Talk:Delhi

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)

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)

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)

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)