Talk:Bangalore/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

There is absolutely no way one can call cities in the United States and Belarus "Sister Cities" to Bangalore. The term sister cities implies either that they are extremely similar in multiple ways (geography, culture, language etc.) or that they are next to each other - such as Hubbali-Darwad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.219.138 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the term "Sister cities". Sister cities is a twinning concept where geographically distinct cities and towns are linked to each other via Sister Cities International. See [1] (Cleveland) and [2] (San Francisco). I have no citation for the link with Minsk. AreJay (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and Town twinning article explains this concept in greater details. - KNM ^Talk 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

bangalore is renamed as bengaluru long back.

i request admins to rename it as bengaluru. Dsr2008 (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was wondering why this article still exists as Bangalore... The Bengaluru page, redirects here. I'm requesting for comments, opinions, valid references and claims for this article to exist as Bangalore. aJCfreak yAk 07:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I too agree, although I hate the name bengaluru, it should definitely be renamed since the government has officially changed it. I think some fashionable WP Indian editors want it to be still Bangalore (coz it looks chic). I think we need to start a strawpoll to find a solution. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 09:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer the old names of these cities. But, it is a fact that their names are now changed and we cannot do much about it. So, it is better that this wiki page reflects the changed name appropriately, as it is there for other cities like Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata. GDibyendu (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. Unless we have a valid opposition on why this page cannot be moved to 'Bengaluru', this page can be moved easily. Lets wait for another day to see if we have a strong consensus here. - KNM ^Talk 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree too.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, It should be renamed to Bengaluru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raguks (talk • contribs) 23:56, 31 March 2008

This has come up a number of times before but failed to get consensus. Considering the quite notorious controversy, moving the page after less than a day of discussion was premature. The archives of this talkpage have become obscured, unfortunately, but the earlier discussions are in Archive 1, and in the most recent material which was last on the as-was talkpage of 16:32, 22 January 2008, before being deleted but not archived. (I assume that this was a mistake -- that KNM meant to archive the material, not just delete it.)
I remain opposed to the page-move, for the same reason as before: that the title of the article should be determined by what is most commonly recognized by English-speakers in the world at large, regardless of what is official. I believe that this is still "Bangalore". -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. Munich page will never be named München or Munchen, following your logic, I guess.GDibyendu (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No. He doesnt have a point. There simply is no absolute way to determine what the most 'popular' usage is and attempting to do it by using ghits is doomed from the word go for reasons I've explained below. And as I showed in our previous discussion about this issue, WP:NAME is severely broken and is rightly being disregarded on a host of articles across wikipedia and people should stop bringing it up over and over again. Sarvagnya 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lonewolf BC: I did not delete anything. It was archived, and it is here: Talk:Bangalore/Archive 3. - KNM ^Talk 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Archives of this talk page were not moved automatically, when the article was moved. So, {{Archives collapsible}} template was not showing the links. Archive pages are now moved manually, resulting in the proper display of the archive links. - KNM ^Talk 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a premature action of moved the title. In fact, I saw the earlier archive. As per the survey 14 oppose & 13 supports. But keep in mind that WP works by building consensus not by the majority of votes. In this case, it is an official policy that has been approved by the Government of Karnataka and it has become officially applicable from November 1, 2006 onwards. I think that other articles for the cities have been already changed it. It is not a question of whether we like bengaluru or not. It is a fact that we must admit. And it is also true that nobody is going to call ‘bengaluru’. Everyone still call it ‘bangalore’. Local politicians and some historians who praised the move also will not call it as bengaluru. But what can we do since it is a WP:TRUTH and WP always stands for it. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 11:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Archives: no archives yet (create)

A Google News search gives 12,000 results for "Bangalore" and only a couple of hundred for "Bengaluru". There are more Google News results for Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata than there are for Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta, respectively (although it's very close with Kolkata/Calcutta). There is yet little evidence that "Bengaluru" is the primary name of the city in English. john k (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Excerpt from WP:GOOGLE:

Google (and other search systems) do not have a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does. Google indexes self created pages and media pages which do not have a neutrality policy. Wikipedia has a neutrality policy that is mandatory and applies to all articles, and all article-related editorial activity.

As such, Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles -- only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity.

In a nutshell, as mentioned in the top of that page: On Wikipedia, neutrality trumps popularity. - KNM ^Talk 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does neutrality come into it? The point is naming policy, which is to use the most common name. This isn't an issue of POV, but of what the most common name is. How does it represenat a "neutral point of view" to use the less common, but apparently official, name? I don't see how POV comes into it. john k (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that WP:GOOGLE very specifically says that search engine tests are in fact appropriate for determining common names. So well done on the misleading quotation out of context. Good show. john k (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

john k - there's none more misleading than your wikilinking a non-policy WP:NC(CN) and passing it off as "naming policy". The "policy" is actually this one - WP:NAME. And this is what WP:NAME tells us about naming cities here -

Convention: In general, there are no special naming conventions for cities, unless multiple cities with the same name exist.

And then, it points us to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), where when we drill down to the convention (if any) about Indian cities, we are met with this -

This is a proposed addition to the naming convention, for which there has not been any clear consensus established.

which anyway, is followed by something about disambiguations.

So, if you are going to wikilawyer, quote both chapter and verse. Not just chapter. The fact of the matter is, contrary to what you believe or you would have us believe, WP:NAME is broken and broken bad. It does not support any of your contentions, so stop throwing in specious references to non-existant "policies" and "conventions". Sarvagnya 00:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No. ghits are emphatically NOT appropriate measures of popular usage. ghits themselves are heavily influenced by the usage on wikipedia -- more so an article like this one which is wikilinked thousands of times on wikipedia on thousands of pages and templates and reproduced on hundreds and hundreds of wiki mirrors. ghits, as we have repeatedly found in discussions like this is absolutely no way to measure relative appropriateness of one usage over another. Just rename an article on wikipedia, fix every single instance where it is wikilinked, give enough time for all mirrors to catch up, give enough time for google's own web crawlers to update their indices and then do a ghits search - and you will see that the results will be very different. And even then, ghits only gives us a measure (a severely flawed one at that) of the usage patterns ONLINE - The english speaking world extends way beyond just online. Sarvagnya 19:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, "Bengaluru" has already found enough usage in officialese. Below are some links which show it usage in Official Tender Notices of Central govt., departments, state govt., departments, the Press Information Bureau's releases, SEBI documents, documents of Ministry of Civil Aviation, the President of India, the Planning commission, Ministry of External affairs, the TN govt., the UP govt., the Central Board of Secondary Education, the Karnataka government gazette and many more. Sarvagnya 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Google News hits are of course not influenced by wikipedia. john k (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Sarvagnya 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Heh. This is a bitter déjà vu with regards to what happened just about seven months ago. Then, like now, someone moved the page to "Bengaluru" unilaterally, and then the move back to Bangalore was made irreversible for normal users by editing the "Bangalore" page, which was now a redirect page. In other words, ordinary editors could no longer move the page back to the name "Bangalore". It's exactly the same situation right now. Whether this business of "irreversibility" was done purposely to put opposing editors at a disadvantage, I do not know, but I am willing to assume good faith and accept that it was done unintentionally, particularly since the user who did it, User:KNM, is an editor in fair standing. But I'd like to request User:KNM to please keep this technical detail in mind before editing controversial redirects in the future.

Next, it is quite inappropriate to carry out an action (that too on a one day notice) and then discuss about its merits and whether it has consensus or not. Discussion comes first, then the action. That's how public debate works.

Coming to the main issue, I remain opposed to this move even now. I was the one who initiated the earlier discussion (to name the page back to Bangalore - please see Archive 3 in the collapsible box above). I fully agree with john k and Lonewolf BC. Bengaluru is not a common name known to English speakers worldwide by any means even now (it's just been seven months since the last discussion - nothing has changed much between then and now). Let me give you some stats. Below are Google hits conducted on a site-by-site basis of major news outlets around the world and in India, for "Bangalore" vs. "Bengaluru".

International

News outlet	Hits for Bangalore	Hits for Bengaluru
NY Times	15,700 [25]	5 [26]
Reuters	141,000 [27]	0 [28]
BBC	6,710 [29]	7 [30]
News Limited (Australia)	2,140 [31]	2 [32]
Sydney Morning Herald	1,040 [33]	0 [34]
CNN	212 [35]	0 [36]
TIME magazine	1,320 [37]	0 [38]
The Washington Post	1,160 [39]	2 [40]
International Herald Tribune	1,090 [41]	4 [42]
The Globe and Mail	142 [43]	0 [44]

Indian

News outlet	Hits for Bangalore	Hits for Bengaluru
The Times of India	138,000 [45]	238 [46]
The Indian Express	6,970 [47]	37 [48]
Hindustan Times	6,720 [49]	33 [50]
Rediff	19,300 [51]	98 [52]
The Hindu	107,000 [53]	212 [54]

This is just a small sample that shows that "Bangalore" trumps "Bengaluru" by a mile in acceptance in the English speaking world. Plus, it doesn't take much effort to use common sense and see that a name that has been around for a few hundred years will continue to reign over the new name for much longer than a few months after the new name comes into the picture. And to carry forward what john k was saying, this says, "This is the English Wikipedia; its purpose is to communicate with English-speaking readers. English does not have an Academy; English usage is determined by the consensus of its users, not by any government. One of the things to communicate about a place is its local name; in general, however, we should avoid using names unrecognizable to literate anglophones where a widely accepted alternative exists.". It can't be clearer than that. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 21:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification to Max: The edit to the redirect was completely to ensure people do not make edit wars over moving back and forth the article. Also, just to make it clear I did not move the article, to edit it quickly so it becomes irreversible. If you see above, I was the one who asked for consensus before we actually move the article from "Bangalore" to "Bengaluru". This will force the discussion instead of frequent movement of the article which is exactly what's happening now; people are participating in this discussion instead of edit warring over one name to another. Hope you understand. - KNM ^Talk 21:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

@KNM: I know you didn't move the article. But, honourable though your intentions may have been, as an ordinary editor involved on one side of the debate, you should not have played arbitrator to "force discussion" (that too with barely a day's notice) by curtailing other ordinary editors' ability to move the page. I doubt whether there would have been move-warring since the people participating in the discussion are not newbies and know better. Even if move-warring had ensued, an admin could have stepped in to carry out the necessary corrective measures.

I would also like to ask you, since you were concerned about move-warring, pray why didn't you edit the "Bengaluru" redirect page when the discussion was initiated and the main article was still at "Bangalore"? That would have ensured the same thing, and as I said in my previous post, would have been more appropriate because discussion should come first and then the required action. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 04:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

apropos Max' tabulations - the very formulation of it is dubious for a number of reasons. None more so than the fact that "Bengaluru" - the English word is of considerably lesser vintage than "Bangalore". So what do you expect with your searches, anyway?! And further, to piggyback on this dubious exercise and attempt to demonstrate that "Bangalore" is the "more common" usage in English is even more dubious for reasons I've already mentioned in my posts above(about ghits) and also in the previous discussions. Even more dishonest is to keep pointing to the same broken guidelines that are being disregarded widely across wikipedia. The bottomline is, there is simply no way to determine absolutely which is most common usage in English unless you lined up all the English speakers of the world and asked them to vote. All other methods are only approximations and definitely cannot be used to adjudicate in disputes. When in doubt and when in dispute, we simply go with the official name. Ency Britannica calls it Bengaluru, Google maps calls it Bengaluru, Karnataka Govt., Gazettes call it Bengaluru, host of other official sources including the President of India's office calls it Bengaluru, German wikipedia calls it bengaluru and English wikipedia would do jolly well to call it Bengaluru too. And talking of UCS, CS tells me that using new/official names is more educative than using names people already know. This is an electronic medium and redirects are dirt cheap. The reader gets to know something about the article/place before he has even begun to read the article! Sarvagnya 23:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ghits is not the right way to measure the popularity of "Bengaluru" vis-a-vis "Bangalore" because the new name has been of a recent origin than the older one. The very fact that the new airport is named as "Bengaluru International Airport" and not "Bangalore International Airport" is good enough to realise that the name of the city is no longer "Bangalore", whether any one likes it or not -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading this, Amarrg. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 09:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that and this is what the article says "..., we have adapted to the new city name as Bengaluru". No idea why no one raised a fuss when Pondicherry (4,420,000 ghits) was renamed to Puducherry (327,000 ghits) and everyone wants to nitpick about this article getting renamed -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Rebuttal to User:Sarvagnya and User:Amarrg
The point about the recent origin of "Bengaluru" is exactly what I'm trying to say too. The recent origin is what makes it not widely acceptable yet, save for a few "jumpers of the gun" like the fine folks at BIAL. Given the other fact that the name "Bangalore" has woven a brand around itself, it is definitely more recognizable to English speakers worldwide (it even has a silly verb named after it). Wikipedia is a global phenomenon, and we must look at patterns of usage around the world, not just in India (in India too, Bangalore is much much more visible than Bengaluru, as seen from the news media search results above).

And what's with all the Google-hating? Google searches are very valuable when used intelligently, using filters. I have steered clear of a generic search, and have used a refined search to search for the words in question on the news outlets' specific website only. There's no room to protest that Wikipedia mirrors or other mysterious forces skewed the results in favour of "Bangalore".

And coming to whether these numbers are an appropriate way to judge common use, they most emphatically are, because they point to a fact that is so screamingly obvious that it shouldn't need an explanation. It would've been one thing had even one of the search results returned say 5,000 results for Bangalore and 4,700 for "Bengaluru". These results are fuzzy and it wouldn't be such a good idea to use them. That is the caveat given in WP:GOOGLE. But when one gets as powerfully resolved a hit count as 141,000 for Bangalore vs. 0 (that's ZERO) for "Bengaluru" on the Reuters site, there's no excuse to hide one's head in the sand, clinging to a now out-of-context caveat.

Lastly, as to the suggestion that the only way to judge common usage is to "line up all the English speakers of the world and ask them to vote", I have another one. Let's gather some medical researchers, marketing gurus, economists, environmentalists, political reporters, social scientists and tell them to use this gem of a suggestion in their work. For example, let's tell the environmentalist that the only way she can be sure about global warming is if she measured the temperature on every square inch of the earth. After laughing themselves silly, these people will ask us to read up on the magic of statistical sampling. They will also explain that humans work on careful approximations all the time. There is never an exact answer to everything, and bigger patterns are judged based on smaller, representative populations.

I hope I've cleared my point. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 10:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So what do you propose? That we wait till the ghits are more or less similar in number with the two names and only then do we go ahead with the change in name. That sounds ridiculous. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope I've cleared my point. - No. You've only made it clear that you have no point. Read my lips - this much touted "most common name" meme, has no basis in policy, atleast not as far as this article is concerned. You've tried every trick in the book -- during the first debate, you kept citing chapters and verses from WP:NAME which never existed. Not until the second debate was I able to call your bluff because I'd mistakenly taken your words at face value earlier. You now try to build on it with your specious tabulations and john k tries to pass off an irrelevant 'convention' as "policy". Even if we were to humor your tabulations for a minute, common sense tells me that a Karnataka Government Gazette is an infinitely more reliable source in this regard than a Sydney morning herald. In any case, such an exercise is futile because there is nothing in wp policy which warrants one for this article in the first place. So save us your gobbledygook about statistics and sampling etc.,. Sarvagnya 00:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! When your own brand of ludicrous logic ("line up every English speaker and ask him to vote", indeed!) gets torn apart and you have no answer, you stoop to baseless accusations and empty rhetoric. Can't expect much more than that from you, though, so I shouldn't be surprised.

So, now that you've started nitpicking about policies, let's turn your argument around and ask you, where does it say in WP:NAME that we must use official government-designated names? On the contrary, WP:NAME says in its opening paragraph: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". This is what even the specific guidelines (which you deludedly think are "broken" and are "being ignored all over Wikipedia" because they don't suit your fancy) exhort us to do. That's why it's not Timor-Leste but East Timor. How many times do you need to hear this? Wikipedia is not run by any government. A Sydney Morning Herald will most certainly give one an idea of what the English-speakers in Australia know Bangalore as, not a Karnataka Government Gazette. That's called common sense.

The table which is so incomprehensible to you is a small exercise in gauging usage patterns around the English-speaking world. The process is eminently repeatable, and you will consistently find Bangalore outperforming Bengaluru, no matter what method you use or whichever way you look at the results. Now, if you have counter-proof to show that the usage of "Bengaluru" in the English speaking world is comparable to "Bangalore", I'm willing to debate you. If you refuse to understand elementary methods of research and instead come up with jewels such as "we need a vote from all English speakers in this world", then you're on your own. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 05:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

While I would still prefer the article's name to remain at Bangalore, I won't mind a rename to Bengaluru. This small issue is simply not worthy enough of archives and archives of discussion. I imagine the Kannada editors will continue to persist a rename, and we shouldn't waste anymore time, which could be utilised on more important things. My preference for Bangalore comes from the face that its usage in English WP:RS and other sources is still minuscule.

On a fairly weakly related note, as opposed to Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, Bangalore retains its name in the Indian Premier League ([[Bangalore Royal Challengers). I'm guessing that it is because the name Bengaluru hasn't taken off yet and the team will gain more support and notability by using the former name. But of course, we Wikipedia can improve the situation by renaming the article which will help Bengaluru gain more international recognition if we desire so. :P Gizza^{Discuss ©} 08:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The IPL is a venture of a private club. It has no bearing on any of this. The team will be called what Vittal Mallya chooses to call it and registers with the club. For that matter, Madras High Court (no less) is still called "Madras" High Court - not Chennai High Court. Also, talking of that club, the Madras Cricket Club is still called Madras Cricket Club. Bombay (and Madras and Calcutta) still retain their old names in plenty of airline schedules. We could go on and on about this. Wikipedia's usages are not dictated by purely whimsical choices of other entities. Your IPL example is disingenuous and irrelevant. Sarvagnya 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I had moved the page to Bengaluru & it is noticed that my edits reverted. I am again taking new survey & straw poll to find a better consensus. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two sub-sections created below. Please add your comments with signatures in the beginning under whichever sections you want.

Users FOR Bangalore (Users against Bengaluru)

• Nikkul (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have resided in the town for well over fifteen years, and am still to come across a single reference to the new spelling being approved in official records, newspapers or any other source of public information. A name should be anglicised in English, not aboriginalised, in my opinion. Voltigeur (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Common and established usage should be retained. English does not have an Academy, and the opinion of the Government of Karnataka is simply an opinion; see WP:Official names. AJCfreak gives away his case when he says Personally, I find the name Bangalore more convenient and widely accepted; so will our readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Users AGAINST Bangalore (Users for Bengaluru)

• --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC) - per my comment above.
• GDibyendu (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC) I have little bit of experience in search engine programming. From that, what I feel is that one search engine (google) result cannot be taken as benchmark. Also, a name change would take time to get used over pages. So, I searched in Yahoo, for checking. As soon I wrote Bengaluru, it gives first option as "bangalore name change bengaluru". That search gives around 62,200 links from NEWS, Media etc. I stay in this city now and I personally know that this name change is decided for sure and eventually I expect all webpages and definitely, all new ones, to reflect the name change. So, I support Bengaluru.
• Personally, I find the name Bangalore more convenient and widely accepted. But on Wikipedia, I believe that it should be Bengaluru for the following reasons:

1. Ghits: Google returns more pages for Bangalore cos that is what the city has been called for the past so many years. If we had googled Madras or Bombay right after their renaming, we would have had more results than Chennai or Mumbai.
2. Wide usage: Simply because something is widespread, doesn't make it right. According to the Govt. of Karnataka, the city has been renamed. As such, the city's article has to be renamed.
3. Local name: Bengaluru is no longer just the local name. It is currently the English name for the city. This is quite unlike calling Munich by it's local name - Munich is still Munich in English - not so for Bengaluru.

I sincerely hope all of us could reach a consensus. However, I'm beginning to doubt the necessity of a consensus in the first place, cos propriety demands that the article be named Bengaluru. aJCfreak yAk 07:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

aJCfreak,

1. The fact that the name is new is exactly the reason why it's not widespread or accepted yet, and that obviously shows in the G-Hits results. Yes, the disparity in hits is because of history, but it's not like there has been a sudden switchover to the new name in the media, and Google is lagging behind in the updates. Major news sources in India (forget abroad) still use "Bangalore". Even Deccan Herald, a local newspaper in Bangalore, uses "Bangalore".
2. The thing is, we are supposed to use a name that the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. "Bengaluru" doesn't fit the bill just yet. Why present an unfamiliar name before the reader (and I mean the global reader here) and confuse her when we can easily keep the title as Bangalore but make the opening line "Bangalore, officially Bengaluru, is the...". And I'm sure if Bangalore had been renamed around the time of Mumbai or Chennai we wouldn't be having this discussion.
3. There's no question of right name or wrong name here. Bangalore is not the "wrong" name. Wikipedia is not run by the Karnataka government, or by any government. We don't have to rename the article because the government has renamed the city. If the world still overwhelmingly uses Bangalore, WP should have no issues in using the same.
4. No one is saying that it's just the local name. It is not, however, a name that English speakers across the world would know.

I'm sorry that you think that a consensus is not needed. The issue is not such an open-and-shut case, because a similar argument is underway at the Burma page. Similarly, the country that is officially Timor-Leste exists on WP as East Timor. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments

• How is a straw poll going to help find consensus?? You can't expect a vote-off to resolve the issue...it is not a substitute for ongoing discussions. If the expectation is for editors to list their names under the subsections below, then I'm afraid it will contribute little to consensus building. See WP:POLLS. AreJay (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

see our policy, a straw poll may be used when there is clear from ongoing discussions that consensus has not been reached. In this case, instead of reaching to a consensus, it is noted that roughly edit war (by moving page & blind revert of rename) is happening.
--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 06:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, but just because an edit war is happening with no current consensus, we can't use straw poll results to maintain/change status quo wrt the city's name. I'm ok with the straw poll so long as it doesn't preclude the need to form consensus through discussion. AreJay (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with AreJay. Straw polls should be used to enable discussion, and not to decide the result on the basis of "majority". Polls come with a heap of cautionary statements on how to use them and interpret the results. Wikipedia is not a democracy. In fact, point #3 in the guideline says, "If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming." Consensus needs to be formed on the strength of discussion, not by numbers. I hope people will follow this principle and not hastily rename the article just because there are a larger number of votes for one side (because I can already see a group of users with strong regional sentiments voting en masse against "Bangalore") - Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PS@User:Harjk: I fail to see any "edit war" or "blind revert" happening here. Reverting a hasty and one-sided move with barely a day's notice is not a "blind revert". Plus, it makes sense to keep the page in status-quo until some decision has been reached, don't you agree? - Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Use English words Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form. The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage (e.g., Besançon, Edvard Beneš and Göttingen, but Nuremberg, delicatessen, and Florence).

Rationale and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)

• Use common names of persons and things Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications.

Rationale and specifics: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)-article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)-The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always.

This is the English Wikipedia. For the kannada version of the Bangalore page, users can go to the kannada wikipedia and search bengaluru! Nikkul (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is precisely what the argument is about. GoK wants to (or has already) change(d) the official name of the city, as spelled in English, from Bangalore to Bengaluru. There was never any argument on what the city was called in Kannada — it was and always has been Bengaluru. AreJay (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Kannada government doesnt run wikipedia. As per the above points, the COMMON NAME is the one which the title should bear. And Bengaluru is not the common name of the city in the English Language. Nikkul (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that the Karnataka government does not run Wikipedia, but they do run Bengaluru. For reference, you may refer to a poll conducted quite a while ago regarding common name usage for geographical locations at Wikipedia:Naming policy poll. The result of the poll (and accompanying discussions) was that cities Mecca and Kiev were not renamed to their locally accepted Makkah and Kyiv; however, the Calcutta article was renamed to Kolkata. The accompanying discussions and reasoning are presented in the archives of the talk page.

Simple example would be, if Google were to rename its company to something else tomorrow, we would be obliged to rename the article Google to the new name. We could begin the lead by saying The new name, formerly Google, is ... We could also have the article Google as a redirect to the new name. However, the new name is what should be used. aJCfreak yAk 08:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Bangalore is more common than Bengaluru. The reason other Indian cities like Chennai have the new name is because Madras is far less common. Proof Below:

Common Names of Indian cities as Measured by Hits on Google:

• Calcutta- 11,700,000 hits
• Kolkata- 12,100,000 hits

• Madras- 9,260,000 hits
• Chennai- 19,800,000 hits

• Bombay- 24,200,000 hits
• Mumbai- 36,200,000 hits

• Bangalore-25,800,000 hits
• Bengaluru- 416,000 hits

I think we see why Chennai and Kolkata and Mumbai retain those names and why Bengaluru is still not the common name of the city in the English language Nikkul (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of the discussion; the common name for those cities is the newer, anglicised version only because the changes were effected ages ago - Mumbai in 1995 and Chennai in 1996. My point is not that Bangalore is not more common; but simply that Bengaluru is more appropriate. Personally speaking, I couldn't care less about what the city is named. But propriety counts on a site as huge as Wikipedia. Again, I'd like to refer to my Google example above - If the company was renamed, we would be obliged to change the name of the Google article on WP. Stating that Google does not run Wikipedia and that Google is more commonly used doesn't help - the name itself has changed.

Quoting examples of Munich, etc. actually don't count - English is not a national language of Germany and other countries where such debates occur; English, alongwith Hindi, is one of India's official national languages. As such, the government retains the right to rename the city - they are not saying "Everybody should call this city by the new name"; rather, they are saying "Bengaluru is the name of the city, henceforth". aJCfreak yAk 08:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup they are free to rename the city and as soon as the name change catches on we will change the name of the article. Until then no.Geni 12:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should the name change catch on for us to rename the article? aJCfreak yAk 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Because on wikipedia we use common names and well until a name has caught on it can't really be said to be common. Then of course we have the issue that this is the english wikipedia. As far as the english speaking world is concernded the current name is Bangalore regardless of the local goverment's opinion on the matter. PErhaps in time that will change. We shall see.Geni 14:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Has the city's official English name been changed to Bengaluru yet ? I found several newspaper articles from 2006-2007 projecting that the name change will be finalized by this-or-that date or within a fortnight, but no article which said that the name had been changed. According to this Hindu article (see last paragraph) the proposal was still pending with the Union govt as of Oct. 31, 2007, and was apparently not being pushed by the Karnataka state govt. Any updates ? Abecedare (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The change effective from 1-Nov-06. Telegraph, bbc. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it is not yet official. The delay is because of a dispute with Maharashtra over renaming Belgaum to Belagavi. See Centre mum on ‘Bengaluru’. --Mankar Camoran^talk 11:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I cease and will not bring up this topic again, until it is utterly clear that it is official from the Central government. aJCfreak yAk 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the later reference, Mankar. It can be perhaps replace the Oct, 2006 TOI reference number 12 in the article.

While this should settle the article renaming debate for now, may I suggest that editors who feel that the article should be moved to Bengaluru as soon as the Union govt. formalizes the decision, should propose a change to the wikipedia naming convention, to favor official names; else we'll be back to square one in a few months time. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur, Abecedare. But going by past trends, I suspect that it won't be long before the collective regionalistic ego bares its fangs again. Hopefully there would be someone level-headed enough to take your suggestion before that. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Abecedare. There has been a group consensus that decided that the common name (not always the official name) should be the title of the article, as is said in ALL WP:Name subsections. If users want to change this policy, the battleground shouldnt be here, but on the wikipedia naming page instead. Nikkul (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have changed reference number 12. The earlier one didn't seem to work properly. Thanks for pointing it out. --Mankar Camoran^talk 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to "official names", I am sure the Karnataka State Gazetteer is a far more reliable source than any newspaper. I have included links somewhere above on this page which shows the use of Bengaluru in officialese including a Gazette of the Karnataka government and an official tender. These are legal documents and usage in them should supercede a media report. Sarvagnya 00:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, I could not find the link. Where is it? --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 04:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales had commented on this issue in his talk page per my request. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

@Tomb of the Unknown Warrior a.k.a. User:Harjk (Ref: Your comments on Jimbo's talk page): Your misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the stand of editors who oppose the move to "Bengaluru" is not appreciated. Do you honestly think that the reason for opposition is because these users are "chic lovers" and that they're doing this because "Bangalore sounds more chic"? Please read through the current posts, and the archived discussions of a few months ago to get proper perspective on why this is a contentious issue.

Also, please do not say that there was "consensus" to move the article since the initial move was blatantly unilateral and based on barely a day's notice (which is why it was reverted and a debate ensued). Again, I ask you to read ongoing and previous discussions to get a perspective on the issue and hope that you will avoid making such misleading remarks in the future. Thank you. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

@MaximVsDecimVs a.k.a. User:Max^{You were saying}, Please don’t increase your volume to a ‘maximum’ level that might infuriate other editors. The latest discussion started on 9-March-2008 on this issue progressed with a greater part of editors unanimously supported the move to Bengaluru. Due to this, I moved the page on 1-April-2008. Don’t you think that 21 days are not enough to reach into a consensus? It is also true that you are one of the ‘chick lover’ who still want it to be in the old name. The answer is clear that you don’t like the local name Bengaluru. I also wish you to go ahead and revert back move of other WP articles like Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai and other cities to the old name, if you can.
--Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Harjk, there was only one post there from March 9 to March 31 and nothing else. The real discussion started much later, on 31 March, after User:Ajcfreak's post. Anyway, if you feel personally offended in some way because someone else reverted your move, you shouldn't. Again, I ask you to read through the current discussion and the archives of the talk page to gain an insight into why this is a contested issue. Once there, you will also find the reasons why Mumbai, Chennai etc. are named the way they are. If you want to persist in your own belief that editors opposing "Bengaluru" are doing so because it is not "chic", no one can stop you, but please keep these thoughts to yourself. The discussion will be much more fruitful if you focussed on objective arguments and refrained from ascribing motives to people who beg to differ with your view. I have nothing further to say to you about this matter. Thank you. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 09:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, people... This seems to be getting a little bit more personal than necessary. I'm gonna try and sum up the points put forth both for and against the move to Bengaluru, as best as I can. Please please please let's stick to the topic at hand and not get personal.

For: (Bengaluru)

• Official name (if not yet, then soon-to-be)
• When it becomes the official name (if not already), then it is the name of the city in English as well. Hence, quoting the examples of other cities such as Munich, Mecca does not count much, since their English names are different. When official, Bengaluru will be the English name for the city

Against (Bangalore)

• More widely known, accepted and recognised
• It's what a reader would most commonly enter into the searchbox (WP:NAMES WP:NAME* states this point as of primary importance)

I strongly feel that editors should not make the following judgemental errors:

• Bangalore may be more chic, but that is not the reason for keeping it this way
• Bengaluru may be more regional, but the move is not just the view of editors local to the city. For example, I was born a Tamilian and have lived all my life in Madras/Chennai. I simply think it's more proper this way. It hurts a bit when accused of being regional.

Finally, as to whether the name change is official or not, is a bit confusing. The website of the BBMP (Bruhat Bengaluru Municipal Corporation has been renamed so. It was previously Greater Bangalore Municipal Corporation. Also, as previously pointed out, there seem to be official sources indicating that the name has changed. What could be possible is that the Karnataka government changed the name, but the Central Government of India is yet to approve it.

I suggest that we let the article name rest, until we all can first agree on the fact that the name indeed, has been changed. I hope we can all work together in establishing a proper agreement... This is, after all, Wikipedia. And high standards are called for. aJCfreak yAk 10:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

* = modified by Max ^{- You were saying?} 15:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ajcfreak, for what it's worth, the "regional" comment was not directed at you or any user supportive of "Bengaluru" who had a polite and coherent point to make. My apologies if you felt offended about the same. There are, however, one or two jingoistic users who see everything with regionalism-tainted glasses, who think it's okay to behave discourteously with anyone who holds views different from theirs. Just see some of the past archives for details. And it's not just rudeness. There was a vigorous campaign to move the article way back in November 2006, where unfortunate statements such as by changing the name, we are sending out signals that we're asserting our identity were made to justify the move (there is a hole in the talk page archives from April 2006 to August 2007 due to some reason; you can refer to this version to see what happened then).

I have taken the liberty to correct the policy link in your summary (WP:NAMES leads to the MoS page for biographies). I'd also like to add to your list of points the fact that apart from WP:NAME, every major guideline stresses on names that English speakers around the world would recognize. Finally, I want to assure you that no opposing editor has ever toted the "Bangalore is more chic" line. That accusation is a figment of someone's imagination. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 15:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Really appreciate it. Btw, I know that that comment was not directed at me - but when you're trying to point out something that you think is right and comments such as these get tossed around, then it does hit you somewhere. I think it was mentioned exactly twice. In my opinion, people living in Bangalore would generally prefer to keep it as Bangalore - because it is better sounding IMHO. <sheepish grin> But that's not the point here, is it? Anyways, thanks. I really do appreciate the reply. aJCfreak yAk 03:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2008/November#Widely accepted name changed by authoritative governing body to help clearly define the policies on naming of articles on geographic locations, when the authoritative governing body has changed it. I thought I'd drop a note here to editors interested in actively taking part in the discussion. Please feel free to participate. Thanks. aJCfreak yAk 04:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The etymology section has this:

The earliest reference to the name "Bengaluru" was found in a 9th century Western Ganga Dynasty stone inscription on a "vīra kallu" (ವೀರ ಗಲ್ಲು) (literally, "hero stone", a rock edict extolling the virtues of a warrior). In this inscription found in Begur, "Bengaluru" is referred to as a place in which a battle was fought in 890. It states that the place was part of the Ganga kingdom until 1004 and was known as "Bengaval-uru", the "City of Guards" in Old Kannada.[5]

How can a 9th century inscription state the Bangalore was part of the Ganga kingdom until 1004 (11th century)? Can someone please correct the dates? I don't know the correct dates. --ashwatha (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Obviously a minor copy edit issue. The phrase until 1004 should be removed. That'a all.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

File:UB Towers.jpg

Bangalore is a rapidly growing metropolitan and I personally feel that a modern picture like the skyline should be represented the IT Culture and fast growing economy of Bangalore. I with many editors have worked on mordernise the Gurgaon page and I feel the skyline image should show more of the mordern side of Bangalore. Many other city's pages have changed too like Shanghai, Singapore, KL etc.Manaspunhani (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Manaspunhani, I appreciate the interest in improving the article but I must object to adding the image in question. Bangalore's IT-based economy has already been represented by the Infosys image in the economy section. Additionally, Bangalore's IT industry has been extensively covered in the third paragraph of the same section. Adding any more, I feel, would be WP:UNDUE and would take away from other aspects of the city that require representation. Quality Wiki articles must strive towards presenting a fair and balanced portrayal of the subject and not so much on the presentation of "modern picture(s)". Please refer to the top of this page for earlier discussions on images. Thanks AreJay (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I just think that the skyline image should be replaced with this one, because it is for the skyline and vidhan souda, though a great image, should go on the administration section rather than be on the skyline image. pl. keep this in mind. And others pl. decide fast.Manaspunhani (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You also have to keep in mind Wikipedia's standards for WP:NOTE. What exactly is the notablity of this image, which I'm guessing is that of UB City? How many people know it (in Karnataka, in India, the rest of the world)? Is it more notable than the Vidhana Soudha, the city's legislative building? The Vidhana Soudha has been used to represent not only Bangalore but also Karnataka on news articles and yes, even travel brochures. Apart from the apparent glitz and glamor there isn't much to these UB city buildings. Thanks AreJay (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind that Vidhan Soudha doesn't come under the skyline category. The UB City is the the business hub of Bangalore. Vidhansoudha is the legislative building and doesn't symbolise the importance bangalore business importance in India and the World. What I prepose is to fill the skyline like how it is done on the London article. In which both Vidhan Soudha and UB City can be represented in the same skyline spot..Manaspunhani (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know the relevance of placing the image of kempfort Siva temple in demographics section. How are they related?

[[Shekure (talk) 06:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)]]

I don't think there is any, aside from a tenuous relationship between the idol and the sentences that discuss religion. I would favor it being replaced with something more relevant like Nandi Temple or Ramakrishna Matt. Thanks AreJay (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed how some fellow users have left no stone unturned to prevent the name change. With the passage of time, the new name will gradually grow more popular than the old name. Why all the fuss? Just make the change. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that over time Bengaluru will become more popular, but for now, Bangalore is much more popular so we keep it as is. Nikkul (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I followed this entire discussion over the name change, and I'd like to ask - Can anyone give me a link proving the OFFICIAL name change? The former state government has put forth the name change suggestion to the central government. That does NOT mean that the name change has been sanctioned. It is absurd to even consider the number of search engine results for a particular name. It may have been referred to as Bengaluru in an official document, but the name change is still just a proposal. And until the name change is made official [I hope it won't], can there be no haste in changing the name? Thanks vinayg18 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope this will help: sajaforum.org/2007/08/india-bangalore.html Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does Bombay redirect to Mumbai but Bangalore doesn't redirect to Bangaluru? Is it because fewer people have embraced the name change so far? 207.172.186.128 (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. Wikipedia uses the most common name in English in the vast majority of cases, and at this point "Mumbai" has edged out "Bombay" in popular English usage, while "Bengaluru" is still very far behind "Bangalore" in English usage. Same reason we moved Peking to Beijing (it's now common) but we haven't moved Kiev to Kyiv ("Kiev" is still more common in English). --Delirium (talk)

Amazing. As long as Bangalore can be redirected to Bengaluru, let us change Bangalore to Bengaluru. Let us not unnecessarily use our ability to resist that change. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

India is a union of states. Karnataka is a federal state and Bengaluru is its capital. Karnataka as a state manages its own internal affairs through its elected legeslative assembly and legeslative council. Both the houses have decided with more the 3/4 majority that the people of the state like their capital city called and used, in all fourms, media and governance by only one name : Bengaluru. Karnataka does not need any permission from the central governament or its home minstry. ~rAGU (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

And we don't need any permission from the Karntaka government to keep the name of this article Bangalore or to change it to Bengaluru. Even if the name change was done 10 years ago and the most common name today was Bangalore, we would still keep it as bangalore according to WP:Name and disregard "official" policies of Karnataka. The ministers of Karnataka do not decide what this article is called. WP Editiors, who have come up with the policy at Wp:name have agreed to keep the most common name Nikkul (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My fellow users, let's update the name to Bengaluru. It's now official. Let us not use our ability to resist the change. I am not computer savvy. I hope someone will redirect "Bangalore" to Bengaluru. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bangalore is STILL the most common name...Just because its official, doesnt mean its suddenly become the most common name for the city. See WP:Name Nikkul (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, its enough to say "Bangalore, officially Bengaluru" Nikkul (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Downtown Bangalore.jpg

I think it's important to add the UB City image in the econ section and remove the PU Building image since UB City is a new economic zone in the city along with ITPL & Electronic City. Nikkul (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

UB city in the new icon of the growth that bangalore has seen in the past few years and building in MG Road dont signify anything. Bangalore is vast and diverse city with a a lot of structure that can be used to show its economic might but just putting a picture of some old skyscraper on MG road doesn't really enhance the article. Enthusiast10 (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, because I think there should be a balance between the old and new economies. The Infosys building represents the new, while the Utility Building represents the old (that's to say "older") economy. AreJay (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm willing to unclench about the Utility Building if there's consensus to replace it with an image of any of Bangalore's famous markets (KR, Gandhi Bazaar, Russell, Jayanagar, etc.) There are some astoundingly colorful CC-BY and CC-BY-SA images of these markets on Flickr. Thanks AreJay (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough- butr then UB city symbolizes bangalore so I reckon lets make a montage for the skyline. If thats ok with u its the best idea.Enthusiast10 (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to work on creating one. Maybe something that has the skyline to the top, Vidhana Soudha in the middle and perhaps an image of any of Bangalore's avenues lined with Gulmohar trees (typifying the "Garden City" moniker) to the bottom. If you're able to build consensus for the montage on the talk page, you can add it to the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried many times to make a montage but each time I make it, I dont feel its very good. There are not many symbolic pictures of Bangalore like the the green avenues. However, everytime I see the bangalore article I feel that montage or no montage we have to add an image of UB City. It even features on the bangalore admonostration site. So I reckon lets remove the Mg Roads sole skyscraper and add an UB City imageEnthusiast10 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For images of tree lined streets see 1 2, 3, etc. As for the other bit about UB City, sorry, can't get behind that logic for the same reasons that have been put forward several times before on Talk. AreJay (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Enthusiast10: just a note- Wikipedia works by concensus not on AreJay's (or any one user's) approval. SO if you can get concensus, you can put which ever image regardless of one users disapproval. So dont feel that you have to get anything approved by Arejay before you can put it on. You do have to get concensus. :) Nikkul (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that's how Enthusiast10 approached the issue. The user made a case for the image in an attempt to obtain consensus, during which I objected based on a position that has been documented several times over. I don't believe that at any point Enthusiast10 requested anyone's approval, nor is such an approval from any one user forthcoming or indeed binding on what does or doesn't get to go into the article. AreJay (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

File:UB Towers.jpg

File:Downtown Bangalore.jpg

As Nikkul rightly pointed out I think I should have asked for suport in the matter of this case. There are currently three images of UB City and I would like to remove the MG Road building and add one of the UB City images. Pl. vote for any of the 4 images- 3 of UB City and 1 one of Utility Building. The voting format is the same as the one earlier used on this page made by Nikkul.Thanks. Enthusiast10 (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, hold up there a second. First, we've been through this before, as you mention. The exact same points that you've raised have been raised before, both for and against these images. What changed now to restart the process? Second, and more importantly, I strongly suggest you read and familiarize yourself with WP:VOTE. At Wikipedia, we do not make decisions based on "majority rule", even if the results of this vote are binding (which they are not) and even if you were able to get several votes for your proposed images. Building support occurs through discussion and through consensus. You can't just bypass dialog and get a move on with a vote in order to get what you want. This is flat out not how things are done on Wikipedia. AreJay (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

ECONOMY IMAGE VOTE

Utility Building Supporters:

UB City Replacement Supporters:

• Enthusiast10 (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Nikkul (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I think the UB City image shows Bangalore's new business district and another aspect of its economy: commerce. It houses the headquarters to large groups and has office space for other companies. And UB City also houses commercial offices, banks, high-end retail stores, a five star hotel, serviced apartments, restaurants, food courts. Nikkul (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've put forth my points related to the name-change a while ago, and then decided to let it rest, since it was unclear if the official name-change had come through. Currently, it appears that the name has officially changed [55] and so, I'd like to rake up the debate again.

Firstly, I'd request people to completely review the following WP policies:

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)

I have reviewed the guidelines listed there. Let's keep in mind that all these are WP policies and not rules set in stone. Having said that, let's move on to the crux of the debate.

Reasons against the name-change:

• Wider usage of Bangalore among English speakers
• Govt of Karnataka does not determine the names of articles on the English Wikipedia
• The English name is to be used

Reasons for the name-change:

• Current, official name for the city
• Officially, the English name for the city

The fresh points that I would like to put forth are: (atleast, what I feel are fresh)

1. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) states that official, English names are to be used. Well, in that case, the vote would be in favour of Bengaluru.
2. Wikipedia: Naming conventions (settlements) points out that English names need to be used, over the use of local names. Stating this (and re-stating it) does not count in this specific case. We are not asking you to rename the article to the name of the city in its local language; we are asking you to allow the article to be renamed to its official English name.
3. Going through the details listed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), it becomes clear that at any given point of time, the current, modern English version of the city name has been used in several articles, and is almost a consensus across the entire encyclopaedia.
4. Again, the examples listed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) list out the Bombay to Mumbai change, which explicitly states that the name change for the article was not due to the fact that it was officially renamed; but, due to the following reasons:

* Mumbai had become widely accepted among the English-speaking community
* Wikipedia guidelines grant the use of Indian English across articles related to India

1. If anyone has any doubt to the wide acceptance of Bengaluru across the English-speaking community, a simple Google search for Bengaluru reveals 29.6 million hits compared to 35 million hits for Bangalore. Granted, that 29.6 million is a lesser number than 35 million; but it clearly points out that the name has become widely accepted among the English speaking community.

So, let's change it. Let's set aside personal opinions, personal preferences and try to make Wikiepedia stand for that beautiful thing that it it - a community. :) Cheerio! aJCfreak yAk 11:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) clearly states that Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize,
2. Wikipedia: Naming conventions (settlements) states that If there is no national convention on a given country, and there is a clear pattern among the articles on places in that country, follow it;
3. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) states that When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it
4. I clicked on your search links and I can see only 14 million hits for Bengaluru. --Anshuk (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, a similar check for "Chennai" verses "Madras" results in a similar ratio. So also Kolkata verses Calcutta, and Mumbai verses Bombay. Something to think about.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Chennai has more hits than Madras and Mumbai has more hits than Bombay. I think you are saying that you are against the name change for Bangalore.--Anshuk (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So it seems, but the "Bengaluru" usage was 1/10 of "Bangalore" a few months back. So its catching up fast. I dont see why the name can't change now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether it is catching up or not. But whenever Bengaluru reaches the same popularity as Bangalore; we can change it.--Anshuk (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To address the points put forth above: (Again, WP guidelines are not set in stone - they're guidelines)

1. Reg the second point stated by Anshuk: We are trying to follow the clear pattern among the articles for this country - we're renaming the article like all other cities which've been renamed and have had their respective articles renamed after that. I mentioned this in my initial post - WP encourages the use of Indian English for India-related articles, such as this one.

2. Reg the third point stated: Widely accepted? 14+ million hits on Google is widely accepted. English name? Of course it is. The English name of the city is no longer Bangalore. Modern context? A name that has been used for past decades (Bangalore) is not more modern than what has been introduced just last year (Bengaluru). Bengaluru is modern. Bengaluru is current.

3. Reg Ghits: As mentioned several times in many WP guidelines, Ghits are not to be used as a sole source of evidence; we could use them as a supplementation. Currently, I do not have any knowledge of how the Google bot crawls the web. But I did re-check the link I've posted and Google noted 29.6 million hits. If I redirect my browser to google.com, instead of google.co.in, then Google spouts out 17.3 million hits. However, both Google sites return 35 million hits for Bangalore. No idea why. Honestly speaking, if any other site were to show us such results, we would not take data from such a source into consideration, as it would be unreliable. So currently, we would need to find a better source. However, 14+ or 17+ or 29+ million hits on Google indicate widespread acceptance of the name. If it was just widespread acceptance that we were looking at, then Bengaluru would need to gain wider acceptance than Bangalore. Since we've got other points in case for Bengaluru, I'm sure that this level of widespread acceptance for the name of a city in India is good enough.

I don't mind us waiting on this for a month or even more. I'd like a lot more than just three editors discussing this. There are others who constantly watch this article. Waiting for their inputs/thoughts/opinions. And yes, if somebody could clear up the anomaly of Ghits, I'd be grateful. aJCfreak yAk 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ghits was mentioned when this discussion started. I was just responding to that. I agree with you that ghits are not sole source of evidence and hence even though, some day, Bengaluru starts getting more ghits it will be hard for it to be what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. We even have a verb bangalored (57k+ ghits) which is used synonymous with offshored.

Regarding modern context; per Google News, there were only 1110 news articles with word Bengaluru in 2008, while Bangalore had 48400. Looks like we have to wait for Bengaluru to catch up..--Anshuk (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG! This has been brought up sooo many times in the past...before bringing this subject up again, please read past discussions and realize that there has been the same result and the same consensus: that this page will remain Bangalore until Bengaluru is much more popular and the word Bangalore has long been forgotten. I understand that there are over-patriotic Kannada people who would love to change it to Bengaluru (and start this discussion again every couple months), but this page must remain Bangalore as per WP:name and WP policies. Nikkul (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

reply to Nikkul, is everyone forgotten the word "Madras", "Calcutta", "Bombay"? when these names are renamed why cant "Bangalore" to BENGALURU. "BENGALURU" IS A MODERN ENGLISH WORD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.150.128 (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am madrasi staying in bengaluru (i'm not patriotic kannadiga) but i support article should be renamed as BENGALURU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.150.128 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul, I respectfully request you to do what you've asked others to do. The last time I was involved in such a debate, Bengaluru had 416,000 Ghits, which was cited as "not enough" to be seen as widely accepted by the English-speaking community. Currently, as pointed out above, it has atleast 14+ million hits. From April to November, if that's not widespread acceptance, then I don't know what you would consider as. Also, as I stated clearly the last time 'round, I am a Tamilian. I'm not a Kannada-fanatic. If you wanna make assumptions, please be my guest. But you might wanna check before posting them on a WP talk page. Again, let me state this to be clear - I am no Kannada fanatic. Shoot, I don't even know the language. So please let's not get into who wants the page to be what - let's just stick to reasons. And also, I've gone through the documented cases on other name-related controversies across WP. I think, that this time 'round, it warrants this change. aJCfreak yAk 17:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It may be 11,000,000 (which is what it is now) but until the hits for Bengaluru are larger than the hits for Bangalore, I will be opposed to it! Also, the hits for Bangalore have also significantly grown. Let's just wait till Bengaluru is more popular and more common. Nikkul (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is very clear that Nikkul's and Anshuk's decison is motivated by personal prejudice. Google hit is only a way to check popularity. 50 :million Kannadigas call it by name Bengaluru. Should all of them most of whom do not use internet come and dance and sing :Bengaluru in front of Nikkul and Anshuk? You are not qualified to be in this discussion. This should be handled by some one neutral.

~rAGU (talk)

Actually, rAGU, that argument does not qualify. We're trying to come to a consensus on what the majority of English speakers call the city. You could have a whole universe filled with non-English speakers calling it by whatever you want. That would not help us in deciding the name. Something to think about, eh?! ;) aJCfreak yAk 04:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ajcfreak, why are you asking for change in name then? I can only see egotrip here. You guys do not seem to be interested in use its name and more interested in harping about it. Goodluck. ~rAGU (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

He he. So this gets to be an egotrip for me? Nice nice. Well, whatever it is for me, consensus on WP determines stuff around here. I'm still not gonna sit around and insist like a pig-headed fool that we change the name. But certain pointers that I've put forth (above) are valid concerns. Just wondering if anyone else has anything new to add to the discussion. Remember, it's a discussion, not a debate/argument. aJCfreak yAk 05:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out that Baroda links to the Gujju name. Even here, Bangalore won't be deleted obviously, it would simply follow the same pattern as Bombay, Madras and Calcutta, and while we're at it let's throw in Cawnpore. Any more? Is delhi dilli yet? or maybe in a few months? Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Vadodara is no longer just a Gujju name. And Ghits for Vadodara are marginally higher than for Baroda. No idea how/why, cos everyone I know and have spoken to know the city as Baroda, and not as Vadodara. People blink when I tell them of Vadodara. But anyways, thanks for the opinion. aJCfreak yAk 14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is 161 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. We can use User:MiszaBot II to auto archive threads on this page. I don't see a con. But I need to have a consensus from everyone before I can configure it. Let me know if you have any views on this.--Anshuk (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see anything wrong in configuring MiszaBot to auto archive this page. Please feel free to go ahead and get this set up. Thanks AreJay (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead. aJCfreak yAk 06:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I will wait for customary 3 days to get everyone's consensus on this --Anshuk (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Done --Anshuk (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway we can set this to 60-90 days? I think some of the ongoing discussions might stand the risk of getting archived while in progress if it's set to 7. We get a bit traffic in the Bangalore article, but not nearly as much as Talk:India. Thanks AreJay (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is an ongoing discussion, it won't archive it. It will archive only those threads on which there is no discussion in the last 7 days. Do you still think it should be 60-90 days? Also I see that the bot didn't ran yet. I think I should wait for 24hr before raising a concern. Does anyone have any idea on this? --Anshuk (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My bad, didn't know that 7d meant no discussions on a subject within the last seven days. Still feels like seven days is too soon, but let's just wait and see what happens when the bot runs...we'll take a call on any issues at that point. Thanks AreJay (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thinking a little ahead, the Bangalore - Bengaluru debate has been raging for ages. Would it be possible to let the latest instance of this debate stay on the talk page? Otherwise, seven days of no discussion on the debate, and we'll come across another poster who'd want to rename it to Bengaluru, again. Hey - don't get me wrong - I'm all for Bengaluru. But I don't want the discussion to be something that keeps cropping up every now and then. I've had clear-cut reasons for bringing it up again, this time 'round, though. :) Just a thought. Actually, any hot debate could suffer this fate if the discussion is archived too soon. aJCfreak yAk 14:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that. Though currently bot is configured (default) to leave 5 latest threads on the talk page even if they are more than 7 days old. --Anshuk (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not have time for foul language. Good luck again :) ~rAGU (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In Kannada and Telugu the only languages of native bangalore, its called Bengaluru. If there are any Tamils who think otherwise, please levae your number, we will help you from where you migrated. If you are honest, you can find it with a moment of honesty! really!!!!!

There is not a single native of bangalore who speaks other than these langauages.

Foreigners have evolved funny thoughts around this. Tamils for example were forced to come hers as slaves by the brits against the wishes of the natives of Bangalore. These people have the amazing opportunity to go back to their land. If they have difficulty in finding it, It only takes a few minutes for other people to determine where they belong. This can help these people to see the obvious! The author below is a foreigner in Bangalore!

In Tamil its called "பெங்களூரு" (facinating use of Bengaluru by distant observers from the other side of the fence barely 50-60 kms from Hosur where Tamil land begins)and that "ளூரு" is from the Tamil word "ஊரு". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.19.134 (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The lore in Bangalore is pronounced, 'law (phonetic: lô)' and not 'lore' (so it's pronounced ' bang-a-law'). If you guys can correct it it would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.26.14 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't factually accurate. Your suggestion may have something to do with received pronunciation. The name Bangalore is an anglicized version of the native name of the city, BengaLuru, (stress is on the first syllable) , where the ringing r is very much pronounced. AreJay (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't what Bangaloreans call their city be used as the pronunciation here? Absolutely no one calls it 'Bang-a-lore'.

- Actually every native calls it bengaluru. I wonder how foreigners remain so ignorant even after staying for decades! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.252.10.2 (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'd encourage you to read received pronunciation. Pronunciation of the ringing "r" may manifest itself in varying degrees of prominence, but nowhere, least of all in Bangalore, is the last syllable pronounced "law". AreJay (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. No one pronounces it as law. Sounds like something that an Americanised/Australianised version of the name might sound like. :) aJCfreak yAk 15:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Bangaloreans do pronounce it Bang-a-law, but if you guys don't want the 'received pronounciation', I'm O.K., with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.14.189 (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

They do? Never heard such a pronunciation from anyone in the last 36 years in Bangalore. Benga-Lu-Ru is more appropriate, the 'R' is very pronounced (pun intended) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.164.104.137 (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia, so how the majority of English speakers would pronounce it is appropriate. Not just English speakers who have lived in Bangalore, but the majority of them worldwide. That being said, I for one can't imagine an American pronouncing it with "law." Beeblebrox (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Could anybody help me with an Ulsoor lake photo for the article Lakes in Bangalore? Regards, Raise lkblr (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Try this or this. Thanks AreJay (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am confused about the license thing, I have now uploaded Image:Ulsoor_lake_morning.jpg. You can just verify the license once. Thanks! Raise lkblr (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you've tagged it correctly. PS: It might be better to upload images to Commons going forward. One of the benefits is that the image's license gets verified (sometimes Flickr users change CC-Attrib or CC-Attrib-ShareAlike permissions to non-free ones). Thanks AreJay (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The resistance offered by some users to change the name to Bengaluru is amazing. I believe that the guidelines of Wikipedia are meant to help improve it to be a most up-to-date source of information. I think that a user should use his/her skills in a positive way. Thanks. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not about most up-to-date information, but it is about article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. Requesting you to read the previous discussions to understand this point.--Anshuk (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, looking at it that way, Bombay redirects to Mumbai, so same way Bangalore should go to Bengaluru and not the other way round. Who care what mojority think, it only means that you aren't willing to stay updated.... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is only appropriate that an encyclopedia hosts the "official" name, not the "majority" (whatever that means) name. I would support Bangalore redirecting to Bengaluru, than the other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.164.104.137 (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The page says that the official naming process to Bengaluru hasn't been completed. Can somebody update on this? If it hasn't been completed, the name should remain Bangalore, else it should be changed. wnwek (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), the policy that tells us to use "Bangalore" in this case. Shreevatsa (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Shreevatsa, looking at things that way, why is the article on Mumbai NOT Bombay, Chennai NOT Madras and Kolkatta NOT Calcutta, most foreigners still refer to these cities by their old names. Wikipedia DOES NOT name articles by their ACTUAL NAME, but by their 'popular name' as per American books. Hindu-Arabic numerals was renamed to Arabic Numerals in 2006 even with majority opposition, because it was more populr among Americans. Read about the debate on the talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a reliable citation to show that the official name change process has been completed (i.e. a link to the central government notification)? Till then, stating that it is officially Bengaluru would be unreliable. Regards,SBC-YPR (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if there isn't a credible citation for it, it should be removed. AreJay (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is not official then why "Bengaluru" is used everywhere in Bengaluru corporation website instead of "Bangalore". guys, learn to accept the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.188.54 (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no uniform policy here - both the Government of Karnataka websites [56] and [57] use "Bangalore". Until these are changed, I doubt whether it could be termed as official. I reiterate - there must be an official notification issued before the change can officially come into effect. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The two references that were recently added - [58](2005), [59](2006) - only refer to the initial stage of the naming process, and the second one already occurs later in the article (under the Etymology section). I accidently marked them as dead (since they failed to load, but it was in fact a problem with my internet connection) but that has been set right now. The link that should be added here is to the official gazette notification (which is mentioned in the second news article). I have moved these refs to the appropriate heading (the last paragraph of Etymology). Please go through this link [60](2007) which appears under the Etymology section. A link to the gazette notification would be deeply appreciated. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The process of conversion of Banglore to Bengalaru has been completed. If you all please verify it, we may put on a citation. Someone above said that Hindu-Arabic Numerals was changed to Arabic Numerals in 2006. It makes no sense in comparing that article with this one. This one is officially called Bengaluru in India and it is about that city. Thus the name of the article must be changed and Banglore must redirect to Bengaluru. Some said that wikipedia is from American books and references. It is not so. Anyhow, we are redirecting Banglore to Bengaluru and the first line will say, "Bengalaru, previously called Banglore,..." so that there is no conflict of Popular names and etcetera etcetera etcetera. Srinivas G Phani (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have read the previous few posts on this discussion, it will be clear that we are still searching for an official notification to prove that the name-change process has indeed been completed. If you find a link to the notification, please add it on as a citation. It will be deeply appreciated. Till then, Bangalore will have to stay. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the official notification is nowhere to be seen, then the sentence that Bangalore is officially called "Bengaluru" is patently wrong and should be removed. Having "citation needed" is unnecessary. As far as I remember, the name change has to be officially accepted by Central Government for it to take effect. Pending this, it must be reworded to read "Bangalore, also known as Bengaluru....". AreJay (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Reworded lead sentence. AreJay (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, NHAI's map shows Bengaluru as is and not as Bangalore. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Some self-appointed authorities cannot decide to change the name of a place in another language. It may be Bengaluru in India, but to the world, it is still Bangalore. Just as Brussels is spelt Bruxelles to the Belgians, but you don't see us renaming the Brussels article. Anyway, Bengaluru will be pronounced Bangalore by the international English-speaking community, as Paris will continue to be pronounced PariS, and not PaHrEE as the French pronounce it. --86.96.227.90 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this issue seems to be one off case when looked in the context of what the wiki name changing policy has been with respect to Indian cities. The questions in my mind are :
1) If the guidelines set out in the Wikipedia guidelines documment are to be followed, shouldn't there be some uniformity in it's application ?
2) Even if we set out to selectively implement the guidelines for the present case, what are the conditions to be met to prove to others that "Bengaluru" is indeed in popular usage ? I ask this question because now it seems that any official agency confirming the above fact will be dismissed by branding them as "self appointed" authorities. Also, was any such proving exercise undertaken in case of other instances of city renaming in India ?
3) Given the above two situations, what's the use of obtaining an official notification ? Because neither the guidelines ask for it nor will it prove to the skeptics that "Bengaluru" is in popular usage ? ( It is well known that the proposal will be kept in waiting for centre's nod for a long time now)

So from all this it seems clear to me that the guidelines and the demand for an official notification are only an excuse to stall the change. Since it is clear that the State Govt has passed the proposal and many popular establishments have fallen in line, I think Wiki should go ahead with the change and the onus to prove anything should be on those who would want it to be changed back. Manohar.sram (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)