenine noun, so "good bay" would be "boa baia". I don't think the noun "baia" has ever been masculine, so it is impossible for native speakers of Portuguese to have named the town or the original island "bom bahia", with a masculine adjective followed by a feminine noun. Furthermore, the traditional Portuguese name of the city is Bombaim, which also seems difficult to explain as an evolution of "bom bahia". Because of these considerations, I feel very sceptical about the credibility of the "bom bahia" theory. Although it seems to be quite common on the Internet and in other versions of Wikipedia, that may well be because of this Wikipedia article. So, can anyone confirm that the "bom bahia" theory has been proved? And, if so, what is the explanation for the incorrect grammar of such a name? AngelRiesgo 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Chirag 22:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the stuff of Bom Baia and Bombay coz most of that stuff is repeated in the sub-section "History" (xcept the corruption part). Besides it concentrated only on the Portuguese/British name's history with little mention of Mumbai or its origin which is equally important.
Also, I dont think its still known today as Bombaim by Portugal. They have probably accpted the name Mumbai. Case in point : Abu Salem's extradition to Mumbai from a court order of Portugal. I dont think the CBI lawyers in court there said "Your honour, please extradite Salem to Bombaim ". IAF
http://dn.sapo.pt/tools/imprimir.html?file=/2006/07/15/internacional/atentados_levam_singh_a_apontar_o_de.html. It uses Bombaim, just to prove the point. Name for the city in Portuguese, is part of the history. There is no issue against using Mumbai in current context. If the city name is Mumbai today, it should be called as Mumbai. But, if the city is name is changed, does not alter its history, just extends it. If someone changes name of Mumbai to something else tomorrow, as per the theory, they should invent NEW history, refute everything that is known. Chirag 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure why someone removed word Hindi from term Mumbai? Are they trying to agree to the fact that Mumbai name is only for Marathi, and Hindi language speakers are free to call it Bambai? Chirag 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned in Wiki T&C,name of city has to be in OFFICIAL language in that city.In case of Mumbai its Marathi and there's no need of mention of it in Hindi.If you want then plz apply the rule for all Indian cities.eg:bangalore,kolkata n chennai
Mahawiki, Is this a rule of Wikipedia? If it not, then it does not apply. If you still wish to implement the rule, why not convert entire article to marathi and update it in marathi wikipedia, why should someone even read this article without knowledge of marathi? Why do you even bother to update the article or even maintain the article here in first place?
Chirag 18:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes this is a rule of Wikipedia.Plz check it urself at bangalore , kolkata and chennai I am thankful for ur suggestion but I did read Kolkata's page without knowing Bangla..so Mumbai's name in Marathi has to be displayed.
And u dont need to tell me why or why not I should maintain this article.I am a Maharashtrian and I am a Mumbaikar is sufficient to this argument.I am sorry but ur being offensive.
No,Hindi has not being recognised as second offical language of Mumbai.Its only Marathi (~~).
I think it's greatly important to mention the past riots and regular terrorism acts that happened in the city. We need to highlight this information for the safety of the tourists and other visitors who come here. Thank you. August 16, 2006
Hi,
Please check WP:NOT. This is not a place to advt. I could tell you that, you are driving users from your site, by forcing your ad on this page, and not attracting them. Burrp!!!