Jump to content

Talk:Bangalore/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

name change

the name of bangalore has been changed to bengaluru ,the proof is www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/22bang.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanuraj123 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

See the many discussions above. —SpacemanSpiff 10:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 February 2012


Rama.717 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: No request. Celestra (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead does not adequately summarize the article (especially about history). Hence, I wish to post a draft consisting of a possible addition to the article here and get consensus.

A succession of South Indian dynasties ruled the region of Bangalore until in 1537 Kempe Gowda—a feudatory ruler under the Vijayanagara Empire—established a mud fort considered to be the foundation of modern Bangalore. Following transitory occupation by Marhata and Mughal, the city remained under the Mysore kingdom. Bangalore continued to be a cantonment of the British and a major city of the Princely State of Mysore which existed as a nominally sovereign entity of the British Raj. Following the independence of India in 1947, Bangalore became the capital of Mysore state, and later Karnataka.

Secret of success 08:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Problems in the article

The lead is not enough, also many (too many) facts are not referenced if this is to be considered as a FA. Also the article is comparatively small. I was going to list this at FAR, but in case if someone is willing to improve this here, then much better otherwise it is not a FA. →TSU tp* 18:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The lead is poor; some facts are poorly developed - mainly,(1) "Garden City" aspect; (2)"contonment" aspect (3)"contribution to culture/art" (4)Important citizens of Bangalore who made much conribution. Hope to improve it.Rayabhari (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Paytay

To get the pronunciation right, the article uses pētē for paytay (to describe and differentiate doddapete and chikkapete), but I think pèté would be more appropriate, since resumé, soufflé etc. use the é. Shall I change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.139.142 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Go on!. Lynch7 16:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The é and è seem to be French diacritics/accents and so I haven't bothered changing the ē of pētē. Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.17.31 (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012

Bangalore is now the third most populus city in India, not fifth. This is also according to your own wiki pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_populous_cities_in_India 49.249.132.143 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

yes You are absolutely right, Bangalore is third populous city, and fifth agglomeration. There are quite frequently vandals on this page, changing permanently Bangalore to Bengaluru and third to fifth etc. ... what to do ... I corrected it once more. ;-) Bangalorius (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not mention tag bangaloreans to any caste or community. Everyone are are equal here -esha shankar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshwar.Shankar (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 September 2012

Change needed in the Demography paragraph -

" The cosmopolitan nature of the city has resulted in the migration of people from other states to Bangalore,[1] which has in recent years given rise to tensions between immigrants and locals.[2] Scheduled Castes and Tribes account for 14.3% of the city's population.Kannada is the main and widely spoken language in this city. Apart from Kannada, English and Hindi are also spoken and understood. [3] A good number of Konkani speakers have settled in Bangalore since last century from Canara districts of Karnataka and Goa.[4]. Due to sizeable population influx from the neigbouring and other Indian states various languages can be overheard in Bengaluru streets."

203.199.156.132 (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


Due to cosmopolitan nature of the Bengaluru City either mention all the official Indian languages that are spoken or mention only Kannada,Hindi and English.

So delete- "English, Hindi, Telugu and Tamil are also spoken and understood.[87]" and "Similarly, Marathi is spoken by a significant minority of the society.[89]" these above two sentences and replace with

"Apart from Kannada, English and Hindi are also spoken and understood." and "Due to sizeable population influx from the neigbouring and other Indian states various languages can be overheard in Bengaluru streets."

Not done: The current wording is supported by sources and you have not provided any sources for your proposed wording. In particular, the last part of your request, "various languages can be overheard...", is original research in the absence of sources. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Montage picture

Does anybody else think the montage photo in the infobox tries too hard to show-off Bangalore as a highly developed, modern city? For instance, why are there two IT-related places (Infy and Bagmane Tech Park)? Also, having UB City as the main pic is just grotesque.—indopug (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. The UB city should not be the leading image. Also, those ugly building images of Bagmane Tech park need to be removed. There must be other good images of the city.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
The UB city image is a photoshop-ically enhanced image. Should be replaced with some real image. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 October 2012

On the one hand you mention Tamil as ethnicity but on the other hand you say Hindi is spoken and not Tamil. also Urdu speakers are mixed with hindi speakers. get the facts right before posting such articles. There are Kannada speakers elsewhwere too do you mention Kannada as a language spoken in those cities. Remove Hindi okay, dont impose hindi through such means. Deepak.rao226 (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the user is talking about inconsistency in the infobox. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
oops, it was not very clear. Yes that needs to be corrected. Not sure how many languages could be mentioned in the infobox. Kannada, Tamil and Telugu are widely spoken.--sarvajna (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Even Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad have loads of Kannada speaking people in a multi lingual country people who speak different languages will be there in in different parts of the country. but the Languages of any place must be consistent with the Official languages of the State. Please remove all languages except Kannada and English, that will restore some sense to the article. Even Delhi has Kannada speaking people go check there too. Look at this page :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai, Only Marathi is mentioned in Languages spoken.

Edit request on 5 October 2012

Commissioner of BBMP is Rajanish Goel.

Harish2802 (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Anbu121 (talk me) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 October 2012

ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು in Kannada. Bengaluru is now the official name of the city! Maadi77 (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

✗ Not done Wikipedia article titles are named by the common name as per the policy WP:COMMON NAME. --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles on Mumbai and Kolkata and Chennai have been properly renamed to their correct official names now. I cannot understand how this is a different situation. I dont speak a word of Kannada myself, but I have studied in this city and would never call it by anything other than its correct and official name, created according to the wishes of my Kannadiga brothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.174.165.244 (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It is anyhow annoying to undo all these ongoing changes from Bangalore to Bengaluru here in the article, as well as to explain the details again and again. It is, imho, clearly described and proofed in the article that the renaming process is not yet completed but still pending, and I cannot follow why someone cannot understand this simple detail.
In several other cities like Mumbai or Kolkata or Chennai the official renaming process was successfully completed, and that is also why their new names are used as lemma in wikipedia. But for Bangalore, renaming is not yet officially approved.
Even though more and more locals and even some official offices like to use the term "Bengaluru", this is not yet an officially accepted and approved and commonly used name. Bengaluru is not a "correct and official" name, as some people may want to believe, but so far only a proposal and wish of many citizens. But as long as there is no official approval and gazette notification of the central gov or at least an official announcement of the Karnataka gov concerning the official renaming of Bangalore to Bengaluru, the official and common name of the city remains Bangalore, and that is also the reason why it has to be used here in the wikipedia.
afaik, Bangalore is not even unique concerning this issue - similar cases of uncompleted renaming are several other cities in Karnataka such as Mysore, Mangalore, Hubli etc. - also there the renaming is not yet officially approved including all formalities from all governmental instances. There are several details pending, for "Bengaluru" e.g. it seems, not even the spelling issue is finally agreed, and central gov and karnataka gov blame regularly each other for the delays, but without ever completing the issue ... for further details just see here, for example: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2587068.ece
I hope this further details help finally to understand the issue, and please: If You don't agree with "Bangalore" and want to have "Bengaluru" as lemma pl. don't continue to change the article here or to ask for changes, since wikipedia simply follows naming conventions. But You could ask the central gov and the Karnataka gov why they don't want to complete this renaming process, after so many years of discussions ... and as soon as we have any proof for the official approval of the change which can be cited here, everybody will be happy to change immediately the lemma and to stop with all these needless work ... ;-) Bangalorius (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is any need for officially accepted and approved name to rename/move the page to Bengaluru. The best examples are Burma and Ganges. Even if Karnataka/Indian govt like to keep it as Bangalore while the common usage is Bengaluru, we will have to move the page to Bengaluru. I am not proposing any move as I still feel that a large section of people use Bangalore instead of Bengaluru.--sarvajna (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, I cannot really follow Your logic. Burma is an example for a case where - in the English language wikipedia - the most common English name is what is used as lemma, even though the locals may call it meanwhile since many years different. Means, especially if You would take Burma as example for Bangalore, You would even have to use Bangalore as lemma after the renaming is officially completed, because most people on earth and majority of users of the English wikipedia know Bangalore as Bangalore only ...?
According to me (but I am absolutely unimportant, of course), the official name is what should be generally used in wikipedia since this is an encyclopedia, and not a political statement about how some of the locals would like to name something or a statistic result of what may be the most common expression about something in English. The official name is what is used in official statements, maps etc., and it is usually a worldwide valid expression, latest after some years, as You can see in cases like Chennai, Mumbai etc. So also in the case of Burma, I would of course prefer to use always Myanmar as lemma, and Burma as forwarder ...
Next point: You tell that Bengaluru became a common expression, but I cannot find any proof for that and I guess that may be only true in Bangalore itself and in Karnataka, but not even in Tamil Nadu, Maharasthra, Delhi or somewhere else in India, and surely not outside of India, where so far nobody even knows that name. Means, I cannot believe that Bengaluru is currently already more common as Bangalore, at least not among English language speakers in total.
Another issue of the proposed term Bengaluru is so far simply the spelling - pl. see what they write in the news article which I have posted. If there is so far not even a consensus whether to spell Bengaluru in English finally as Bengaluru or as Bengalooru or however else, why we should use one of those suggestions already now as lemma in the wikipedia, as long as the discussion among the Kannada language experts and kannadiga politicians themselves is still ongoing? ... Bangalorius (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Bengaluru

In addition to the comments made above, may I say that even the latest editions of National Geographic Atlas and Rand McNally Atlas show Bengaluru as the main name like Mumbai and Chennai. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, many use "Bengaluru" - but since "Bangalore" represents already an anglicised version of the Kannada name Bengaluru (as even mentioned in the article, see Etymology), one cannot compare Bangalore-Bengaluru directly with Madras-Chennai, besides the simple fact that the official renaming process as well as the official definition of the new English spelling of this old term is not yet completed.
Theoretically there is even no reason to anglizise Bengaluru once more for general use in English language. In English language, Milan means Milano, Rome means Roma, Munich means München, and Bangalore means Bengaluru - that is English language, since hundreds of years. And, of course, this language use has not much to do with how the locals name or spell their cities ...
I guess it makes really no sense to add more and more reasons for one or another new writing style of the lemma - as long as the spelling issue is not yet fixed and as long as the Kannada language name is not even an officially confirmed city name, it doesn't really make sense to consider changing the lemma and the redirects Bangalorius (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I just stated some facts. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Someshwara temple edict says it is Vengalur!?Dineshpkm (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshpkm (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

India Map is wrong

Hi,

The India map used in Bangalore page is wrong. It is not showing Kashmir as part of India.Please change it.

Also there are so many Malayalam speaking people in Greater Bangalore area. So please put a refereance for Malayalam also under demographic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bins2013 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bangalore was NOT the first electri-City - neither in Asia, nor in India!

I changed the statement that Bangalore was the first city in India with electricity - being "one of the firsts" must do it ... ;-)

It is a very common "wrong fact" found even sometimes published in the press, that Bangalore was the first city in Asia or at least India which got electricity - same "wrong fact" as the idea that Shivanasamudra would have been first hydel station in Asia or at least India.

I cannot understand why this wrong fact is spreading so much, so easily, and usually unanswered. As for example mentioned in Firsts_in_india#Science the first Indian City which got electricity (or even, if You want, hydel power) was Darjeeling in 1897 (power came from Sidrapong Hydel Power Station), followed by Calcutta in 1898 and then Kolar Gold Fields in 1902. (And just btw: The cited newspaper article itself tells that Bangalore got the power years after KGF ... no idea why they can still tell Bangalore was first city in India, maybe they don't take KGF as a city or so - but it is simply wrong. But I kept the article as reference for the year 1906.)

Mumbai, just to give further examples from India, got electrical power from a thermal power station of BEST in 1905, and Delhi got electricity in the same year from a private company (M/s John Fleming, according to the history records of the DVB).

Means, there is not only one but there are several cities in India which have got electricity already before 1906, even from hydel power - it is simply impossible for Bangalore to be first in that matter.

India was in general kind of late concerning electricity, even with Darjeeling - e.g. Hongkong got electricity in 1890, Tokyo already in 1887 - maybe someone knows even an earlier Asian electi-city and can tell it to us, here ... ;-) Bangalorius (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC) Excellent, mining of Gold was more important than Bangalore getting power, remember Silver peak Nevada power transfer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshpkm (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the Shivanasamudra station was built with the main intention to supply power to KGF, it would have been weird if Bangalore got power before KGF did. Besides, I don't think Bangalore was as important as it is today; Mysore was where the administrative center was, and if anyone should have got electricity first, it should have been the king of Mysore! It's a myth that Bangaloreans often circulate. Thanks for bringing this up. MikeLynch (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about the "first city" claim, but Bangalore got *surplus* electricity that was meant for KGF, and the surplus electricity was used to power street lights and available for domestic use. While electricity for KGF was for its mines. And this was in 1902 if I am not mistaken, not 1906 (let me look for a reference) -- Fgpilot (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Demographics of Bangalore and Migratory Pattern

There are many myths about the migration and existence of various linguistic populations in Bangalore. Many newspaper articles and even books have ignored good document sources. Below are more reliable sources.

The Mysore Gazetteer By B L Rice lists the census data of Bangalore in 1881 [5]. Here is an extract:

The classes which number over 10,000 are the following, in order of strength. These account for 716,289, or 89.35 percent of the population: Wokkaliga (225,511), Holeya (81,369), Musalmans (69,227), Madiga (46,128), Kuruba (41407), Lingayita (32894), Brahmana (29,882), Tigala (29,192), Banajiga (28,437), Native Christians (15,656), Beda (15,339), Panchala (14,046), Agasa (11,447), Marata (10,616). Besides the above the following are important trading classes :Nagarta (5,289), Komati (4,766),and Mudali (1,625)

From the book we can get a description of the linguistic populations of these classes as follows: Tamil speakers were the Mudali (1625) and Tigala (29,882) (Tiglas had both Tamil and Kannada populations). The Marati speakers were 10616. The Hindustani speakers were 69227. The remaining classes had Kannada and Telugu populations.

Tellasitis (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Linguistic populations in Mysore State (southern Karnataka) from the Imperial Gazetteer of India Volume 18 page 23 (Oxford University press): [6]

The distinctive language of Mysore is Kannada, the Karnata or Karnataka of the pandits, and the Kanarese of European writers. It is the speech of 73 per cent, of the population, and prevails everywhere except in the east. Telugu, confined to Kolar District and some of the eastern taluks, is the language of 15 per cent. Tamil (called here Arava) is the speech of 4 per cent., and predominates at the Kolar Gold Fields and among the servants of Europeans, camp-followers, and cantonment traders. A more or less corrupt Tamil is spoken by certain long-domiciled classes of Brahmans (SrTvaishnava, Sanketi, and Brihachcharana), and by Tigala cultivators, but its use is only colloquial. Marathl, which is spoken by 1*4 per cent, of the population, is the language of Deshasth Brahmans and Darzis or tailors, the former being most numerous in Shimoga District. Hindustani, the language of Musalmans, who form 5-22 per cent, of the population, is spoken by only 4-8 per cent., the difference being due to the Labbais and other Musalmans from the south who speak Tamil. In each of these vernaculars there has been since 1891 an increase of about 11 per cent., except in Tamil, which has increased 42 per cent., owing to the influx of labour at the gold-mines and partly on the railways. The Hindus have been arranged under 72 castes or classes. of these, the strongest numerically are Wokkaligas (1,287,000), Lingayats (671,000), and Holeyas (596,000), who between them make up 46 per cent, of the total population. The ^Vokkaligas include numerous tribes, some of Kanarese and some of Telugu origin, .... The Gangadikara, who form nearly one-half of the class, are purely Kanarese, found chiefly in the central and southern tracts.....Next in numbers are the Morasu Vokkaligas, chiefly in Kolar and Bangalore Districts.... The Reddi are found chiefly in the east and north, and seem to be of Telugu origin, and have been supposed to represent the subjects of the ancient Rattavadi, or kingdom of the Rattas. The Nonabas, in like manner, are relics of the ancient Nolambavadi or Nonambavadi, a Pallava province, situated in Chitaldroog District.

Tellasitis (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The Mud Fort of Bangalore

The historical accounts in this article now say the original fort was a 'mud fort'. Some years ago I changed this to a rather more correct term, 'mud-brick fort' but it hasn't lasted. This seems to be because of some external references that use the term mud rather than mud brick. If so, that puts the reliability of these references into question. The fort was originally built of unfired bricks, often called mud bricks. Mud itself is of course wet plastic earth and was not the material the fort was built from. The expression 'mud fort' conjures up images of little boys building toy forts to fight battles with each other that they forget by the next day. I ought to change it again with better references but I just can't find the motivation to look them up now, given that someone will probably change it back. Imc (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


wrong Latitude —122.167.125.188 (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That was a bit of uncaught vandalism, which I've reverted. Thanks for noticing. Deor (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Indicscripts

As per Wikipedia:INDICSCRIPTS, native scripts should not be added. ShriramTalk 17:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


Please note in detail this only refers to lead section and not the infobox Shrikanthv (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC) do not divert and delete before discussion Shrikanthv (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Using Bengaluru

Hello All,

As name of the city is being corrected from Bangalore to Bengaluru, the wiki page needs to reflect the same. Locals have been calling the city Bengaluru for several centuries. There has been official circulation regarding this from Government of Karnataka and the Union Government & GSI have approved the same. Wanted to inform that I will be starting the corrections in a few days. Please note that name of the certain institutions will remain unchanged e.g Bangalore University.

Kindly inform if certain sections should be exempted.

Regards, Siri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siriyaala (talk • contribs) 22:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you cannot make the changes without consensus. Similar query has been asked before. Please see the discussion in the previous post. Amartyabag TALK2ME 06:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The city name changed from Bangalore to Bengaluru, even the wiki page of Renaming of Indian Cities in India also states the same thing. Vin09 (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)vin09

The Ministry of Urban Development (Government of India) is yet to give permission to rename Bangalore to Bengaluru. Do not move this page to "Bengaluru" till it is officially approved by Government of India. Pdheg (talk) 06:09, 01 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not Bangalore anymore

I have replaced 'Bangalore' by 'Bengaluru'. As said in one of the articles below, "Bangalore means Bengaluru" is a wrong statement. The city name is nothing to do with its meaning. All it matters is the correct spelling. I request the admin to update caption and title as Bengaluru. Pramengr (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

@Pramengr Most English news sources seem to use Bangalore. If you want to change the title, you'll have to follow the instructions at WP:RM/CM. --NeilN talk to me 18:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The rule on Wikipedia is not that the official name is always preferenced over other spellings; it's that the name most commonly recognized by English speakers is preferenced over other spellings. Unfortunately, like it or not, at the present time that's still Bangalore rather than Bengaluru. And even if the spelling is changed, note that you cannot just alter the spelling in template or category links until those have actually been moved to the new spelling; doing so just breaks them to no purpose. Bearcat (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Bearcat: Bombay, Madras and Calcutta were more commonly recognized by English speakers than Bangalore at the time of their renaming. This renaming matter is still pending action from Indian Government. Once approved by the central government, this article needs to be moved to 'Bengaluru' and eventually, those English speakers will get used to the new name exactly the way they got used to new names Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata. Let's follow what we did for other cities in India. Pdheg (talk) 21:36, 04 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, no, you're making a false comparison. All three of those cities actually had their official English names changed before Wikipedia even existed at all — but despite that, all three articles were originally created at the old names even though all three names were already "archaic", and then moved to the current names only a few years later, after the weight of external sourcing showed that a real world shift in actual English usage had already occurred. We didn't move them right away the moment the name changes became "official", because we didn't even exist yet when that happened. We didn't get out ahead of the changes, or try to dictate what names the real-world sources should be using — we reflected the names the real-world sources were actually using, and didn't retitle them as Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata until after those names had demonstrably superseded the old ones in real world usage. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Bangalore Panorama edit1.jpg

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bangalore Panorama edit1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 22, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-04-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Bangalore
A panoramic view of Bangalore from Corporation Circle, with UB City to the left and Richmond area to the right. Kanteerava Indoor Stadium is in the foreground. The third largest city in India, the city is known as the Silicon Valley of India for its numerous IT exports.Photograph: Muhammad Mahdi Karim
Archive – More featured pictures...


Hi Crisco, have gone through the article, I think its good to go Shrikanthv (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Officially" renamed?

Why is this article still named "Bangalore", even though it states that the city has officially been renamed as the rather absurd "Bengaluru"? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Read the above discussions on the topic. Wikipedia follows actual real-world usage in actual real-world sources, not necessarily official names. So when a city changes its official name, we hold off until the media sources about that city have actually followed suit. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Bangalore Torpedo

The text in the article says the Bangalore Torpedo was devised in 1912, while the caption under the photo says it was in 1922. Can someone who knows which one it was please change the incorrect date. Thank you. Cottonshirtτ 18:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/free-wifi-on-mg-road-and-brigade-road-from-friday/article5606757.ece. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

So where is Bangalore in India?

I'm not familiar with Indian geography and I came to this article to learn more about the city and where it is. I see a map that shows Bangalore in the state of Karnataka. But where is Karnataka?

Would someone be willing to make a map pinpointing Bangalore for this article? In the meantime, I'll find a map of India somewhere else. DBlomgren (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hope the community would take this well, (as it sounds we are just lazy editors); but i agree with the above, where on the "map", probably map of india, does banglore sit ? If I were to attempt a policy, i would say maps should be parts that are recognizable on the world map ... give and take, or since we are talking about a country (a geopolitical body that is understood by the most of wikipedia visitors), lets use its map --197.135.254.164 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move [5] 18 October 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Bangalore → Bengaluru – Government of India on 17-Oct-2014 cleared renaming 12 cities and towns of the Karnataka state, eight years after receiving a proposal from Karnataka government, Bangalore as Bengaluru. varma (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

[7][8] - varma (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Last formal Requested Move discussion at [1].

References

  1. ^ "Kannadigas assured of all support". The Hindu. Chennai, India. 23 July 2004. Retrieved 10 May 2010.
  2. ^ Deepa Balakrishnan (15 February 2008). "Anti-outsider voices gain pitch in Bangalore too". CNN-IBN. Retrieved 21 October 2010.
  3. ^ "Bangalore Facts". Karnataka.com.
  4. ^ Saradesāya, Manohararāya (2000). A history of Konkani literature: from 1500 to 1992. Sahitya Akademi,. p. 317. ISBN 81-7201-664-6, 9788172016647. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  5. ^ http://archive.org/stream/mysoregazetteerc01rice/mysoregazetteerc01rice_djvu.txt
  6. ^ http://archive.org/stream/imperialgazettee18grea/imperialgazettee18grea_djvu.txt
  7. ^ Deccan Herald: Centre clears change in names of Karna cities, Belgaum now Belagavi
  8. ^ Times of India: Karnataka cities get new names

Still hesitating!

I wonder why are we still hesitating to change the name of the article from Bangalore to Bengaluru. The city is Bengaluru, formerly known as Bangalore. Kanchanamala (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • A name change here is not going to happen for some time. For a further comment, see [2]. Instead of spending time proposing a name change here there are more useful exercises that could be carried out. For instance to ensure that the state and local governments always use Kannada for its communication its citizens rather than English (see most Karnataka district websites, town corporation websites). Or to help make the weak Kannada wikipedia more authoritative and useful. If Kannada usage is confident and well established, it will not matter that other languages use a different pronunciation mediated through their own speech patterns. Imc (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Name changes become part of common lingo over time. Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Pune are now common names. Let time lapse. In all the "new" names, Bengaluru is already catching up in English sources like Lonely Planet, Frommers, Google maps noting it. However, still majority of Indian newspapers and other sources use Bangalore. Till we see a change of policy in these sources, we need to retain Bangalore and other 11 names, even though they are officially changed.--Redtigerxyz Talk 10:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move 6

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. The previous proposal was closed with consensus to not move just a few days ago. Nothing new here. Give it a rest. Speedy close per WP:SNOW. Establish a semblance of consensus favoring a move on the talk page before making another disruptive proposal. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 22:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


Bangalore → Bengaluru – As the GOI accepted to change the official name of the city, I am proposing this move. I very much know that this request might go down the drain just like the previous request that was raised a few days ago. One of the editor who opposed the move said "Name changes become part of common lingo over time". I don't agree. May be the editor should have cared to check the date when Archbishop Bergoglio or the other variants were moved to Pope Francis, that move did not take a lot of time. So the article of a head of religious sect is moved very quickly but article about Indian city cannot be moved after the official change in name, lets talk about Hippocracy here (Please don't use OSE, it is the case of moving the article to a new name and that is what is being requested here). Also I don't think it is of any business of other editors to advice the fellow editors what social cause one should pursue (asking others to ensure that the governments use Kannada Language, ppl are here to edit Wikipedia. Those advices can be used on some other forums) Thanks sarvajna (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC) .

  • Oppose per all the reasons listed in the move discussion closed just a week ago. sarvajna, what made you think this was a good idea? Bergoglio was moved quickly because basically every source in the world started to refer to this previously fairly obscure person as Pope Francis --NeilN talk to me 20:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
NeilN so your point is that we can rename the article when sources start using Bengaluru? Well I will get back with the sources from/after Nov 1 (It is 2 AM so not many updates in the news sources can be expected) -sarvajna (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
No, not when they start. It's when sources use it enough that the average English speaker will recognize it as the preferred name. --NeilN talk to me 20:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) How will you determine "when sources use it enough that the average English speaker will recognize it as the preferred name" ? -sarvajna (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Why the hurry? The name of the capital of Denmark is København in Danish, yet the articles about that city are named Copenhagen on the English WP, Kopenhagen on the German WP, Copenhague on the French WP and Köpenhamn on the Swedish WP, just to give a few examples for Copenhagen. And to give a few examples for other cities the capital of the UK, London, is named Londres on the French WP and Londra on the Italian WP, and the Italian city of Milano is named Milan on the English WP and Mailand on the German WP. A multitude of different names in different languages (and there are hundreds of cities all over Europe that have different names in different languages), yet the people living in those cities don't feel the least bothered by it, so why should you feel bothered by having an article named Bangalore, the common name in English, about the city you know as Bengaluru? Thomas.W talk 21:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Prevalence of Bengaluru over Bangalore in published sources worldwide without having to tack on (formerly Bangalore) every time. --NeilN talk to me 21:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RFC on recent renaming of 11 Indian cities

Discussion can be found here. Bgwhite (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Demographics

Changing from opinion to actual statement based on the reference. Aligning to the demographics data as presented by the reference no 85.

Adding the timestamp, so that the post may be archived. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Move requested: Consensus needs to be determined

The name of the city has been changed,[3] the previous move discussion was aborted, the English name of the city has been changed not the Kannada name, so comparison with Copenhagen/ and it's native name are fatuous. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Voting for moving this article to Bengaluru. Official names have to be reflected. As per COMMONNAME convention: "The title of an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation (as in Australian Defence Force, United States Secretary of Defense)."
Cologne/ London etc are inappropriate examples, better comparison would be Orissa x Odisha. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The English name has not been changed in common use, which is what matters per WP:COMMONNAME. Thomas.W talk 08:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    • See 6.2 in COMMONNAME: "The title of an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation..." Like Guangzhou as against the more common Canton.
    • Anyhow what is the measure of common use? TOI, the world's largest English language daily uses the new name in its dateline line. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • The measure of most common use is subjective - but a consensus of WP editors looking at usage in reliable sources (WP:SOURCES) needs to agree that common usage has shifted, and this needs to be verified in a formal RM after there is evidence that a significant number of WP editors are holding that opinion about usage. What is this "world's largest English language daily"? The Times of India? No. It has to be adopted by the main sources in England, US, Australia - where the primary language is English. Usage in the Times of India is biased by usage in other languages there. --В²C ☎ 00:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
        • If the Times of India isn't the world's largest circulation English daily then what is?
          English is the primary language in India, though serving as a lingua franca. Indian English is a recognised variant and English usage in India is all that matters per WP:ENGVAR. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Move page. Comments by Thomas.W, NeilN and others about COMMONNAME and using Cologne or København are very valid. However, this is not what has happened in the past to other Indian cities. Calcutta is now Kolkata (2001). Bombay is now Mumbai (1995). Madras is now Chennai (1996). Orissa is now Odisha (2011).
  • Odisha was the most recent city to change names before yesterday's changes.
  • On the Odisha's talk page, COMMONNAME was used for oppose.
  • WP:ENGVAR was the main support point. Specifically, MOS:TIES, which states. An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. ... Taj Mahal (Indian English). The Taj Mahal example has since been removed.
  • Article should be moved to its new name based on (1) past history that all other name changes of cities in India now have the page title by their new name and (2) India is an English speaking nation, thus per WP:ENGVAR, cities should be known by the their new English name. Better ping an actual Indian @Titodutta: and one who thinks he is @Sitush: to get info from an Indian perspective. Bgwhite (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • As a counterpoint, I refer you to the discussion on Talk:Ganges, which has not been renamed Ganga. --NeilN talk to me 07:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
      • It is a river and not a city. I'm specifically referring to cities because every city that has been renamed is now known by their new name, atleast according to Renaming of cities in India. Bgwhite (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
        • According to that article, past renamings happened quite a while ago. I looked at some of the 2014 renamings - all the move proposals were rejected. --NeilN talk to me 08:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I think the last general renaming was in 2011. There were 11 cities renamed on November 1, 2014. The talk pages I looked at were discussed on October 18, 2014, before the official name change. All had the same few people saying oppose. All used COMMONNAME as the reason to oppose. None of the discussions talked about what happened in the past. None brought up ENGVAR. All the past moves were done because of ENGVAR.
There is also Manual of Style/India-related articles that says, Use only Indian English spellings as per the guidelines for India related pages.. Indian English is now Bengaluru. Bgwhite (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite:

  • Indian English spellings refers to spellings of words (such as those ending in -our, ise etc) where Indian English differs from American English (and, matches British English). IMO it is not relevant to this case (of course usage in India will contribute to determination of common name; it just won't override overall usage in English). Update: I see from this discussion that you pointed to, that not everyone agrees with my, obviously correct, reading :)
  • Bengaluru is certainly the official name of the city from Nov 1st. But usage of the name (even in India, and esp. within the city itself where people are most acclimated to the non-official name) can take years to catch up; for example, Indian Express still has a "Bangalore section" with all news items refering to the city as Bangalore, even though the lead item is "Bangalore is now Bengaluru".
  • Personal observation: Howrah Bridge is still known by that name almost 50 years after its official name was changed to Rabindra Setu; it took almost a decade for usage of the name Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus to overtake Victoria Terminus. However newer city names do tend to be adopted more quickly, perhaps because a significant segment of the population favours the newer name in any case.
  • Personally I am indifferent to which name to use as the article title, since a redirect will send the reader to the right place anyway, and the lede sentence will inform them of the alternate names. However, if we are to move this page to Bengaluru, it would be best to start a formal, well-advertised, move request. It may also make sense to start a single move request for the 11-newly named cities at WT:INB since the arguments are likely to be similar.

Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


Comment:@Bgwhite:@Born2cycle:@Abecedare: @All: (1)It is not important what Howrah bridge is called in street lingua, while discussing to an article title change , as there are established conventions on how to effect the change. (2)There is a supplement called "Bombay Times" decades after Bombay was renamed as Mumbai, the "Bangalore Section" doesn't come in the way of renaming the title of this article from Bangalore to the new one. (3) I oppose a wholesale move in principal, as the process for renaming Bangalore has beeb initiated by the state government in 2007, whereas for the other cities it started much later, and thus the merits for Bangalore would be different from the merits for other article titles. (4) The name has not to be adopted in USA/ or UK or Australia, it is adequate that it be adopted in the English of the subject area, for the variation to be adopted by Wikipedia. (5) The Cologne or København argument isn't valid as the spelling for the change from Bangalore has been in English and not in Kannada. (6) I see that the consensus is for a formal move proposal. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I still wonder why are we still hesitating to change the name of the article from Bangalore to Bengaluru. The city is Bengaluru, formerly known as Bangalore. Kanchanamala (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Because no evidence has been provided that Bengaluru is the more common name as yet. - BilCat (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Sources like the NY Times and BBC are still using Bangalore. --NeilN talk to me 19:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Its now officially Bengaluru

Bangalore has been officially renamed as Bengaluru on 1st November 2014 as per the notification of Government of Karnataka after the acceptance/approval of GoI. The names of other Indian cities like Bombay, Madras & Calcutta has been moved to Mumbai, Chennai & Kolkata immediately after the city names changed. Please change the name Bangalore to Bengaluru as its mentioned in official records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harish Kumar T S (talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONNAME and the section two spots above this one. We do not always use official names but rather the name most prevalent in English language sources. This is why India is not Republic of India. --NeilN talk to me 21:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

How to pronounce?

Why is there no pronunciation key for the name of the article? Is it "bane galore" or is it "bahn-gah-LOR-ay" or something else? Red Slash 01:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Anybody? Red Slash 19:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a way to tag the name for a pronunciation key, but making in-text comments the way you are isn't the way to do it. It's borderline WP:POINT. - BilCat (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7

Consensus is that despite the official name change, the article should remain at the current title. This is a standard application of article title policy, such as WP:COMMONNAME, as has previously been applied for articles such as Kiev; as always, Wikipedia needs to wait for the sources to change before we can do so. If there is evidence that this is happening, then this quesiton can be raised again. Sunrise (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bangalore → Bengaluru – Neutral proposal. Most major cities in the country of India have had a colonial name (Calcutta, Madras, and Bangalore) and a new name (Kolkata, Chennai, and Bengaluru - citation here). All or virtually all of these cities which have changed their names officially eventually had their Wikipedia articles move to follow suit. This is not the case with the third-most populous city in all of India.

Now, a quick point: this is not actually a problem, because I'm sure a reasonable argument could be made that "Bangalore" is still the WP:COMMONNAME for the city. That was certainly the case during the last move request, which was amazingly made before the name even had changed officially. Is it the case now? It doesn't seem so. At all.

Do I personally support the move? Ehh, maybe. That's not why I proposed it.

The article's text has been edited so that dozens of instances of "Bangalore" have been replaced with the new name. This is akin to the article on color being filled with sentences like "Red, blue and green are the primary colours of light." That would be ridiculous, and it is likewise kind of strange here.

SO! Either let's have the article at Bangalore and all running-text instances of the city name follow Bangalore (except, obviously, explicit references to the new name), or let's move it to Bengaluru and have the whole article follow the new name except in contexts that would demand the old name. I, as nominator, am currently neutral on the move. I hope you will not be. Red Slash 20:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Move - though I'm personally Opposed to the move - but everyone else better support or oppose only if you actually support or oppose. To be honest, we might as well just move the article to Bengaluru. The issue is going to continue to be a problem unless we semi-or full-protect the article, because the users making the changes don't care about following the guidelines. To them, the name change is official, and that's all they care about. Besides, Neutrality is a Western systemic bias, so we shouldn't impose that standard on other countries. - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:POINTy? RGloucester — ☎ 01:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, not being disruptive. - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you are not trying to be disruptive, but you are being incomprehensible. Can you please explain in clearer terms what it is you've actually said above? RGloucester — ☎ 02:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. "Support Move - though I'm personally Opposed to the move" - per COMMONNAME, it shouldn't be moved now, which is what I personally support it, and see below for the Support part.
  2. "but everyone else better support or oppose only if you actually support or oppose." A play on the OP's last 2 sentences.
  3. "To be honest, we might as well just move the article to Bengaluru. The issue is going to continue to be a problem unless we semi-or full-protect the article," - prolonging the move is an exercise in futility, as the the names in the article will keep on being changed several times a week, causing more work for the editors, unless the article nis protected.
  4. "because the users making the changes don't care about following the guidelines. To them, the name change is official, and that's all they care about." - The people making the changes only care that the city's name is now officially "Bengaluru", and can't or don't care about WP's policies. One of the major reasons the users can't or don't care about COMMONNAME is political and cultural - they view the name Bangalore as leftover reminder of oppression by the British Raj, and thus there's no logical reason that the name shouldn't be changed. Continuing to use the British name is to continue to allow India to be oppressed by Britain.
  5. "Besides, Neutrality is a Western systemic bias, so we shouldn't impose that standard on other countries." You'll have to figure that one out for yourself, but it's basically sarcasm, and a throwaway line. It could have relevance later, depending on how the subsequent discussions go. - BilCat (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I think the upshot of all of this is that you've still given no valid reason for your support of the move. Yes, in a way we're allowing India to be oppressed by Britain, but only by reflecting the current English usage, and not to do so would be to advocate a change in English, which is not our business here however admirable it may be. Yes, the good faith "corrections" of the name in the text will probably continue until the page is protected. That sort of problem is one of the reasons we have protection; Moving the article just to avoid that problem would be an appalling precedent. Semi-protection and an appropriate warning at the top of the edit box might be effective enough, and a lot more convenient than full protection once it's in place. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly! - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose – What the heck is going on here? The common name of the city is Bangalore, for whatever reason. What's more, Bangalore is most natural to an English-speaking reader. The proposed title fails our article title criteria, and cannot be used. Please wait until "Bengaluru" enters common usage in the Anglophony. I fear that shall take a while, as it sounds queer to the anglophone ear. RGloucester — ☎ 01:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    You're probably right. But I still think "Bombay" sounds better than "Mumbai", so we'll have to see. Red Slash 03:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    Any "naturalness" that the colonial name has is simply because it retains more WP:Recognizability in the English speaking world than the more "native" name. GregKaye 15:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment http://www.bbmp.gov.in/ (the official website noted on the page) has a header that reads "Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike" but which has a nine uses of "Bengaluru" immediately in the text. "BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE" is the display title for many page references as appearing in internet searches. GregKaye 15:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment can you read the first line from the site? , it is an enitity like corporate or a firm and is far difficult to change the entity name but itself is qouting what the common name is in the first line of the page!, nice way to ignore Shrikanthv (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and counter propose a move of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike → Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike GregKaye 15:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the use of a uncommon name. Vlādis Mānisqā (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC).
  • Oppose. The common name of the city is still Bangalore. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly support I do feel Bangalore is not anymore "common name" of the city Bengaluru, I wonder if many city names which would be not natural to native english speaker be changed to easy ones for speaking sake! cities like Suzhou , Busan, atleast given before number of requests for move in last six months should explain the move Shrikanthv (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The new name has not yet filtered its way into everyday use in the English language as a whole. If Wikipedia had existed in 1995/96, it would have had to use the page titles "Bombay" and "Madras" instead of "Mumbai" and "Chennai," as those new names had not filtered their way into the English language back then. Similarly, even though the official name of the capital of Ukraine is "Kyiv," that name has yet to filter its way into the English language to displace the traditional name of "Kiev" as the most commonly used name, which is why that article resides at "Kiev" instead of "Kyiv." Perhaps we can revisit the naming of the article on this particular city some years down the road, but for now, the fact is that the new name isn't widely used enough to displace the traditional name as the most commonly used name. TML (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Good nomination. Evidence above is clearly that the current article title Bangalore is still most appropriate, and the changes in he text should now be reverted to match. Andrewa (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per commonname. The official name of London is "London", that doesn't mean that the French- or Kannada-language wikipedias should have articles at that title. Similarly, the English-language wikipedia article on this city should be at the English-language common name, regardless of the official name or the name in other languages. DrKiernan (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per commonname. We have articles named Rome, Munich, Moscow, Copenhagen and countless others, in spite of each of those cities having a different, and sometimes very different, name in their own countries and own languages, so I see absolutely no reason to change Bangalore to Bengaluru until the common name in English language media has changed, and Bengaluru has become the common name. Which could take a very long time. Thomas.W talk 20:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Not now for sure. May be after a few years. —Vensatry (ping) 12:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article Name

There was a proposal to move this article in April 2015. The result was to keep the current name. There was a more recent, but withdrawn, request in June 2015. Many inexperienced Wikipedia editors do not understand the feature of Wikipedia known as Redirects, which are alternate titles, so that an article can have more than one title. In particular, the official Indian name of Bengaluru redirects to the common name of Bangalore, so that any reader using either name will find the article. There is no need to create a copy of the article with the official name, and creating a copy violates Wikipedia policy because the two copies would soon become slightly different. So, for now, and in the future, the two titles will both get the article. I understand that having the common name rather than the official name be the primary title may be annoying to South Asian editors, but the common name is still better known to North American, European, etc. editors, and both will work. Let's leave the matter of the primary title alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Bangalore is called as a green city — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.136.179 (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Taking back the new wiki page proposal. AVINHSN (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bangalore → Bengaluru – Bengaluru is the official name of Bangalore, as accepted even by wikipedia. In the previous discussion, reference of Bangalore in dictionary was mentioned. If this is causing so much hindrance then my request to you is with a workaround as follows, Keep the Bangalore wiki page as it is and allow the new bengaluru wiki page with almost similar content to be created. Once created, kindly provide the link / hyperlink from bangalore page to bengaluru page, so that the users who search or google for bangalore will reach the Bangalore wiki page and the users who search for Bengaluru will reach the Bengaluru wiki page. This will help the local Bengaluru contributors a lot. I request you to support this move at least. AVINHSN (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have taken back this proposal. Let me discuss with other Wiki contributors and bring a different proposal to resolve this Bengaluru case unanimously. AVINHSN (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It must be other way around. Bangalore must redirect to Bengaluru. VandeMataram (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Bangalore has become Bengaluru and Bangalore Wiki page has to be renamed to Bengaluru

[1] ==

Hi, Bangalore has already become Bengaluru from last year itself. Even the name of international airport is named as Bengaluru International Airport. Local Civic body is also has changed its name to Bruhut Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. This has to be taken account by Wikipedia and changes needs to be made in larger interest of the local people and respecting the honorable Government of Karnataka's supreme decision.

Wikipedia has to respect the feelings of local people. Bengaluru is the real and true name of the city. Britishers could not spell it and hence they called Bangalore. Government has passed resolution and city name has already been changed last year itself. I do not understand why you want to superimpose and force this City name Bangalore on us???

Also, Few foreigners who neither understand nor respect our culture cannot judge whether this can be renamed or not. Kindly transfer the ownership of the page to INDIANS, who can decide what can be done by ourselves. After all Bengaluru is our city and city of India, it is no more colony of Great Britain.

Kindly rename the Bangalore wiki page to Bengaluru wiki page and find and replace has to be made at all the places where Bangalore is found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVINHSN (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/It-is-official-Bangalore-becomes-Bengaluru/articleshow/45000684.cms
@AVINHSN: Please read the discussion right above this one where it was determined there was consensus not to rename the article. Please also read WP:OWN and realize you are working on the English-language Wikipedia where groups of editors based on nationalism don't get to control article content. --NeilN talk to me 19:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: I do not understand what consensus you are taking about? Consensus between very few members does not lead up to reality and truth. I do not agree with you. Bangalore has to be renamed to Bengaluru at the earliest.
This discussion has been done 7 times, and the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that per WP:COMMONNAME, it should be Bangalore. Just because a few people disagree doesn't make them right. The most commonly used name in English is Bangalore, in the same way that English Wikipedia has articles on Rome, Munich and Cologne, not Roma, München and Köln- even if that isn't the official name as used in India, it is the name used by most people, most Wikipedians, and most reliable sources to describe the place, therefore it should be Bangalore. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I completely disagree with you Joseph. As per the Governments move Bengaluru is not only the name as per Kannada but also for English. Can you explain why international airport is named as BENGALURU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT???, why BBMP stands for Bruhut BENGALURU Mahanagara Palike instead of Bruhut Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Remember Wikipedia is like encyclopedia, it is not English dictionary. Hence giving reference of Bangalore to english dictionary does not help. You cannot compare the case of Rome here, as it is completely different case. Also we are not debating about any poem or novel related to Bangalore, so you talk about dictionary. it is the fundamental right of all Bengalureans to have it corrected. Kindly appreciate the sentiments of local people or natives of Bengaluru.
The name of the city has been changed to Bengaluru. So there is no point in calling it Bangalore which is the older name. The article need to be updated with the current name Bengaluru.VandeMataram (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Even the commonname of the city is Bengaluru. When someone says in Karnataka that "Avanu Bengaluru ke hogiddane" means "He has gone to Bengaluru". Today every news channels in the world use the name Mumbai to describe the city of Mumbai because it's known to them that the cities name is Mumbai. Similarly change the name of Bengaluru here so that more outsiders know that the name of the city is Bengaluru. VandeMataram (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"Similarly change the name of Bengaluru here so that more outsiders know that the name of the city is Bengaluru." That is exactly the issue. Wikipedia will change the name after the majority of outsiders call the city Bengaluru, not before. --NeilN talk to me 04:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. This is getting ridiculous. 5 identical move requests in under 10 months? Get a grip, people. If this goes on, I will impose a ban on re-proposing this move as a page-level sanction under WP:AC/DS. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bangalore → Bengaluru – After 8-10 move requests, all wp:commonname has changed and the common name is not any more Bangalore but Bengaluru. Shrikanthv (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Some proofs all the official government website content has been changed to Bengalure (including the main airport ) , major new papers and news channel qouting Bengaluru than bangalore Proof, please also note "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" we cannot predict future nor decide how and what is going to be used in future,google trends comparision here, The main foot ball club is also called Bengaluru FC ! not Bangalore FC

Shrikanthv (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

would also request the closing admin give this discussion some time as previous RFC's were closed much faster some chance for others to contribute would bring new perspectives Shrikanthv (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Question Shrikanthv, and what has changed from June 3rd? --NeilN talk to me 13:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, yet again. We just discussed this two months ago. Until the common name changes, this remains. Speedy close. RGloucester — ☎ 16:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bangalore is clearly the common name, as shown by any number of google and library searches. DrKiernan (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Support one year moratorium. It's clear now from the sudden rush of IPs and new accounts that there is off-wiki canvassing and meat-puppetry. These move requests are disruptive and should be stopped. DrKiernan (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to speedily close this move request as frivolous. There have been a number of these discussions over the past few months, all resulting in keeping Bangalore, so starting a new one now is just disruptive. Thomas.W talk 19:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Concur - no evidence submitted now or in the past two months that Bengaluru has become the common name in the English-speaking world, or even in India itself outside of official usage. Also no evidence that the nominator even understands WP policy on article naming,or is even attempting too. - BilCat (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose and 12 months moratorium given that Bangalore is not a Kannada speaking city, shouldn't we have the Tamil spelling? No seriously, these requests have got to come less frequently and with substantive evidence, proving that English has changed. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

UTC)

  • Support: (Bengaluru is the household name in Bengaluru and is street language and also it is hub to all south indian people and everybody calls Bengaluru rather than Bangalore which was gifted by british, better to change it to what people speak about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.220.78.18 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 31 July 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Three IPs all post near identical comments within minutes of each other? And you really think we're not going to be suspicious? DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You even admit in your posts that Bangalore is the "British" [i.e. English] name. This is the English-language wikipedia. We use English-language names. The name used by Kannada-speakers in the city itself is irrelevant. As I said before, the French wikipedia does not use "London" even though that is universally used by every resident of the city and is the official name of the city. It uses the French-language name. Similarly, the English-language wikipedia uses the English-language common name. DrKiernan (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The Name Bengaluru was there even before the British arrived, all the locals including most South Indians call it Bengaluru only...Bangalore was official name previously not anymore all the government documents are being saved in the name Bengaluru including in the court the petition relating to Bengaluru carry the same name even the English channels like BBC gives the official name Bengaluru while forecasting the weather and refer to it by the actual name... please change it and respect the Indian government which gave the nod to move on with "Bengaluru". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddartha Kalmane (talk • contribs) 13:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC) — Siddartha Kalmane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support 'Bombay' was officially renamed as 'Mumbai', and Wikipedia accordingly changed it. 'Madras' was officially renamed as 'Chennai', and Wikipedia accordingly changed it. 'Calcutta' was officially renamed as 'Kolkata', and Wikipedia accordingly changed it. 'Bangalore' is officially renamed as 'Bengaluru'. And it's almost a year since the name change. But, Wikipedia is dissenting. Just because some people don't like the name 'Bengaluru', the truth doesn't change. People arriving at Bengaluru don't arrive at 'Bangalore International Airport', but at 'Bengaluru/Kempegowda International Airport', and it's renamed by the government. Need I say more? It has to be 'Bengaluru'. Manjesh Gowda25 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC) — Manjesh Gowda25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support: (Bengaluru is the name called by native people. Even central government of India has agreed to change this name from Bangalore to bengaluru. If central government agrees it and this government selected by people of india. So it should be called bengaluru) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.23.174.9 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 July 2015‎ (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangalore/Archive_5&oldid=1136547510"