Talk:Bharuch

India: Cities / Gujarat / Geography Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indian cities (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Martian Crater

There are photos already on the page and I think the photo required sign should be removed. Also, the Martian crater is not listed on the Wikipedia page about the craters. This incorrect piece of trivia must be removed. Unstudmaddu (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The crater is named as Broach, which is the older name of Bharuch and I think this must be indicated in the article. I have made this change. Unstudmaddu (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milion citizens

artilce says: "....is a large seaport city of more than a million inhabitants..." but then, stadistics give 148.000. --88.3.129.67 (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unmanageable to improve

I had a look at this article and it seems unmanageable to improve. It seems to have repeated paragraphs with praises filled with unsourced information or rather hearsay. I have no clue where to begin cleaning up this article. Help would be greatly appreciated! Prad2609 (talk) 09:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues with this article, including some religious rhetoric that is not called for. The article needs serious unbiased editing. 219.77.73.174 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section

As per WP:TRIVIA I have removed the section on interesting facts. For now I have moved the content to my sandbox subpage Bharuch Trivia. We need to get the useful content out from it and merge to relevant sections in main article. I will try doing that once I get some time. If anyone else gets a chance to work on it, please feel free to do so. - abhi (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bharuch. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111120170323/http://www.stambheshwarmahadev.org:80/ to http://www.stambheshwarmahadev.org/

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: 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) 12:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8000 years history?

Bharuch has a known history for about 8000 years.

Please allow me to shed some doubt on that. The paragraphs after this statement link the region of the city to events/excavations that are connected to the Phoenicians, and then go forward. The Phoenicians were only around after 1000 BCE, which was 3000 years ago, not 8000. Even if there are some more excavations that allow further insights into the oldest history of the ancients site, this is not "known history" (as in having records of what happened when) but more "this spot has been settled for 8000 years" which is a very different message. ---> So please elaborate on these 5000 years before trading with Phoenicia, or otherwise change those passages. --Enyavar (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did change the passage. The 8000 year history period not only makes absolutely not sense. But also no proof was provided to justify that statement . So I changed it , and if further proof isn't provided for that statement , I wish that it stays that way. Bukhara (Kingdom of Bukhara) (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]