Ramananrv123 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 401: | Line 401: | ||
::: 2. As regards the table, I would not have noticed this thing had it not been for the repeated reverts with towns in Malappuram. The subject matter is is not something where you have three - four columns of data that a table is warranted. |
::: 2. As regards the table, I would not have noticed this thing had it not been for the repeated reverts with towns in Malappuram. The subject matter is is not something where you have three - four columns of data that a table is warranted. |
||
::: You guys are doing good work in maintaining this article and I only wanted that you also give room for newbies and assume good faith. Thanks :-) [[User:Ramananrv123|rams81]] ([[User talk:Ramananrv123|talk]]) 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
::: You guys are doing good work in maintaining this article and I only wanted that you also give room for newbies and assume good faith. Thanks :-) [[User:Ramananrv123|rams81]] ([[User talk:Ramananrv123|talk]]) 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
User Rams, The editors Dileepks69, Mountainwhiskey and bijuts are not doing any good job here in maintaining the article. This article was developed by some senior editors. These new editors are just trying to hype in favour of their city. They are all from a forum called KochiNow (and skyscrapercity), and is a classic example of Meat Puppetry. They discuss their actions about how to hype and glorify Kochi, and put their words in to action here. They often call others vandals, if the edits are not digestable to them. |
|||
Coming to the topic; I support removing the distance table from the article. No other city article is having that. The distance table could be moved to the subsection '''Transport in Kochi''. Keeping the table there really makes the article looks more messy. Also, there are many extra lines in the article, which should be removed. --[[User:Samaleks|Samaleks]] ([[User talk:Samaleks|talk]]) 01:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:29, 23 March 2011
Kochi is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 1, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Crime Statistics and Inference thereof
Check, you have deleted the statement The state of Kerala as a whole stood at the third position. Within the state, Kochi reported the least number of crimes, making it the safest city in Kerala., supported by data in Table 1 of the reference. You claim wrong citation. Have you checked the numbers? The first statement is directly evident from Table 1.6, Page 200. The second statement is evident from Table 1.14, page 266, where the district wise crime data is given. Where a city commissioner is available, that data is separately given. you have to add the numbers to get the total in each row to see that Ernakulam commissioner have the lowest number of crimes reported. Please clarify your grounds for the edit
DileepKS69 (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dileep, I have checked the cited content. It says about Ernakulam district, and not about Kochi city. Moreover, if you add the number of total crimes recorded, Ernakulam is not the "safest". Ofcourse, Kerala always records a high number of crimes because of the fact that each of the crime is registered with the Police; unlike in many other states where the crimes are not even reported to the police. I request you to be more neutral while editing Kochi article. I understand the "my city is the best"-feeling; but please be considerate in wikipedia. --Chektomate (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me explain how the calculation is made.
There are city police commissioners in the three larger cities, and rural SPs for the rest of the district. The objective is to compare those three cities. There are 32 classes of violent crimes in the table. Then there is the 'others' class which is essentially non violent crimes, like financial crimes. It is not considered for evaluating the safety of a city. If you add up the violent crimes in the three cities, you will get 1736 for Kochi, 2437 for Kozhikode and 3269 for Trivandrum. Hence, in total number of violent crimes, Kochi stands lowest. Now, divide it by the population. Since we do not have accurate numbers for 2008, let us take 2001 as a reference. We get 307.48, 558.23 and 438.94 per lakh of population.
Hope that clears the point. DileepKS69 (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dear Dileep, from the citation, I can see that the total crimes are not the least in Kochi. I am referring to and adding up all the tables, and not only Table 1.14 as you mentioned. Crime includes financial crimes, theft, molestation, robbery etc (as listed in the cited pdf). There is nothing like violent crime and non-violent crime :-) All sort of crimes affects the safety of the citizens. --Chektomate (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- Also refer to Table 1.6, page 201 in the pdf. It is clearly stated that Kochi's Rank of Criminality is 4 among Indian cities, below Indore, Bhopal and Jaipur. --Chektomate (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Please read up on the way cities are ranked based on crime. For example, http://www.cityrating.com/crimestatistics.asp. The safety of the city is evaluated on major crimes, that the residents feel a sense of threat/fear. There is a reason why the 'others' category is there in the list, when every possible types of crimes are listed.
Perhaps the basis of the assertion could be made clear in the statement, but I don't see any reason for not using that data point.
Please note that the 4th rank is mentioned in the article. That makes it only fair to add the counter point to offer balance. In fact, I would suggest to add the reason for the high rank. In Kerala, crimes do get reported!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by DileepKS69 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- The figures from National Crimes Record Bureau covers of all possible type of major crimes apart from "Others". And safety is also based on theft, molestation, robbery, riots, rape etc; and not only based on murders or murder attempts.
It seems that you have an urge to polish the harshness of the fact that Kochi recorded a high crime rate. :-)
As you said, it is possible that the high crime rate is because of the fact that only a small number crimes go un-reported in Kerala. But here, we cannot make assumptions of our own, as it may get challenged. People from Bihar or UP can claim that their state is safer as the recorded crimes are lower.
Remember, wikipedia doesnt hold any opinion of its own. Wiki policy states that it is not a place to publish our own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. It is not a soap box to write promotional stuff (check here : Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. You can go through Original research policy to find out more. --Chektomate (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Drawing inferences from the available data and making assertions are NOT original research. BTW, your first sentence shows that you haven't read through the classifications of crimes. The numbers are derived after adding EVERYTHING except the class 'others'. Careful observation shows that the percentage of others is very high in Kochi. This is obviously because of all the industrial and financial activities in the city, and it does not cause safety concerns for citizens. DileepKS69 (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is no need to be so careful; simple reading itself will tell you that the crime rate in Kochi is not the lowest in the state :-) --Chektomate (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
please edit to say largest city. it is the largest by all std —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.125.169 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
2 million Population
The reference given about the population is not a valid reference. As per World Gazetteer, the population of Kochi UA is is 1,355,406 (see) in 2001 and 1,564,089 in 2010 estimated population. It is more valid reference than the reference given and is used by WikiProject Indian cities. Note that he total rural population of Ernakulam district is only 1,477,085 according to Census of India.(see this).
Also, according to the Census of India site, Kochi UA has a Population of 1,355,972. (see). What is the need for other references as we have all these reliable references about the population figures? BINOY Talk
- World Gazetteer is not a reliable source, as it call the population of Kochi as 266898 as per census 2001. That is a serious error, which should readily discount a source. This incorrect information had been on that site for quite some time, despite several emails being sent to the author. Hence, at least for Kochi related information, the said source shall remain discredited.
- Census of India is the official and credible source for population.
- But the issue here is a bit more complicated, which is the definition of the terms like Kochi UA and Greater Kochi. The Kochi UA is purely from the census POV and the Greater Kochi is from the urban planning POV. The urban planning area happens to be bigger than the urban agglomeration as defined by the census.
- A third data point came out recently, which is the master plan for Kochi. This defines an area that is midway between the above two.
- IMO, the census figure should appear at the head of the city article. The article on the urban area should use the urban planning based definition, and not the census definition. This is because census definition is based on the population angle alone, and the urban planning definition reflects the reality better.
DileepKS(talk) 09:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Spice, how can you call it a reliable source when it hosts an obviously incorrect piece of information? I would like to know your view on that, and why did you term it as a personal opinion, where I pointed out an obviously glaring error. It is not an opinion. It is a fact.
OR, are you asserting that the WG is correct, and the population of Kochi was, indeed 266898 in 2001?
DileepKS(talk) 10:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Census aggregate tables confound Ernakulam and Kochi, the details show where WG gets the exact number or 266898 from, with the Ernakulam part being the larger population sphere and Kochi being the smaller sphere. —SpacemanSpiff 11:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Where is Ernakulam called in that report? The section on important towns read as follows:
1.Kochi (M Corp.) (Part) 328,677
2.Kochi (M Corp.) (Part) 266,898
3.Edathala (CT) 67,754
Ernakulam is not called anywhere in that report, except as the name of the district at the title. There is no justification for taking one of the values, the smaller one at that, when the text clearly says it is two parts of the same M Corp.
Now, you are trying to defend a source that failed to do even the commonsense check on the data it publishes. Can you still vouch for its reliability?
DileepKS(talk) 11:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be missing the point here, Wikipedia is not the place for you to indulge in original research. If a reliable source uses the census data to reach a conclusion on extrapolation that's it. If another reliable source contradicts it, then it is fair to use both sources within the article and mention the discrepancy, but using non reliable sources is not on and definitely saying something is not reliable because you don't agree with their interpretation isn't on either. As for the census. this also shows an urban population in Kochi sub-district of 275K. If you have any reliable sources that contradict this data then put that up and we can discuss and maybe arrive at a conclusion to use both (at this point, I can not find any source on the census site that has a higher population), but the source that I recently reverted was not one such. —SpacemanSpiff 12:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kochi sub district means Kochi taluk. The above mentioned population from Kochi Taluk,not from metro area or city.
--Bijuts (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Please check the bangalore with same link http://www.censusindia.gov.in/PopulationFinder/Sub_Districts_Master.aspx?state_code=29&district_code=20
--Bijuts (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I am not missing any point here. You are just trying to prop up a losing argument to show WG's reliability, that's all. I don't know what your motivation here.
First of all, it is a well known indisputable fact that the city of Kochi, that is, the area under the local administration unit called Corporation of Cochin, had a population of more than 500,000 in 2001, and NOT around 266,000. That fact overrides all and every so called sources, their reliability notwithstanding. It is not a matter of interpretation. The exact number of population, however, needs a source. The census of India is the primary source for that. It clearly gives the city population, in two parts for reasons unknown, the total being 595575 in 2001.
Secondly, I am not making any original research here, and I am calling WG unreliable not because I don't agree with them. I am calling WG unreliable because they give a number that is obviously and blatantly incorrect, and you, dear sir, are trying to defend the indefensible. WG specifying the population of Kochi to be 266,898 is a serious error, tainting its reliability. That is all I have to say.
The real matter of debate here, however, is not the reliability of WG. It is the use of urban agglomeration as per census v/s the urban planning area as per the govt documents. Which makes sense in an encyclopedia. That is the real question. It is not a matter of source reliability. It is a matter of POV.
DileepKS(talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this is going nowhere, it's not in your place to make that judgment -- "and I am calling WG unreliable not because I don't agree with them". Either you bring forth reliable sources that attest to the city's population or stop making these arguments. I haven't seen your source yet and we don't deal in indisputable facts here, only verifiability. —SpacemanSpiff 13:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- According to Census of India, the population of Kochi UA is 1,355,972. I cannot find any details of two million figures and the Greater Cochin area.
Also, Dileep said that the urban planning area happens to be bigger than the urban agglomeration as defined by the census. Do you have any reliable reference about this? The article Kochi metropolitan area says that The area constituted on the basis of census data 2001, consists of Corporation of Kochi (Cochin), 9 municipalities, 14 Panchayaths and parts of 4 Panchayaths. The article Greater Cochin also says that "Greater Cochin area consists of Cochin Corporation, 9 municipalities, 25 intervening panchayats and scattered islands around Kochi City (Goshree Islands) covering an area of 732 km²". The "25 intervening panchayats" mentioned here is not in the given reference in the article. That means Kochi metropolitan area and Greater Cochin is same or don't have too much difference.
See the City Development Plan – Appraisal Report which doesn't even mentioned about the Greater Cochin area. BINOY Talk 13:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Census figures says clearly about the urban agglomeration (Kochi UA) population. There is no census data available for some thing called Greater Cochin. Please produce valid population data before changing the article. --Chektomate (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The concept of Greater Cochin is established with the formation of GCDA in 1976. The GCDA Website says The jurisdictional area of GCDA comprises of the Cochin City, the commercial capital of Kerala, 6 surrounding municipalities and 25 intervening panchayats covering an area of 632 sq.km. I am not able to obtain a more detailed reference on the exact specification on this. A GO from the registration department says: The Jurisdiction of Greater Cochin Development authority comprises the area covered by: Cochin Corporation, Municipalities of Perumbavoor Always; North Parur, Angamaly, Thriyppunithura, Eloor & Kalamasserry; Panchayaths of Pallippuram, Kuzhuppally, Edavakkad, Ezhikkara, Kottuvally, Alangad, Kadungalloor, Kadamakkudy, Cheranalloor, Nayarambalam, Njarackal, Elamkunnapuzha, Malavukad, Nedumbassery, Chengamanad, Kanjoor, Sreemoolanagaram, Keexhmad, Choornikkar, Vazhakkulam, Thrikkakkara, VadavocodePuthencruz, Thiruvankulam, Chottanikkara, Maradu, Kumbanlingi, Chellanam, Kumbalam, Udayaymperoor, Mulanthuruthy and Edathala. (Ins 4/21410/89/220890 of IGRegn).
As I mentioned earlier in the discussion, the jurisdiction of GCDA is Greater Cochin. This is bigger than the CDP and master plan for the city. That in turn is bigger than the U/A defined by census records. DileepKS(talk) 02:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
ya nigga, its a BIGGGG great fantastic city!! its bigger than KERALA!!!!!!! Its bigger than Chennai, Bangalore, Delhi and even MUMBAI, Hong Kong etc... Its Bigger than INDIA.... and even bigger than the very small NEWYORK CITY town village!!!! Great KOCHI, Big city.
the worst article i ever red in wiki... every one knows the status of indian cities!!! the largest city in india, mumbai which is dirty with slums every where.......... chennai is a little better than this... only thing i loved is that the articles in wikipedia about those citys are very good. i read almost all the city articles of india. but in this article this city which was not even in the list of top 10 populous cities in the country, WAS VERY GREAT!!! if you google about the city, there you get the real face of the city!!! Its a city with a few shopping malls and theater houses... and the name of the only few shopping malls is written in the article itself!!!! what is the need for that??? the important details written in the article are """there is two turns from that road and this road has two speed breakers and 500 sign boards, that mall has 79million shops and this shopping mall has 50 billion shops, there is a biiiiggggg tree in the downtown etc......
and when we look into the talk page to write the mistakes about the city, there goes huuuuugeeeee arguments. i know nothing is usefull and no one cares this msg in this page and nothing is going to happen in this article... i know some one will reply to this msg and if someone replied, my reply to that reply was LOL!!!!! may your reply RIP..............
KOCHI, the first, largest, biggest, topest, fantastic, boombastic city in the Universe, which is smaller ! 27.97.67.233 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Crime Statistics. Specific Mention of unreliable source
Aarem, Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Crime_statistics clearly states the following:
As a result, use of summarised crime statistics from raw data to indicate the criminality of a certain area in comparison with others or the prevalence of a certain type of crime constitutes original research. Editors should use reliable secondary sources for commentary on trends in the criminality or peacefulness of a district.
So, the NCRB report which suits exactly what is being called here, is inadmissible as a source. If reliable second sources are available, please bring it. If not, the statement need to be removed.
DileepKS(talk) 10:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dileep, I think you missed the last line : Editors should use reliable secondary sources. The citation provided in the article does not fall under WP:OR, since it is indicated very clearly in the crime report published by National Crime Records Bureau. There is no summarising of raw data by the editors here. The rank is taken directly from the report published by the Government agency.
- As per the crime rate is mega cities, Kochi stands in the fourth position with a crime rate of 646.3.
Rank City IPC Crime Rate 1 Indore 860.3 2 Bhopal 836.4 3 Jaipur 722.4 4 Kochi 646.3 5 Bengaluru 569.4
- You may call for a third opinion, if you are still not convinced. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 10:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like you are right. Thanks. DileepKS(talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Cuisine
Dileep, your edit here : cuisine is more apt in a tourism/travel page. As this is about the cuisine of the city in general, do we need to mention about fast food joints and You Buy, We Cook services? We need not mention these kind of details in the city page. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 11:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is in the Culture section. Definitely the food is part of the culture. You Buy, We Cook is a part of the food culture of Fort Kochi. It is not just the tourists who enjoy it. I myself used to eat there whenever I visit Fort Kochi. It is something unique to the place, and as Fort Kochi as the Cheena Valas.
- The mention of fast food is under a different angle. It shows the gradual change in culture. Two decades ago, we hardly had any fast food places. Then the local foods, like dosa and porotta came in fast food avatar. Now, it is the time of other cuisines, like fried chicken, shawarma, pizza etc. Locals regularly eat them. Isn't it very relevant to mention this change at the culture section?
- IMO, there is a wide grey area between tourism/travel and culture, because much of tourism is about culture only. If you take extreme views, one can't even mention about places of interest, because they too are tourism/travel.
- Please suggest re-phrasing if needed, but my take is that the food scene is part of the culture, and should find a place on the page.
- DileepKS(talk) 11:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think you got me wrong. Sorry, if my message was not clear enough. I did not say that stating the food culture should be removed. My intention was to point out the [ statements entered by you. The statements sound like a blog entry. I need not suggest a re-phrasing, you are capable of doing that. Please go ahead. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 02:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Fine. What about this?
The cuisine at Kochi is in general the Keralite Cuisine, which is characterized by the abundance of coconut and spices. Interaction with other cultures, both from the rest of India as well as international, had its influence upon the cuisine. Chinese and North Indian dishes find the same prominence as the Keralite cuisine at restaurants. A number of restaurants also serve various international cuisines, such as Italian, French, Mexican, Thai etc. Being close to the ocean and the backwaters, seafood forms a prominent part in the cuisine. A service known as You Buy, We Cook is available at the waterfront of Fort Kochi, where the fresh seafood purchased from the nets is cooked as per the customers needs. Fastfood culture is also very prominent in the city. Fastfood versions of traditional dishes like dosas and parathas are widely available. Arabian food joints that serve Shawarma and roasted chicken are a new addition to the fast food scene in the city.
DileepKS(talk) 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- May I know whether the Italian, French, Mexican, Thai, etc are a part of general cuisine of Kochi? Being in Kochi, I didn't know that these are part of normal cuisines. All cities have these kind of restaurants, but all these stuffs will not get included when we talk about cuisine of the city. This sounds snobbish (verum pongacham) and childish.
- If you still insist in adding these, then please add Chinese, Korean, Pakistani, Srilankan, etc. Because, some restaurants in star hotels serve these food also.
- I agree to add the You Buy, We Cook service. You should also add Kundan's thattu kada in Fort Kochi and many other parts in Kochi, which is very famous. It is also a part of the food culture of Fort Kochi. It is not just the tourists who enjoy it. Many people I know used to eat there whenever they visit Fort Kochi (may be you too). It is something unique to the place, and as Fort Kochi as the Cheena Valas and as You Buy services.
- There is another service in Marine Drive area known as Vayil Ulathiyathu (Food prepared directly from farms).
- You should also mention about "We give, you Taste" in Kaloor. This is very very prominent one, and I have seen Kochi crowds queuing up for this service.
- There are many more which could be included in the cuisine section; You buy we cook is not the only one.
- Apart from adding Shawarma and Roasted chicken, please add Ulli theeyal, Kaa varuthathu, and Undan pori also.
--59.98.82.136 (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear IP user 59.98.82.136 Wikipedia is NOT a FORUM to have a general discussion. If you want your arguments to be considered, please sign in under a username, and make the arguments in a civil and rational manner.
DileepKS(talk) 06:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no rule here that only registered users are allowed to edit or discuss. The statement from you above is as if you are the founder of wikipedia. I prefer not to login using any user name, and i may still edit the articles. If you can show me any rule in wiki that I cannot edit with anonymous IPs, I will stop contributing to wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.248 (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Of course you can contribute with IP, but if you want to hold a continued meaningful discussion on the talk page, there should be some continuity of the source. A dynamic IP that changes from post to post makes it very bad to hold a meaningful discussion.
- DileepKS(talk) 02:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Towns to be mentioned in the NH Table
An IP Editor is inserting Kodungalloor and Ponnani in the table entry for NH-17. The comment given in the edit summary is not clear. Already a couple of reverts happened, so I am opening the talk here to try resolve it.
It is the article of Kochi. NOT an article on NH-17, so you don't need detailed driving directions kind of information on the article. Only big/important towns are listed there. Avoiding driving confusion (that is what I could understand from the edit summary) is NOT a priority here, hence Kodungalloor and Ponnani is not needed there.
The IP Editor may please respond here. Meanwhile I am removing the edit, based on WP:BRD principle.
DileepKS(talk) 10:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Dileep,
I noticed the edit war going on around these two towns. While I partly share your opinion on the criteria to add towns to the list. Adding Kodungallur and Ponnani is not harming anyone. Strictly speaking we only need mention that NH-17 and NH-47 pass through Kochi with hyperlinks to the respective highway's article. If the edit war is not resolved, I suggest the table removed. rams81 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
@Ram & the identity-less IP editor (59.x.x.x) - As the editor who put in that NH table on the Kochi page, let me request you not to blindly and blatantly wreck that useful piece of information. This is the Kochi city page and that table is talking about National Highways that either start/end or pass through the city and the major towns and cities that the corresponding NH passes through. If we go by your logic (both Ram & 59.x), we may have to add every town in Konkan, Goa, TN etc which are of the same importance and size of Ponnani and Kodungaloor. Excuse my spelling mistakes, if any. I suggest that only the importance cities and towns be retained in that table. The average visitor to Wiki should be able to gather information at one quick glance. Having 100s of towns in that table would not help the visitor that way. No, Ram - the table cannot be removed as you have requested above. We would rather remove those two UNIMPORTANT TOWNS than remove an useful piece of information. Also, please do not call this an EDIT war. It is one-sided Vandalism by 59.x. Thanks for your time - MountainWhiskey - talk 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- @ Mountainwhiskey
Ok. Please explain me how you define the criteria for "Important Town". rams81 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- @Ram - I would ideally look at comparing the two towns you have mentioned to those like Kannur, Mangalore, Panaji etc. If you look at the cities mentioned in the table, only the MOST important cities or towns have been mentioned. The whole idea is to give the visitor an idea as to how Kochi connects to Panvel through the NH17. It is all about giving the visitor a sense of direction and is not an attempt to promote a particular city or town. The most commonly used route to Kozhikode from Kochi is through NH17 and I do not see a need to mention every small town that lies on the route, which would also mean a very lengthy and detailed table. The Wikilink to NH17 is given in the table and if a visitor so wishes, s/he can visit the Wiki page for NH17 and gather more information about the towns that lie on the NH17. Hope this clarifies - Cheers! - MountainWhiskey - talk 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- @ MW,
My point is as you have answered yourself, ("The Wikilink to NH17 is given in the table and if a visitor so wishes, s/he can visit the Wiki page for NH17 and gather more information about the towns that lie on the NH17.") it is enough to give the Highway number with a link to its article. The person will look into it if he finds it relevant. There is no point in having a table and then fighting over which city to add and which to delete.
Based on your own argument, I don't see any popular route to Kannur or Mangalore from Kochi other than through, so why give Kozhikode and Kannur?
The whole idea is to bring this article to a level of readability instead of clustering it with all sorts of information. If you remember it WAS a featured article some months back. rams81 (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Rams, vandalism is more of an attitude, than the action. Look at the history of this IP editor (Different but very similar IPs). First he added Ponnani. When that was deleted, he added Guruvayoor, which is not even on the NH. Then he posted something about the Cuisine. If you know the slangs in Malayalam, you will know the underlying meanings on that post. Then he went on the flip-flop of edit/revert, ignoring the invitation to Talk. Clearly, his intentions are not the well being of the article.
- IMHO, you did a disservice to the page by supporting him and reinstating his edit. You are a very senior editor, and I respect your intentions. But, I am sure you would agree that this would set a precedence and let people add a big list of towns.
- Back to the subject, I don't think just having the NH number, and linking to its page is enough to serve the purpose. Remember that it is about the connectivity of the city. It only makes sense to provide a general sense of the connectivity by providing the end points (required) and if the highway is long (like the NH 17 is) to provide a list of important towns that it connects (desired). The importance of the town should be considered from the angle of the city itself.
- The reason given by the editor is verbatim Ponnani from Malappuram is also needed since there is a confusion of SH-69 & NH-17 passing through Malappuram Dist from Kuttipuram/Edappal.. Is that a valid reason for inclusion on a city page? And you seemed to support that stance by reinstating that edit. I am sorry to say, but you aren't helping by that.
- I hear often about the past FA status on this page. Do you really believe supporting this kind of edits would further that cause?
DileepKS(talk) 01:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just so that all of you who are part of this discussion are aware - there are several IP users trying to vandalize the page which could lead to a page lockout - the IPs worth noting start with 59.98.8x.xx (Kozhikode) and 124.247.212.239 (Pune). Pls ignore them as far as you can because their intentions are purely of a vandal nature and are not here to contribute whatsoever. - MountainWhiskey - talk 10:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC) @MountainWhiskey.
- Don't under-estimate anybody if that person is NOT using an id.Don't feel that whatever you do is RIGHT and whatever others object you ropnion which is digestable to you is WRONG.Also,don't make any Blind conclusion that ALL REVERTS ARE VANDALISM.You are also doing the same,not only here but in some other pages too.
@DileepKS
- Hope you are NOT the moderator or admin of wiki as you do in KochiNow.You are free to HYPE you city there.You are one among other editors and the wiki rules are same to al editors including you.Thats all.
@Bijuts
- Don't show your arrogance.Njaan pidicha muyalinu kombu moonnu enna bhaavam.Thats not good.
@All others.
- I accept the point that this is a CITY PAGE.Then why is the necessity of the detailed description ie;the cities covered column especially in this page.A wikilink to the concerned NH is enough.Those who need to get the details shall only goto that page.
- The statements made by MW & DKS are funny.YES Bosses.There is a confusion in the nodes you mentioned here.Because the node at Kuttippuram deviates 90 deg to Ponnani.and passes through Chavakkad,Kodungallur etc.
- You made it as Kochi just after Kozhikode.This is WRONG.One who travel this route clearly knows that.Your table simply makes confusion.Also you avoided a pont in Malappuram & Thrissur district.
- It seems you people want to put Kochi wherever you want.Why Kochi is to mention in the 3rd column.Its already there in "From" & "To" .It clearly shows you intention.
--59.98.80.89 (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- @ 59.98.80.xx - Yes, we are all supposedly from KOCHINOW and we want to promote Kochi. Aha, so what next? Do you have a solution to all the above so-called problems or are you here to create more problems? - MountainWhiskey - talk 18:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
@Mountainwhiskey, Dileeks and Bijuts: Thanks for openly admitting that you are all from a common forum for hyping Kochi. That falls under Meat Puppetry in wiki. And your intentions are similar to paid editing. Btw, it is not good to call others vandals to show your frustration. Infact, your efforts to glamourize the city page are problematic. When I went through the discussion, I feel what IP 59.x is correct. My suggestion is to move the distance chart in transport section to the Transport subsection. None of the other city pages are having those kind of format. --Samaleks (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear IP Editor, let me repeat. the cities are listed:
1. NOT to clarify the route. 2. NOT to represent the districts
It is listed to show the CONNECTIVITY to important cities. If your assertion is that Ponnani is an important connection to Kochi, please say so. The other arguments doesn't stand, because it is a CITY page.
Samaleks, I had been seeing this allegation of hyping, glamourizing etc. The edit history is public on Wikipedia. Please list the edits that I did, which you consider glorifying/hyping the city, and I shall learn from them. Thanks.
DileepKS(talk) 01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Samaleks - Though this is not the page to discuss this, let me ask you who ADMITTED that myself, BijuTS, DileepKS are all from KochiNOW? You cannot simply announce Meat Puppetry here. Please go ahead and bring together some facts to prove the same! This cannot go on - I mean your allegations... I understand you fail to see the sarcasm in my response to the IP editor 59.x.x.x when I say "We all SUPPOSEDLY belong to the KochiNow forum" which was meant to satisfy the IP editor and possibly yourself as well, on your wild unsupported and baseless allegations and claims of every editor on Kochi being from some forum called KochiNow . You might think that we are from the same forum or whatever and have the same intentions, but you cannot continue to make baseless allegations. You should maybe go on to prove some of your dreamed up allegations. In fact, I could accuse You (Samaleks), 59.x.x.x, Lower Fourth etc, that you are all coming together to destroy Kochi pages. But, instead, I have left it to the Wiki Admins to find out who is doing what here... Have a nice day and would love to see more of your contributions to make Wiki a better place! - MountainWhiskey - talk 03:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
@Samaleks & the IP User: What is this KochiNow all about?It is just a forum to promote a particular city.I checked that forum,but couldn't find anything what you are mentioned here.But seen that DileepKS is one of the moderator there.Truely speaking I'm not much interested in such biased forums,so didn't gone in detail there.IP User,If you allege that why can't you show any proof of that? Also,Samaleks if this is the case of Meat Puppetry; it is SERIOUS I think.But without any proof how come?
@MountainWhiskey: Are you SURE that the allegations made above are baseless?Why because, you challenged about such one about another forum (forgot its name) somewhere in Wiki recently.There also it seems no proofs were produced;I think.
--Induzcreed (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Proof? If you browse that forum (Kochinow.com), you will find that all these editors (Dileep, Biju, Mantanviskey) are active forumers there and they all combine to create the same hype and editwars in wiki also. This is ofcourse MEAT puppetry. We should point this to the admins. These biased editors are not required in wikipedia. --Samaleks (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Samaleks, if you want to request a user investigation, please do so using the appropriate procedures. The talk page of an article is not the right place for that.
The issue under discussion here is, what is the criteria of including a town in the list of cities/towns connected in the table of highways. The reason provided by the editor who included two towns is verbatim Ponnani from Malappuram is also needed since there is a confusion of SH-69 & NH-17 passing through Malappuram Dist from Kuttipuram/Edappal. This is a city page, so that argument does not stand here. It maybe valid on the page of the NH.
The cities are listed:
1. NOT to clarify the route. 2. NOT to represent the districts
It is listed to show the CONNECTIVITY to important cities. If the assertion is that Ponnani is an important connection to Kochi, please say so. The other arguments doesn't stand, because it is a CITY page.
Editors Samaleks and Induzcreed have not provided ANY argument for or against the inclusion of those towns. Editor Ram didn't reply either. The IP Editor too did not give any arguments other than Ponnani from Malappuram is also needed since there is a confusion of SH-69 & NH-17 passing through Malappuram Dist from Kuttipuram/Edappal.. Please state your arguments here, why the towns Ponnani and Kodungalloor should be added as the towns connected to Kochi by NH-17. Do you still assert that the reason Ponnani from Malappuram is also needed since there is a confusion of SH-69 & NH-17 passing through Malappuram Dist from Kuttipuram/Edappal. is valid? If not, do you have another one? Please state.
DileepKS(talk) 13:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
@DileepKS:Please see the reply in the section Below.
Thanks
--Induzcreed (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Removing the table on Highways
Though the edit war on the table started when a user tried adding a few cities and editors from Kochi not liking their city being linked with (pun intended) with smaller cities :-), as an introspection I find the table itself odd in the first place.
1. The table is an information overload. A causal listing of a couple of places will do. Any reader interested in knowing how Kochi connects to other major cities in India only need to click the Highway's link. The table as such is an eyesore in an otherwise good article.
2. No other city article has such tables. rams81 (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Ram - the edit war is being caused by none other than Sam, Lower, 59.x and a few others. The table was originally created by me to provide visitors to the Kochi page with one-stop info on the highway networks. Earlier, it was in a long paragraph and could not be easily dug out. Now, to avoid clutter, the info was kept very basic, hence inclusion of only major cities or towns. Moreover, it aims to provide a sense of direction. Of course, as usual, edit-war mongers like some of the above appeared on the scene and started inserting one town at a time and provoking the original editors. Every revert would gradually contribute to an edit war. Now, like you call it, it is an edit war - one-sided though.
- Giving into these edit war mongers, would mean no new contributions to Wiki. I do not see why a table which carries very useful information be removed to please a few ZERO-contributing Revert and Edit War specialists. Thanks & Cheers - MountainWhiskey - talk 03:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi MW,
- Let's be mature and not point at each other stating "he did this so I did this". The subject is do we need a table here, cluttering the flow of the article. Ok. I suggest something. Let me try to edit that section and if you guys find it objectionable, do let me know. rams81 (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok guys, I abridged the information spread out in table and in paragraphs. I hope this helps. Keep in mind that there are length guidelines for articles in wikipedia and one can always add a new article say, "Highway Connectivity to Kochi" to add more information and place a hyperlink just below the heading Highways in this article. Let's shed our ego and work on making this a fantastic article.. Cheers!! :-) rams81 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Ram - I reckon your mention of Ego and Maturity should go to the vandals and destructors. It was they who did this and that and who had a problem with everything. Needless to say, they are zero contributors. People who love to see growth stunted like our rulers.
- I really do not see the need to pull down the table. It is quite an useful piece of information and even the 'VANDALS' never wanted to remove the table. But, they wanted to include their towns, hometowns or whatever you might wanna call it. You are the only editor here seeking to remove the table. I do not see why. And, the format put up by you is taking us back to those unpleasant look. I would suggest removing it and putting it back in table format. My 2cents. -MountainWhiskey - talk 03:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Ram - Alternatively, if it is the looks of the table that is bothersome to many of you, we can put up the same information in bullet points. I strongly feel that information should be quickly accessible to the layman visitor to the page and not hidden in cluttered paragraphs. Hence, my insistence on tables where one can quickly access the info s/he wants. And, No, I am not removing information to please vandals. Never. They should come here with an identity and justify their reverts.- MountainWhiskey - talk 04:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ram, your pun was uncalled for, and if I didn't know better, I might have attributed it to non WP:AGF. I am sorry to point out that instead of answering the question, you went on a tangent of the table being an eyesore.
The specific question was, let me repeat, is the argument Ponnani from Malappuram is also needed since there is a confusion of SH-69 & NH-17 passing through Malappuram Dist from Kuttipuram/Edappal. an admissible one for inclusion of the towns in the list? This is a fundamental policy question, which has relevance whether we retain the table or not. I do not consider it admissible. Do you?
I ask this again because yourself and Samaleks seemed to come to the defense of the IP editor who made that argument. Your opinion, being from a very senior editor, carries weight.
thanks
DileepKS(talk) 05:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
@DileepKS : What wrong with you??Do you expect a reply as soon as you make a comment?How can you prove that I came for the defense of the IP user?What is the necessity for me to do that?If you want to continue with the discussion in a wiki professional manner please do it and refrain from any personal attacks.
- Now regarding the table,my opinion is that the table itself is NOT Necessary.Nobody have doubt that this is city page.There is no need of mentioning the other cities covered by that particular NH in a table format.The description type will do.If anybody wants to know more about the places through which that NH is passing,just need to go to that NH Page.Thats all wiki about.
- So better remove the table itself and the old format will be enough in this page.
Thanks.
--Induzcreed (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Induz, my apologies. You didn't support the POV of the IP Editor. You only intervened in reply to Samaleks. Only Ram and Samaleks did seem to support the IP Editors. Sorry about the mix up, and in fact I should thank you for the intervention. (I edited out your name in the original post)
I am neutral on whether the information should be in a table format or not. My opinion is that the connectivity to important cities need to be there in the section. But what is important is definitely a matter of contention, so IMVVHO, we may remove the connected cities information altogether.
Still, I am concerned about the apparent support of two editors to an argument that I find absolutely absurd. I still feel a need to resolve that as part of the quest of continual improvement.
DileepKS(talk) 06:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
@ALL - The NH table has been removed to avert an edit war encouraged by a few unreasonable anonymous IP users and casual revert-specialists (see above for better description). The information about NHs can be seen in the form of bullet points. Connected towns and cities have been removed to a great extent because obviously Wiki has no space for every panchayat in Kerala to be included. - MountainWhiskey - talk 14:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- @All,
- Ok guys, thanks for your support and understanding. Too much water has flown under Aluva bridge since I last logged in. :-) so let me just clarify my stand.
- 1. I don't support or nor am I against anyone. I assume Good faith even with the IP editors. I hope Dileep and MountainWhiskey understand very well what a Vandalism is and have seen pages being vandalised. Here is someone trying to add a few more places and you guys pounce on him/her and reverting the edits. As I see it, the addition of a few towns does no harm when small branches of NH-47 like NH-47C etc can add value to this article. HAving said that if someone lists 15 towns on a highway, it is a kill, a reasonable number would be 5-6. So you now know.
- 2. As regards the table, I would not have noticed this thing had it not been for the repeated reverts with towns in Malappuram. The subject matter is is not something where you have three - four columns of data that a table is warranted.
- You guys are doing good work in maintaining this article and I only wanted that you also give room for newbies and assume good faith. Thanks :-) rams81 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
User Rams, The editors Dileepks69, Mountainwhiskey and bijuts are not doing any good job here in maintaining the article. This article was developed by some senior editors. These new editors are just trying to hype in favour of their city. They are all from a forum called KochiNow (and skyscrapercity), and is a classic example of Meat Puppetry. They discuss their actions about how to hype and glorify Kochi, and put their words in to action here. They often call others vandals, if the edits are not digestable to them.
Coming to the topic; I support removing the distance table from the article. No other city article is having that. The distance table could be moved to the subsection 'Transport in Kochi. Keeping the table there really makes the article looks more messy. Also, there are many extra lines in the article, which should be removed. --Samaleks (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)