Talk:Delhi/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Sister cities

A big deal is made of them. Really, isn't this a bit trivial for a summary article on this major world city? I see no evidence that it's not just like other "sister city" relationships: an occasion for politicians to have an overseas trip to sign up and get their photo taken. Tony (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Section: Metro, Last Line: possible error, please edit

The last line of the paragraph contains name of a person 'Sujit Bhati'. Please correct this error.

"However, the organisation is under administrative control of Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. Besides construction and operation of Delhi metro, DMRC is also involved in the planning and implementation of metro rail, monorail and high-speed rail projects in India and providing consultancy services to other metro projects in the country as well as abroad.Sujit Bhati, Delhi." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.244.142 (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! :) TheStrike Σagle 04:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Montage

I propose to use the Red Fort be the lead image of Delhi Montage. It is arguably the most identifiable building for Delhi and is used for Prime Minister's annual speech to the nation. I see in the archives that suggestions for this had been made in the past though I don't see a reason anywhere in the archives as to why this was not done then. Nix.kappler (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

IPA missing 'h'

Anyone please take care of the missing 'h' in IPA for 'Delhi'. Thanks Martinian Leave a message! 05:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please fix "Formatting error: invalid input when rounding"

Someone please fix "Formatting error: invalid input when rounding" present at the right side under metro section Jadhavdevendra (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Native names in the infobox

I'm confused. An editor removed "Hindi: दिल्ली/Urdu: دلّی, Punjabi: ਦਿੱਲੀ" from the infobox, referring to WP:INDICSCRIPT. I reverted, because INDICSCRIPT seemed irrelevant. It reads, in full: "There is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script. It is suggested that IPA be used for help with pronunciation. For details, refer to this RfC: Native languages in lead." I was promptly re-reverted, with an edit summary I'm afraid I don't understand: "So you are saying the reasons it was argued for in the lead won't be the same? doesn't make any sense." Most of the arguments in the mentioned "Native languages in lead" discussion were exclusively relevant to the lead as far as I can see, Abhishek191288. I see you took part in the discussion, so you will know what it was about: not regional or indic script in infoboxes, but purely about leads. The person who opened the noticeboard discussion and proposed removing indic scripts from the lead wrote "Well, I don't mind including anything that an editor wants in good faith; but why in the lead?" The infobox has a line for "native name" — is that not supposed to be used for Delhi? What sorts of native names are meant to go there? What's the "native name" line for, and what is the {{lang-hi|दिल्ली}}/[[Urdu]]: {{nastaliq|دلّی}}, {{lang-pa|ਦਿੱਲੀ}} template for? But I want to emphasize that I have no special interest in the Delhi infobox; I won't re-revert, nor return to this discussion, now that I've said my piece. I was passing and saw a change made with an edit summary referring to a principle that seemed to be about something else that's all. Per WP:BRD, it would have been nice if you had taken it to talk when you were reverted, Abhishek. Bishonen | talk 05:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC).

It seems to me that it might be helpfull to mention the local name in the infobox. To compare with the Netherlands: "'s Gravenhage" is the official name of our political capital, but "Den Haag" is the commonname. No way a non-native would recognize this, unless they knew. Same for "'s Hertogenbosch/Den Bosch". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Bishonen and User:Joshua Jonathan are correct. According to an administrator involved in the aforementioned discussion, User:RegentsPark, it is permissible to have Indic scripts in the infobox of geographical related articles, albeit not in the lede. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Newoldplaindelhi

The text should make quite clear what the relationship is among the current places/terms Delhi, New Delhi, Old Delhi and the three-letter abbreviation for the capital area. I think a lot of readers come to the article confused about the difference between Delhi and New Delhi (e.g., I came here upon hearing a radio broadcast that [incorrectly] contrasted the two). Currently, the article is labyrinthine with respect to this simple question.211.225.33.104 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple history sections

There are two separate history sections in the article with some overlap. Could someone with more knowledge of the subject than me please merge them?  Philg88 ♦talk 10:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Settlement type

Mega city status update for Delhi, as the population crossed 1billion. Ref: Population of UAs/Towns (5. Mega Cities) definition.----Vin09 (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Connaught Place photograph

The photograph should be updated to show the huge new India flag in the park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi bbsr (talk • contribs) 09:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

NCT of India or NCT of Delhi

In the beginning of the article and in the infobox, Delhi is said to be known as the National Capital Territory of India. I think it should be changed to National Capital Territory of Delhi. The latter is more common and makes more sense than the former. The Delhi's government is officially the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Zaketo (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hospitals

Is it correct for the sub-section "Hospitals" to appear in the section "Sports"? Old Father Time (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done I made hospitals its own section. Thank you for noticing the problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

English as an official language

@SpacemanSpiff: You should provide a reference for the "Official Language Act 2003" that you mentioned when you reinstated English as an official language. Currently neither official language reference mentions English. Thomas.W's reference gives only Hindi. Batternut (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It is AFAIK actually the "Official Languages Act, 1963" (full text at Wikisource): "Notwithstanding the expiration of the period of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution, the English language may, as from the appointed day, continue to be used, in addition to Hindi, (a) For all the official purpose of the Union for which it was being used immediately before that day; and (b) For the transaction of business in Parliament.". The Indian Constitution of 1950 stated that Hindi and English would be the official languages of the union, and also said that English should be phased out after 15 years (i.e. 1965). But fierce protests against phasing out English, mainly from states with native languages unrelated to Hindi, resulted in the "Official Language Act, 1963", which in effect cancelled phasing out English, keeping it alongside Hindi. And nothing much has happened since, so both Hindi and English are official languages within the Union government, including parliament, and all Union governed areas and territories. Thomas.W talk 11:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Thomas.W:You are partially right as Union Territories follow the OLA 1963 unless they have enacted something different (Delhi and Puducherry have done so). In this case, the Delhi "Official Language Act 2000/2003" (passed by the legislature in 2000, received presidential assent in 2003) became the primary law for local governance and it content flowing over from the OLA 1963: Provided that English may continue to be used, for those administrative and legislative purposes for which it was being used before the commencement of of this Act in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 (19 of 1963). I don't know when the original reference for this was removed from the article or why, but here's the full note from the Delhi government, not the single page bit that's now in the article [1]. —SpacemanSpiff 12:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: The only changes in Delhi are actually that they through a "local" law have added Urdu and Punjabi as "Second Official Languages", there's been no change to the "Official Language Act, 1963", which is a Union law, and since it's still in effect is what makes English an official language in Delhi. Thomas.W talk 13:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The Union Official languages aren't applicable at state level (exception of Union Territories where it is de facto until something else becomes de jure) except for communication with the central government. The official language(s) of the Union don't have to be official at the state level but will only have to be used for (a) State/UT-Centre communication and (b) State/UT-State/UT communication as per OLA, 1963. Case in point is the case of Hindi, although it's an official language of India, it is not an acceptable form of communication with states such as Tamil Nadu and UTs like Puducherry. An example for the non-acceptance of Union official languages is in this link, just search for Jyoti Basu. Through judgments and governmental clarifications, OLA 1963 has to give precedence to state official languages and choices, so a state can choose one or both of the Union official languages for its "external communication", but does not have to do so internally as its own official language. —SpacemanSpiff 13:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Delhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Population of Delhi, not Gurgaon, not Noida

What is the population of Delhi? Is it 11 million or 16 million? Tri400 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

16 million is the National Capital Territory of Delhi and doesn't include Gurgaon or Noida and others. If it did it would easily be 21-25+.Filpro (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Delhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Notable people

The next days I will merge the two lists. Regards--Buchbibliothek (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Delhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Indian Economy about economy size and rank claims

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Economy#City economy size and rank claims - a consensual approach which could affect this article. Please add all comments on that talk page regarding economy size and rank claims. Thanks, Batternut (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Population of the Metro Area

Which is the best/most interesting population figure to use for Delhi's Metro Area? This area includes connected towns and cities beyond the NCT boundary:

  • 21.7 million, per the 2011 census 'Extended UA' figure, or
  • 25.7 million, per Demographia's estimate in 2016,
  • 26.5 million, per UN The World's Cities in 2016,[1]
  • 24.9 million, per UN World Urbanization Prospects 2014.[2]

Or perhaps some other figure... Batternut (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Batternut: Currently, almost all Indian city articles mention population (for city-proper and UA and extended UA if applicable) as per 2011 Census of India. And this will continue till 2021 Census results are released. Census population figures are most reliable and accurate for countries and cities alike. Since in population section of infobox of Delhi article, other figures (for main UA, UT and city proper) are also as per 2011 census, figures for EUA or Metro area must be as per 2011 census.

Moreover newer population "estimates" must be mentioned in lead of article only. For that, United Nations' official projections of 2016 are far more reliable than this Demographia's figures. Here is the UN source.[1] This source document is very large in size and may take time to download but the main thing which we have to see is perhaps in the earlier pages. As you will see it, UN clearly mentions Delhi as world's second largest urban area after Tokyo with population of more than 26 million. This UN source is perfectly reliable for use in the lead. And I have already explained you about Delhi's UA in NCT limits and EUA including areas beyond NCT.

And "short UA" must also be mentioned because that is what the Census of India acknowledges as main UA of Delhi city. Census of India provides separate figures for UAs of Delhi, Ghaziabad, Gurgaon, Faridabad and Noida. Please see List of million-plus agglomerations in India for more reference. This list mentions population of main UAs (defined by census) and not Extended UAs. Then it is also undeniable that the cities I mentioned above are in extremely close proximity with UA in NCT and hence make the Extended UA of Delhi which is the principal urban area in NCR. Vibhss (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Who says "estimates" must be mentioned in lead of article only?
  • Looking at the next biggest cities in India, Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai all cite citypopulation.de, Kolkata cites only census, Hyderabad cites some newspapers too.
  • "Short UA" and "main UA" are novel terms that will mean nothing to most people.
  • Thanks for the UN The World's Cities in 2016 suggestion - I've added it to the list above, together with the UN WUP report. Batternut (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Batternut: Which cities are you talking about ? Yes, they use Citypopulation.de but that site clearly mentions that its figures for Indian cities have been derived from official census of India. Check it yourself. Vibhss (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the article to use the 26.5 million estimate from per UN The World's Cities in 2016, and moved the short UA / extended UA figures from the infobox to the Demographics section. It seems to me that three population stats in the infobox is plenty. Pending further comments, of course... Batternut (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Batternut: That's fine but short UA figures (from short UA I am again and again referring to simply the limits of an urban area officially acknowledged by Census of India as a UA) must also be mentioned in infobox because they are census figures (i.e. figures for main UA as defined by census) and such figures are used on all Indian city articles' infoboxes. I have restored those figures in infobox. Although Delhi NCT is 97% urbanized but still it has 3% rural area; in the 97% part also, much of the area is continuous leaving some small towns located far away and so, it becomes important to separate figures of Delhi UA in NCT from entire NCT figures (It may sound silly to you but if you have Google Earth you can check satellite images of Delhi or you can also see satellite map on Google Maps; of course, it's your own wish).

And your question, Who says "estimates" must be mentioned in lead of article only? Well nobody says this but entire population section of infobox is based on 2011 census and still you added 2016 figures for Metro. Since, population figures of UT, UA and City in the infobox are based on 2011 census and Metro's figures are according to 2016 projection of UN, it becomes essential to specify year with Metro figures in infobox of Delhi and I have done that. If you want to remove the year, you will have to place 2011 Extended UA figures of 21.7 million because the whole population section of infobox is supposed to be as per 2011 census if year is not specified with Metro figures. Vibhss (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vibhss: Yes, the year needed to be mentioned, thanks.
It does not follow that, because the census provides Urban Area figures, we *must* put them in wikipedia infoboxes.
Interestingly the census does not provide Extended UA figures - they have just been cooked up by a press bureau, and that was in a briefing where they incorrectly suggest that Delhi NCR is a UA of 21 million when in fact 46 million people live there... Batternut (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/urbanization/the_worlds_cities_in_2016_data_booklet.pdf
  2. ^ "World Urbanization Prospects 2014" (PDF). United Nations. 2014. Retrieved 4 March 2017.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Delhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Delhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Should Template:Largest cities of India be used as a navigation box?

Template:Largest cities of India has recently been added at the foot of many cities, by way of use as a navbox. Is this template creep?

Please discuss at Template talk:Largest cities of India#Should Template:Largest cities of India be used as a navigation box?. Batternut (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrative Divisions

I think this needs to be made more clear "civic administration" section. For instance, it's not made clear if the "districts" of Delhi are the same administrative districts the rest of the Indian states and territories are divided into. In fact, the "List of districts of Delhi" seems to point to them being different, at least in that these are only revenue districts. Are Delhi districts the same as districts in every other state and territory? Next, where are the list of the 27 tehsils that comprise Delhi? There is an entire page given over to non-local government census towns, but not a page dedicated to the official tehsil subdivisions of the districts. Finally, the "Divisions of Delhi" page seem to replicate the "List of districts of Delhi" page. If Delhi doesn't have "Divisions" as an official administrative division, that page doesn't need to exist or one of those two pages needs to be merged into the other. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Getting a better handle on this, is there a map super-imposing the municipal boundaries over those of the district boundaries? As an example, is New Delhi both a district and a municipal council and do they both share the same borders? More simply does the municipal council of New Delhi cover the district of New Delhi in its entirety? Finally, since it appears that the three municipal corporations of Delhi cover basically every part of the districts outside New Delhi district (which is also a municipal corporation), which part of a district or districts does the Delhi Cantonment Board exist in? --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
HELLO? --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Have you seen this, this and this yet? Cobblet (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Though, it seems the municipal maps and the district maps don't match up at all like I thought they would for New Delhi and Dehli Cantt. So, New Delhi as a municipal corporation is not also an administrative district (tehsil)? And the same for Cantt.? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Not quite; rather New Delhi is the name of an MC and also happens to be the name of a district, which do not share the same boundaries. This appears to have been true even before Delhi had new districts added in 2012 – see e.g. the maps on page 7, 11 and 12 (pdf numbering) from the 2011 census report which seem to imply (if you look at how some of the red dots are labelled, even though it's not always clear what those dots actually are) that there are areas in the New Delhi district that are not under the control of NDMC, and vice versa. Delhi Cantt is a subdistrict or a tehsil, part of the New Delhi district since 2012 but in the Southwest district before that, as the census report shows. Delhi Cantt is also the name of a board under the Ministry of Defence that apparently carries out duties like those of an MC, even though its statutory basis (the Cantonments Act of 2006) is different. Again the boundaries of the tehsil and the board do not coincide.
All of the above is my own superficial interpretation, which could well be wrong, of the various sources I've indicated; I don't have any special knowledge of the subject and claim no expertise. Cobblet (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This all helps A LOT, thank you. It would be nice if these distinction - when necessary or appropriate - could be made in the articles for these pages. So, to get this all clear 1.) New Delhi Municipal Council lies entirely within New Delhi District, but there are also other "non-incorporated" areas (tehsils) sharing the district with the New Delhi municipal government. And 2.) Dehli Cantt lies within the New Dehli District and is a tehsil, but is not technically a municipal government, but essentially functions as one. Is this correct? --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with the first part of #1 and not sure I agree with the second part of #1. The map on page 12 of the census report shows that there was a part of New Delhi MC within the Defence Colony tehsil (then in the South district, now in the Southeast district) and if the current map of tehsils is accurate then this is still true, since the boundary between Chanakya Puri and Defence Colony does not seem to have changed. Page 20 of this pdf of the 2011 Census Administrative Atlas (numbered page 6 in the physical document) shows the situation in 2011 more clearly by superimposing the MC boundaries on the tehsil boundaries. As for the second part of #1, every part of the New Delhi district is either within New Delhi MC, South Delhi MC (namely the part of the Connaught Place tehsil adjoining the Yamuna River), or Delhi Cantt, which I suppose is "non-incorporated" in the sense it's not an MC, only "MC-like" – perhaps that's what you meant. Apart from Delhi Cantt there are no "non-incorporated" areas anywhere in the Delhi National Capital Territory, as far as I can tell.
Point 2 is correct, unless you additionally meant to imply that the area administered by the Delhi Cantt Board is coterminous with the Delhi Cantt tehsil. That was not true in 2011 (again, see that map from the Census Administrative Atlas) and if the mapsofindia.com maps are accurate, it remains untrue today. Cobblet (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Delhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Delhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Delhi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup Reply Copyedit (minor)

Hi Chuck....Moxy here.... putting this here as your email was discontinued😕 I think incorporating the image text would be best over deletion. Ping me when your ready I will help.--Moxy (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A small grammatical doubt

Delhi officially the National Capital Territory of Delhi(NCT), is a city and a union territory of India containing New Delhi, the capital of India. This is the first line in the document. The first sentence starts with the word Delhi. Then, why is the part containing New Delhi included even though Delhi is called as New Delhi now?Adithyak1997 (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning this. Actually, Delhi and New Delhi are not the same, although the names are often used interchangeably. From New Delhi, Although colloquially Delhi and New Delhi are used interchangeably to refer to the National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT), these are two distinct entities, with New Delhi forming a small part of Delhi. Since people often confuse these two, I think it is OK to mention this distinction in the first sentence.--DreamLinker (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for replying.Adithyak1997 (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

New Delhi vs NCT of Delhi vs NCR (no confusion, please)

According to the Census India 2011 and the NDMC, there are:

-New Delhi District (only 3% area and 1% population of NCT of Delhi)

-National Capital Territory of Delhi (has 9 Revenue Districts: New Delhi, North, North West, West, South West, South, East and North East)

Both of these have defined boundaries (See the map in the cover page of Census India). Their 2011 populations are: 

 New Delhi District: 133,713 only
 NCT of Delhi: 16,753,235

The NCR: The problem is that the population of the NCT has overflown into the neighbouring states: Haryana and U.P. So the surrounding regions like Gurgaon, Ghaziabad, Noida Area, Faridabad have merged with the NCT of Delhi to become one giant region of population. This is called the National Capital Region(NCR).

This article is about the NCT of Delhi. 99.232.154.22 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Delhi is a semi state and union territory of india with a well defined boundary containing new delhi. the capital of delhi and india.

NCR is nothing just a verbal diction to shortname the nearby cities of another state. these cities are under proper jurisdiction of the state which they belongs to. please put it into dustbin as its not a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmameticulous-Delhi (talk • contribs) 13:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This was written six years ago(!). El_C 14:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding citation for largest city in India

https://censusindia.gov.in/Census_And_You/area_and_population.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi#Ecology Rattyhats (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2020

Name of Delhi police Commissioner is not updated since long suresh 09:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Why is Peshwa Baji rao and another Sadashiva rao given so much focus in the History of Delhi?Nader Shah, Ahmed Shah Abadali, The Sikhs also sacked Delhi. Why are people who didn't influence the History of Delhi that much given 2 Photos? Takshashila7977 (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

49.207.67.8 (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do we have two photos of Maratha Peshwas and Generals and not even a single photo of either the Sultan(s) of Delhi or the Mughal Emperors.

Like really WTF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takshashila7977 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020

Political terms used resemble those of the U.S. government and not the terms used in India Emperorion05 (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposing new gallery-type Photo montage with good quality images

Hello friends,

I have changed old infobox "photo montage" to a new "gallery-type" Collage. Earlier, infobox had a low-quality "all-in-one" Single Image collage. The new montage has separate, individual, clickable images that can be enlarged when clicked/tapped. New montage also has an image of Gurudwara Bangla Sahib (replaced with a night-view image of Connaught Place). All other images are of same monuments but high-quality, new images. If you have any issue with this montage, please let me know.Serv181920 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Pitching in here. I support using the photomontage template due to its flexibility. However, I feel that the current set of images is appropriate as it represents the most iconic landmarks of Delhi. At most I would like to see a better Connaught place image but no other changes are necessary in my opinion. Prolix 💬 15:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Fine, If you "support using the Photomontage template" then lets go for it. FYI I have used the same set of images but new versions, brighter and good quality images. Previous montage was a single-image-collage of dark images and low-quality. I have just replaced one small-dark-picture of "Connaught Place" with that of "Gurudwara Bangla Sahib". If you and others think that we should have a picture of "Connaught Place" or "Parliament Building" or any other, then we can change it. I am undoing your revert now. :) Serv181920 (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Serv181920: Note that you broke WP:3RR. You should have been following WP:BRD. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, this was my first instance of breaking the 3RR rule! Before starting the discussion on this page, I was in discussion with @Prolix: on his talk page, here.
Unfortunately, we both are not able to come at one platform. Respectfully, I think his arguments are not reasonable/logical. He has also broken WP:3RR. :| - I don't want to go with this edit war any further. Now, what are the options for me?Serv181920 (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Serv181920: He didn't break 3RR. 4 reverts break 3RR. His first revert on the recent series of reverts was on 14th, almost 44 hours gap from this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
oh, my bad. I will take care of this in the future. I am not very experienced in wiki-editing. I am just learning. This will not happen in the future.
And will my proposal "for new photo montage" be affected by my recent behaviour? Thank you Serv181920 (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Serv181920, not at all. We've all made mistakes on here and still do occasionally. I hope we'll be able to start building consensus soon. Prolix 💬 17:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
This article is now made "fully protected" by the admin! I feel like I am responsible for this. Sorry guys!Serv181920 (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Serv181920, you misunderstand how this works. Editors need to establish consensus and an admin who has not taken part in the discussion decides the final outcome based on the discussion. Consensus building processes can be elaborate and lengthy. Please take the time to read through certain Wikipedia policies, (especially WP:BRD) as they can aid your judgement in such situations. Prolix 💬 17:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Yup, Sure, I will. Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I fully protected the article keeping the indefinite time because it was previously indefinitely semi protected. I'm pretty sure that investigating what's going on might lead to some of the participants being blocked. Being right and/or being stubborn are not exemptions from the no edit warring policy and repetition will lead to sanctions. Please discuss and ping any admin or me when the article should be returned to indefinite semi-protection. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please return it to the earlier mode, I have realised that I made a mistake of not waiting for the Consensus building to take place. This was my first experience of this kind on wikipedia. I have learned from this. Thank you for your intervention and action.Serv181920 (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay I accept your assurances and I have lowered protection. Now that you have been warned, there will be no excuses next time :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 October 2020

Hi, I would like the Urdu IPA in the first sentence of the lead for Delhi to be changed please from [ˈdeːɦli] to [ˈdɛɦli] (and the ISO for it changed from Dēhlī to Dehli) because [eː] is an incorrect transcription as per the footnote in Help:IPA/Hindi and Urdu saying "[ɛ] also occurs as an allophone of /ə/ near an /ɦ/ that is surrounded on both sides by schwas. Usually, the second schwa becomes silent, which results in an [ɛ] preceding an /ɦ/." and the recent discussion in the section titled "ɛ Footnote" in Help talk:IPA/Hindi and Urdu. I also would additionally like the ISO's beside the Hindi and Punjabi IPA's in the lead changed from Dillī to Dilli as the ISO Romanisation in Help:IPA/Hindi and Urdu has recently been edited for end word ī to be romanised in ISO as i to match with the short vowel [i] in the end of words (as another footnote in Help:IPA/Hindi and Urdu explains). I would be very grateful if anyone can please make these requested changes as the recent addition of full protection here means I unfortunately can't make these changes myself, thank you. Broman178 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC) Broman178 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know about this, I haven't visited this page much since I made this request so I was unaware the protection level changed, I will make this change myself. Broman178 (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2020

I will help remove the diagrams and charts Jenerusmonkeyman426 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jenerusmonkeyman426: In other words, the edit request feature is not used to request that you be allowed to edit the page. It is used to specify the exact change that you want to make, the reason, and a source if needed, so that another capable editor can make the change. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the updating the photo-montage in Infobox

Can we update the old photo-collage in the infobox with this new one? Present-one is a single-image montage with old pictures. The new one that I propose has good quality, individual, clickable images and gallery type. Serv181920 (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

* Support GMPX1234 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

  • Suggest a modification I support a change, but I would suggest that we use a different combination of images. I would prefer India Gate (war memorial), Red Fort (historical significance), Sansad Bhavan (political significance) and Lotus Temple (religious building, but also major tourist attraction).--DreamLinker (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Follow up comment: It's been almost a month now. I agree with Prolix that perhaps we should just keep it as it is. The current montage is OK in my opinion. In The proposed montage the images of Bangla Sahib (low quality) and Lotus Temple (overexposed) have some issues. Humayun's Tomb is also a bit too edited. I actually tried searching for better images but it is hard to find suitable ones for a new montage.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There seems to be no objection, so can I update the photomontage now? Serv181920 (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    Hi Serv181920, I apologize for the (extremely) late response, but I do not support this change. The images you have chosen are severely lacking in quality especially those of the Lotus temple, Bangla Sahib and the India gate. I believe the current images are just fine. I would support a different Connaught place image however. Prolix 💬 12:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Prolix, Have you clicked and checked the quality of individual images? I think those images are not "severely lacking in quality." However, are you Ok if i change the images of Lotus Temple and Bangla Sahib? Or do you suggest some other images? I believe this sentence of yours "I believe the current images are just fine" is covered in WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I would like to know the reason why you believe they are "just fine"? I would like to learn from experienced editors like you. Thank you.Serv181920 (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Serv181920, I will admit my response could have been more detailed. When I say that the current images are 'just fine' I am referring to the selection of images, they're a short selection of the most significant landmarks in Delhi and while the individual images may not have the highest resolution they look decent enough when scaled down to the size of the collage. The three images I mentioned in my reply while critiquing your collage have the following issues:
  • The Bangla Sahib image is over edited to the point of looking unprofessional.
  • The Lotus temple image is over saturated and over exposed.
  • The India gate image is passable but since it's a night photo it isn't as good as the current India gate image quality wise.
The Humayun's tomb image is spectacular though and I wish there were such high quality images of the other landmarks in the infobox but alas, such images are few and far between.
The current infobox images with the exception of the Connaught Place picture have no such issues and look great in the infobox, they're well framed, and are perfect colour wise. The individual images only lack in resolution but like I said, that is hardly noticeable in the infobox. Therefore the only inofbox image change I would support as of now is a better Connaught Place image.
I hope my response this time round was satisfactory! Prolix 💬 14:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Prolix, thank you, yes, i am getting your points. Are you OK if i change those "poor" images with better ones, that look good in thumbnail size also? Thank you for bearing with me. :) Serv181920 (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Serv181920, I'm not sure if any such better images exist, I have scoured through commons and its been difficult to find images that are better than the ones currently in use. If you can find such high quality images please do link them here. Prolix 💬 19:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

April 2016: Population of Delhi

See http://www.indiaonlinepages.com/population/delhi-population.html, retrieved April 17, 2016, approximate population of Delhi in 2016: 18,686,902.

Note: The above comment was added in April 2016 in Special:Diff/715793456.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Typo in the introduction

Furthermore, it is considered one of the world's most polluted city by particulate matter concentration.

Should be:

Furthermore, it is considered one of the world's most polluted cities by particulate matter concentration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.218.217 (talk)

The above comment was originally added in October 2019 (See Special:Diff/919783570). The line seems to have bene removed from the article since then.--DreamLinker (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

Himanshu is a mad boy lives in delhi Shaurya 2 (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done, we don't document every person who lives in a place. Pahunkat (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

Please change

Delhi Technological University (formerly Delhi College of Engineering), Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and National Law University, Delhi are the only state universities.

to

Delhi Technological University (formerly Delhi College of Engineering), Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women (formerly Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology), Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Netaji Subhas University of Technology (formerly Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology), Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and National Law University, Delhi are the only state universities.

[1] [2] 116.73.33.60 (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.igdtuw.ac.in/
  2. ^ http://www.nsit.ac.in/
 Partly done - First website could not be accessible. 54nd60x (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Add this line in language Demography

Ethnic Punjabis are believed to account for at least 40% of Delhi's total population and are predominantly Hindi-speaking Punjabi Hindus.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ "Delhi Assembly Elections 2015: Important Facts And Major Stakeholders Mobile Site". India TV News. 6 February 2015. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
  2. ^ Jupinderjit Singh (February 2015). "Why Punjabis are central to Delhi election". tribuneindia.com/news/sunday-special/perspective/why-punjabis-are-central-to-delhi-election/36387.html. Retrieved 7 September 2015.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sanjay2008 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

2409:4065:301:6A3F:A650:C759:6623:1BAC (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Courts section

Please verify the addition Special:Diff/1038729470. @Honi02 has been adding a blog as citations. -- DaxServer (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

A recent source

Chakravorty, Sanjoy; Sircar, Neelanjan, eds. (2021). Colossus: The Anatomy of Delhi. South Asia in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-83224-3.

Transport section

An editor has removed both text and illustration in the transport section: diff1 and diff2 on the grounds that certain features or modes of transport are found elsewhere in India. But the transport section is not about things unique to Delhi. If it were, we could not have the Metro, whose picture loudly proclaims its Canadian origin. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

New explore

I want need new explorer places and so many information add to this state dehli 2409:4072:6E17:9D5D:D1FF:35E2:8B2E:D6E8 (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Tomara dynasty

@Fowler&fowler: Tomara dynasty was first historical dynasty to rule Delhi. Before that there no fort in Delhi except mention of fort of Pandava in epic Mahabharata for which there is no archeological remains. Tomara ruled delhi for 100 yrs and established several temples which can be found in Mehrauli near Qutub minar which were destroyed by muslim turk invaders. So removing Tomara rule from infobox as well as from lead section and starting with Delhi sultanate represent inaccurate representation of history. Dev0745 (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

They are inconsequential in the history of Delhi. Delhi is a Muslim city. All that survives from before the Muslims, are some heavily reconstructed "fort" walls with no sign of any other built environment that usually accompanies a city, let alone a capital. There is no hard evidence that the Hindu elements in the first Sultanate constructions had anything to do with the Tomaras. Had the Muslims settled in Hastinapur on the Ganges, "Delhi" village would have been forgotten. The ASI would not have bothered to reconstruct the wall of the fortress. These are essentially attempts at Hindu revivalism, which began some 100 years ago with nationalistic historiography in India. To mention Tomara in the same paragraph as the Delhi sultanate is to give UNDUE weight. They are mentioned in the history section. Until the Muslims arrived, India was a largely ahistorical society, though much history can be read in rituals and myths (as Romila Thapar has demonstrated with respect to the Vedas). The Tomaras are entirely unworthy of the lead because what Delhi became by 1947 was only because of the Muslims and later the British. No one else played a role. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
How can you say they are inconsequential and Delhi is muslim city without proving any reference. These are baised view against hindu ruler. How can you say the founder of first fort in Delhi as inconsequential? It is written in book of medieval writer during Tomara dynasty such as Sridhar and Natal Sahu that Anangpal Tomar built temples around Iron Pillar of Delhi. In Iron Pillar in Mehrauli it is mentioned that Anangpal Tomar the king of Delhi peopled Delhi in 1052 CE. Before that there was no fort or temples in Delhi. He built first fort and temples. Tomara ruled Delhi for 100 yrs before conquest of Delhi by Chahamana rulers. How can you omit the local and first ruler of Delhi and give important to invaders. Looks like it is distortion of history and baised Islamic view point to discredit local hindu ruler as unimportant, but for muslim may be they are unimportant but for hindu, hindu ruler are more important than any Islamic invaders. So I think you may represent baised Islamic view and want to discredit contribution of local hindu ruler who are the earliest builder of Delhi. Later Delhi was conquered by muslim invaders but that doesn't mean it is muslim city. Tomara are more important because they are founder and first ruler of Delhi according to historical text written by poets of Tomara court. It is widely acknowledged by historian. There is no dispute in it that Tomara built lalkot in 1052 and temples around Iron Pillar. So discrediting their contribution is baised against local hindu ruler. Although their built structure are less compared to Delhi sultanate and Mughal ruler and later destroyed by muslim invaders. The remain can still found in Mehrauli around Qutub minar such broken idols in wall and pillars which were earlier temple. It is mentioned by muslim writer that temples were destroyed and mosque were built over it. Hindu architecture of Tomara dynasty are still important in history of Delhi as they are the first architecture remains before rule of foreign muslim invaders. See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You should refrain from baised view like you stated that Hindu Tomara ruler are inconsequential and Delhi is muslim city. It represent baised Islamic POV pushing. Dev0745 (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Cunningham's reading of the Mehrauli Inscription has been contested by recent scholars and his being wrong is almost a certainty. See Flood, Objects of Translation "or" Mani, Delhi: Threshold of the Orient, p. 47. Also, Talbot (2016, p. 79). Much of existing scholarship on the Tomars of Delhi is essentially agenda-driven and absolutely unreliable — consult Groeder (2020) for Sridhar and Natal Sahu. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Dev0745: TrangaBellam's knowledge of the sources of this period is much better than mine, so I will defer to his post, which seems reasonable. I will however speak to some general principles.
Please do not accuse anyone on Wikipedia of biased Islamic POV-pushing. You could get into trouble. I'm easygoing, so I won't report you.
The Tomaras are in some ways similar to the natives of the small region between Old Delhi and Meerut that is associated with the Khari boli dialect. This dialect is the basis of both Urdu and Modern Standard Hindi, the two languages that ultimately became the official languages of Pakistan and India respectively. But this should not be cause for misplaced pride among native Khari boli speakers. Khari boli just happened to be the local dialect in the region where the Muslims first happened to make their capital in South Asia. Had they made their headquarters in Gujarat, Bengal or the Punjab, some Gujarati dialect, Bengali dialect or Punjabi dialect would have eventually given rise to the national languages. Similarly, some local chieftain of Gujarat, Bengal, or the Punjab would have been given misplaced credit for founding India's capital, just as the Tomaras sometimes are.
Britannica 's article on the Hindustani language, the colloquial form of both Urdu and Hindi says it all:

Hindustani was initially used to facilitate interaction between the speakers of Khari Boli (a regional dialect that developed out of Shauraseni Apabhramsha and is now considered a variety of Hindi) and the speakers of Persian, Arabic, and Turkic languages who migrated to North India after the establishment of Muslim hegemony in the early 13th century CE.

Thus, the Tomaras, or the Khari boli speakers, are really incidental to this cultural evolution in South Asia. What drove the evolution was developing Muslim hegemony. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: It not about language. Turk and Mughal had also capital in Lahore which is in Punjab. But Punjabi not became official language of India for obvious reasons that Punjabi only spoken by just 2% people of India whereas hindi spoken by around 40% of people in India. My objection is about removing Tomara dynasty from infobox and lead section. Because Tomara are the first ruler of Delhi and they had built earliest fort, temples and ruled for 100 yrs , So they as important as being first ruler of Delhi. So I think Tomara dynasty should be included in infobox and lead section. Being first ruler of Delhi obviously they have more important than some poets. Dev0745 (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
"Hegemony" means a political, economic, or military predominance by one group over others. If persisting long enough it can lead to social or cultural ascendancy, and eventually to a dominant ideology that imposes or reinforces a certain social order. Muslim hegemony in South Asia took root in Delhi, not Lahore. See for example:
  • Asher, Catherine B.; Talbot, Cynthia (2006), India before Europe, Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–26, For two decades from 1186, the main city in the Punjab, Lahore, served as the primary Ghurid base in South Asia for a series of successful attacks on north India proper. Muhammad Ghuri's two chief targets were the powerful Hindu kings Prithviraj Chauhan of Ajmer and Jaychandra Gahadavala of Kanauj. After their victory in 1192 against Prithviraj Chauhan at the battlefield of Tarain, about 120 kilometers northwest of modern Delhi, the Ghurid armies immediately set off toward Prithviraj's capital at Ajmer, seizing forts along the way. In the following year, Ghurid forces under Qutub al-Din Aibak set up a permanent garrison in Delhi, which would become the future center of Muslim power in north India, but was then a town of minor military and political significance.
And there is a reason it is called the Delhi Sultanate despite its individual Sultans establishing fortresses or monuments in different locations such as Tughlaqabad, Lodhi gardens area, Firozeshah Kotla. (That entire area was obviously not called Delhi at the time.) For it takes time for hegemony to develop. The Tomaras may or may not have founded a city in the area, but they had no hegemony. No military or cultural predominance. They left no trace on the history of India. Theirs was just one of the forts (see above quote) that the Ghurids busted on their way down to Ajmer from Tarain. It just happened that the Muslims established their capitals in the neighborhood of this busted fortress.
  • Middleton, John, ed. (2015) [2005], World Monarchies and Dynasties, Volume 1–3 A–Z, Routledge, p. 952, Tomara Dynasty (ca. 736–1150 C. E.) Dynasty that ruled northwest India for several centuries and supposedly founded the modern city of Delhi. The Tomaras were one of the thirty-six clans of the Rajputs, various princely clans of northern and central India. The Tomaras, who inhabited the Hariyana country in northwestern India, established their capital at Dhillika in 736. Because modern Delhi eventually emerged near this location, some historians credit the Tomaras with founding the city. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Dilika(modern Delhi) was founded by Anangpal Tomar of Tomara dynasty in 1052 as their second capital. Tomara dynasty ruled Haryana country (present day Haryana, some parts of Rajasthan and Punjab). They were defeated by Chahamana rulers of Rajasthan in 1152. Later Chahamana were defeated by Ghurid. Guhrid ruled much larger area than Tomara in Northern South Asia. But Tomara are earliest ruler of Delhi. They have important place in history of Delhi, so they should be added in Infobox and lead section. Dev0745 (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Dhillika is not "modern Delhi," not by a long shot. Like my last source says above, "The Tomaras, who inhabited the Hariyana country in northwestern India, established their capital at Dhillika in 736. Because modern Delhi eventually emerged near this location, some historians credit the Tomaras with founding the city."
The Tomaras might have been rulers in the area, and there were probably other chieftains before the Tomaras, but none have anything to do with "modern Delhi," which is what evolved in the area northward of Dhillika after the Muslim conquest. Delhi became Delhi because the Sultans in the wake of the Ghurids, the Mamluks, the Khaljis, the Tughlaqs, the Sayyids, and the Lodhis, made their several capitals there, as did the Mughals later. If they had made their capitals in the vicinity of Panipat, we would be having a different conversation, and a POV similar to yours would be giving credit for founding Panipat, India's capital, to some other inconsequential pre-Islamic chieftain of that area. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: You are making your own story. According to scholar, Dhilika city was founded in 1052 by Anangpal Tomar II which is now in Mehrauli around Iron Pillar and Qutub Minar. Lal Kot fort is just 1 km from Qutub Minar. It was called both Dhilika and Dilli according to different poets of that time. So you want to say Lal Kot fort, Iron Pillar, ruins of temples, Qutub Minar, siri fort(made by Alauddin Khilji) are not part Delhi. According to you Hauz khas fort(4 km from Lal Kot or Qutub minar built by Delhi sultanate) and Red fort built by Mughal are modern Delhi. This is absurd logic. Delhi was before Delhi sultanate or Mughal. Delhi sultanate, Mughal built their fort just few km away but name of city didn't changed. You can't say Lalkot, Qutub minar, Iron Pillar are not in Delhi as Delhi sultanate built their fort 4 km away from it. Fort location changed but Name remained same. About Panipat, It is your absurd logic as there is no pre Islamic architecture remains found in Panipat as in Delhi such as Lalkot fort, Iron Pillars, temples, inscription etc. Word Delhi was not invented by Muslim rulers but the word was prevelent before them. Muslim rulers just used the word. No scholar credit muslim ruler of inventing word Delhi. According scholar the word was prevelent during rule of Tomara dynasty such as Dilika and Dilli which found in Inscription and books of that period.
  • The lead is a summary of what is significant. It is not a laundry list of every village headman in the general area. It is not even a laundry list of the Sultans of Delhi or the Mughal Emperors. We mention just the Sultanate and the Empire collectively. Who invented the name, Dhillika, Dhulika (dusty), Delelika, Dhilli (loose), ... etc. and who was the ruler of the fortress so named is not lead-worthy. Delhi became Delhi, not because of some inconsequential pre-Islamic Tomara princeling, but because the Mamluks and those that came in their wake made their capitals in the general area between the Jumna river and the last of the northern spurs of the Aravali hills. It was chosen not because the Tomaras had a celebrated capital and the Mamluks wanted to fill their boots—they had obviously walloped the entire lot of north Indian rulers—but because the Muslims had assessed Delhi's geographical location to afford a good vantage point for defending and overseeing upper India.
Your scholar says something similar,

"The selection of Delhi by Muhammad ibn Sam and his slave, Qutb-ud-din Aibak, as the center of Pathan administration in India was not a de facto recognition of Delhi's historical preeminence as the seat of Hindu political power, but a practical decision based upon the city's central geographical location with respect to the conquered Hindu territories and its convenient proximity to the previously annexed Panjab, with its capital at Lahore, and to the homeland, Afghanistan."

That Delhi had not been historically significant before the Muslims, is not just what your reference says, but also Asher and Talbot quoted above, who say, "Aibak set up a permanent garrison in Delhi, which would become the future center of Muslim power in north India, but was then a town of minor military and political significance." Asher and Talbot's is a major internationally used textbook published by an academic publisher.
I'm happy to change the brief description in the history section to:

The Tomaras have been claimed to have built a fortified town of minor military and political significance in the southern environs of present-day Delhi sometime between the first half of the eighth-century CE and the middle 11th-century CE, but its records are sketchy and vague. Specifically, the biographers of Mahmud of Ghazna, made no mention of Delhi in the context of his many raids down the north Indian plains around the turn of the 11th-century CE, though Mathura and Ajmer were mentioned many times.

May I suggest that you have not interpreted what the reliable sources state accurately and with perspective, not even the one you have supplied yourself. The Tomaras do not belong to the lead or the infobox, which constitute a highly distilled summary and timeline. In the scale of Delhi's history, they are not lead-worthy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I agree with Dev0745 that pre islamic was also important part of delhi's history to atleast have a mention. The Lal Kot fort which is located in present day Delhi was built by Tomaras and later said to be extended by Chauhans. There are still many surviving monuments from Pre Islamic Past of Delhi like the magnificent Suraj Kund in modern South Delhi. Also the remnants of temples in Qutb Complex. A couple of kms south of Suraj Kund is another fortification and a dam that were built by Tomars. Foreign traveller Ibn Batuta states that Delhi is an old city built by idolaters. Hasan Nizami who was contemporary to Qutubddin Aibak, the man who conquered Delhi and established Islamic rule, wrote that Delhi is among the main cities of Hind. And for the fort and palaces of delhi he states in exaggerated language how he never saw such a fort. I think Pre Islamic Delhi is highly underrepresented in the history section as well. I believe Tomars and Chauhan atleast deserve their names in the lead not more.Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: So according to you Tomara are some village head. You have to know that Tomara ruled Hariyana country ( modern Hariyana, Some parts of Rajasthan and Utter Pradesh) which make it significant large area. According to your reference, "Ghurid made Delhi as one of their capital was not recognition of prominence of Delhi as centre of hindu power centre but due to its location". Whether prominence of Delhi as hindu power centre or not but It was a historical city by that time with forts and temples. Prominence of hindu Power centre or not, that not mean Tomara had no role in history of Delhi. No scholar or author say that Tomara are irrelevant in history of Delhi as you claim, but they credit Tomara as earliest ruler of Delhi. You claiming Delhi became Delhi because of Ghurids, the Mamluks, the Khaljis, the Tughlaqs, the Sayyids, and the Lodhis. No historian say that. Delhi became major power centre after establishment of capital of Delhi sultanate, no doubt, majority authors say that. But that doesn't mean before that Delhi was not there. Delhi was town with forts and temples. It was capital of Tomara though Tomara ruled small region compared to Ghurid or Delhi sultanate but they built first city. So Tomara have important place in history of Delhi as establisher of first city which found mentioned in literature of that time and Scholar and historian agree that Lalkot was built by Tomara dynasty. Tomara should be given credit for established of first fort in Delhi. You are claiming Tomara irrelevant but not any scholar or historian say that. If you can put about Indraprastha mentioned in Mahabharata which have no archeological remains, why you are removing establishment of earliest fort Lalkot by Tomara which have archeological remains found in Mehrauli. It seems unjustified that Indraprastha which have no archeological remains is in lead section and Lalkot fort the first fort which have archeological remains is not in lead.

Also why do think some unpopular Urdu peot are more important than first ruler of Delhi who established first fort to include in lead section. You can mention them in culture section. I think these insignificant poets should be removed and Tomara dynasty establishing earliest fort should be included in lead section. If you assert that Tomara are irrelevant in history of Delhi, please provide reference for it. It seems that all you claim that Tomara are irrelevant and Delhi is Delhi because of foreign muslim ruler are only claim without any basis or sources. No scholar and historian say that. Tomara the establisher of earliest fort (although historical literature credit Tomara as founding of forts, temples but temples are in ruins. There is no dispute among historian that Tomara had established Lalkot fort) should be included in lead section.

@Sajaypal007: I agree with you Dev0745 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Which Urdu poet is unpopular? Do you have any evidence? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Urdu peot Mir Taqi and Mirza Ghalib are not so popular to mention in lead section. According to you Tomara are irrelevant but these poets are more irrelevant according to me. Dev0745 (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Which books of Mir and Ghalib have you read? Did you read them in Urdu or Persian? Perhaps you could give us some samples of vese that you think is not popular. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry but that is an absurd claim. Take a look at the Ghalib wiki page and compare it against the Tomara dynasty page. Ghalib was very popular - enough to have several works based on his life and even a Google doodle on their India website. The works include Mirza Ghalib (TV series) (that I remember watching as a kid, growing up in Delhi NCR) starring Naseeruddin Shah of all people. Even though Mir Taqi Mir is not as popularly known as Ghalib he had a lasting impact on Urdu poetry and language. In any case both their importance to Delhi is indisputable and they no doubt should be retained in the lead. -Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Neither I read Urdu or Persian. Urdu is basically hindi in Persian script spoken and written by muslim. Persian is not spoken in India. Mirza Ghalib is popular but not very popular. Mir Taqi is not popular.

But the question is correct representation of history in lead section. When you altogether remove Tomara dynasty who are important as first ruler of Delhi, It is misrepresentation of history. Your edit in lead section is without reference and baised. You are adding things according to your point of view without providing any sources. You are saying Tomara are irrelevant without reference and adding things without reference as there is no reference that Sufism, Qawwali music, Nizamuddin Auliya and Amir Khusrau are more relevant than Tomara in Delhi history. This your absurd claim without sources.Dev0745 (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

>>>Neither I read Urdu or Persian. Urdu is basically hindi in Persian script spoken and written by Muslim
May I suggest politely that what you say is a highly biased, if not a toxic POV? I will cut you some slack this time, but if you continue to spew such ideas cavilierly, I will report you. I notice that you have already been topic-banned from the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and have a history at 2020 Delhi riots. Please be very careful how you tread here.
Wikipedia is not beholden to what is popular. Please read WP:SOURCETYPES which states: When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." That is Wikipedia policy. Listed below are five books published by the world's major academic publishers two of which are devoted (in their entirety) to Mir, and three to Ghalib.
Do you have any scholarly books, published by internationally recognized academic publishers that are entirely about the Tomars? If you don't then may I suggest you not keep repeating your previous arguments nor promoting prejudiced if not bigoted ideas? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Fowler&fowler I don't know much about Mir Taqi. But Mirza Ghalib is very popular poet. Definitely deserves a place in the lead. Akshaypatill (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Blacklisted website census.co.in

Those links and citations have to be replaced with Census of India Official Website —CrafterNova [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 15:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done  Fixed —CrafterNova [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 09:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Delhi/Archive_6&oldid=1136656963"