Jump to content

Talk:Kodaikanal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

It's also a good place for magic mushrooms.

Infrastructure

[edit]

"Kodaikanal has train connections to Nagarcoil, Coimbatore, Thanjavur, Erode, Tirunelveli, Palaghat, Rameswaram, Dindugal and Madurai"

This is not correct. Kodaikanal has no railway station. It does have road connections (windy, and rather slow) to various towns with rail connections, as listed above. Not to be confused with Kodai Road which is a railway station on the plain on the Madras-Madurai line.Jellytussle 06:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

[edit]

Are you sure that Perumal is an extinct volcano? I was under the impression that it just looks volcano shaped.Jellytussle 17:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Views from Kodai are dominated by Mount Perumal, an extinct volcano." C'mon. It isn't a volcano. It is at a lower altitude than Kodai, and it is not visible from the lake or Coakers walk. Can hardly be said to dominate the views. Jellytussle 20:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perumal is visible from the entrance to coakers walk but not from the lake. It is definitely not an extinct volcano; it is a distinctively shaped hill really - you can climb it in about 2 hours THANK YOU ······· SO MUCH·§··



"Meadows and grasslands cover the hillsides."

Except for the bits where there is shola, or building, or Bryant Park, or KIS.

"Gigantic Eucalyptus trees and shola forests flourish in the valleys."

Except for the bits where the trees have been cut down.

"Mighty rocks and cascading streams. rise up from the valleys."

Do the rocks really rise? In my experience cascading streams usually go downhill.

"There are many high waterfalls and ubiquitous gardens and flower beds in bloom.[9]"

There are some high waterfalls. There are some gardens. Flower beds, where planted, bloom in season, and are presumably not unbiquitous in the places where meadow and grasslands cover the hillside, gigantic eucy trees and shola flourish, and the bits where mighty rocks and cascades rise up etc.Jellytussle (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jellytussle, feel free to cleanse the article of nostalgic wording from way back in the last century, especially, if today's situation does not justify this description anymore. If you can of course document the changes over time, how the flora and fauna where found before the arrival of the British and Americans, how they changed this landscape and what changes the last 40 years have brought, this would be great. Of course in good Wikipediafashion with good documentation. --Wuselig (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

www.kodaikanal.com

[edit]

Someone states that:

Some information plagiarized from www.kodaikanal.com ----- Rewrite suggested


Silver Inn

[edit]

I have deleted the following passage, which seems like gratuitous advertising:

"The oldest restaurant in Kodaikanal is "The Silver Inn", whose speciality is the "Steak sizzler" - beef steaks and assorted vegetables on a hot plate made to sizzle by adding meat sauce on the hot plate."

Firstly, is there documentary evidence that this is the oldest restaurant in Kodai? Older than the one in the Carlton, or the one in the English (Kodai) club? Secondly, there are other places to get sizzlers in Kodai. If we are going down this route then we should list the oldest chai stall, souvenir shop, church, latrine, school, pedalo etc. Jellytussle 09:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers

[edit]

Can anyone tell me which are the English newspapers based in Kodaikanal or printed locally in Kodaikanal? Also, if possible, their websites?

Dibyajyotighosh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.2.173 (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There are no English newspapers based in Kodaikanal. Guckoo (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tnlogo.png

[edit]

Image:Tnlogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entymology

[edit]

To creat this new section see:Nora MitchellMarcus (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive restructuring

[edit]

Although I approve of Marcus' extensive restructuring of this page (considering the amount of time and edits he has made), I am beginning to think this article is now a mess with too many photos, terrible alignment and bad overall structure. The reading pattern is not linear, and the information isn't balanced. Marcus, I think you need to consider what other people have written also, rather than just completely remove text and replace(whichever you see fit!). I know thats the idea of how wikipedia works, but to replace some better photos with worse ones of yours is just sad. I'm talking about the Silver cascade image (which I spent 1 hour to shoot, waiting for everyone to move out and even cleaned the area a bit), which you have replaced with a pathetic overexposed amateur picture. Its almost like vandalism - Please consider other people's uploads. Nijumania (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that both images are not optimal. Nijumania image is of high quality but gives a wrong impression. It is not the Silver Cascade I remember, because Silver Cascade is located right next to the Ghat Road and tourists are - in my memory - always a part of the scenery. The image Marcus made, is on the other hand neither fish nor fowl, because it still tries to cut out the tourists. But all that is just personal opinion. I have been watching the recent changes and believe that something good is in the making, even though some of the details emerging at the moment are a bit to much for an encyclopedic article. But here Marcus has started to create sub-articles, so things should balance out in the long run. For my part, I have started to categorice the images relating to Kodai in Commons. It would be helpful, if all of you upload your images to Commons. Than we can start building galleries and different aspects of the same subject can be presented alongside, so that viewers can get the whole picture. The other advantage of having the images on Commons is that they can be incorporatd into other-language versions and so gain a higher visibility. --Wuselig (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your points and frustration about the photos. I generally try to have only one photo per each section or major subject. I included the Bear Shola (Woman washing clothes) and Silver cascade (Welcome to Kodaikanal) photos I did because they include some nearby subjects as well as the falls to provide context, However your falls only pix are excellant. Perhaps the article needs a =Photo gallery= section. What do you think of that? I always try to retain pre existing text even unreferenced unless it is clearly expresses POV. I don't understand your opinion about terrible alignment, bad structure, not linear and unbalanced. I've tried to keep it clean, concise and free flowing with only enough image to illustrate each major subject. However any changes or specific suggestions to improve structure, balance etc. are always welcome. Thats what Wikipedia is all about. Marcus (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wuselig, Commons category is good. I may have some Kodai pix in Wikipedia I'll move over later. Can you add a link to the commons gallery in External sources section? Marcus (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the Category Kodaikanal and two sub-cats for the lake and the observatory. I created that category, when the link you put into the article led to nowhere. I just searched for further uncategorized images and categorized those, too. Pillar Rocks and Water Falls in Kodaikanal will be the next categories. A gallery I haven't made yet. I am waiting for further input.
As for structure and balance: that is often a matter of different browsers and screen sizes. The only thing that helps there is for the other guy to change the layout and find a suitable look by trial and error. When nobody complains anymore, you've found it. --Wuselig (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wuselig, I realize that the browsers and monitor sizes is what's making the article look unstructured. I think the reason is because of too many right-aligned photos one below the other (although they are in the relevant places, corresponding to each subsection), and not enough text in all sections to fit to the vertical height of each photo. Like Marcus suggested, a photo gallery is the best option to solve this issue. But out of experience, I have realized many users comment that 'Wikipedia is not a photo-collection or a gallery', and opt to remove out galleries. I am sure I have read it myself, somewhere in wikipedia's guidelines that galleries are not needed, unless absolutely essential. And I dont think an image of a gate (Kodai school), Road signs (showing distances,directions), golf course sign and two images for a subsection (Dolphin's nose) are relevant. I feel sorry to delete anything other people put up, but that's my view. I wouldn't want to see a gate image in London article, or a road sign in New York article (unless its Timbuctoo!!).
) Nijumania (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't want to put the gallery into the article, but create a gallery in Commons which than can be linked to. I agree with you, that images in the article should support the text. If you think an image doesn't fit, and should be moved or deleted: go ahead, it's a wiki. But do us a favor. Don't delete images that have not been moved to Commons yet, so they don't get lost from view. If you want to help, help moving them. And don't forget to categorize.--Wuselig (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please show us relevant category templates. Can we make them up like: [Category:Kodaikanal (Waterfalls)]? Marcus (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved and removed some pix in a different browser and added a little gallery of important pix to deal with this structure issue. Structure issues arise most when text size is reduceed.Marcus (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the Waterfalls pics are now too prominent (like a gallery by itself) and doesn't really need a gallery with just two pictures. Either a collection of images is good, or else not needed entirely. I have another issue to bring up. I noticed the rewritten preference of units to be US Metric rather than the ubiquitously Imperial system in India.I checked with Wikipedia's guidelines on units, and it's supposed to be what the country uses rather than what the writer uses. I also noticed that writers have tried to solve it by using both in this format : x kilometres(y miles). My issue is with the spelling of 'metres' being metres and not meters. Many larger Indian articles (Mumbai for example) has solved the issue by just using 'km' (which lets you choose how you use it- meters or metres)! Also, the use of double braces is irrelevant; like Coimbatore (170 kilometers (106 mi)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijumania (talk • contribs) 07:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Kodaikanal. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kodaikanal&oldid=1208009717"