Talk:Kolkata/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

File:Kolkata new tram.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kolkata new tram.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Kolkata Volvo.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kolkata Volvo.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:DLF Building Sector v.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DLF Building Sector v.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Heart of the city.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Heart of the city.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Science-City-Kolkata.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Science-City-Kolkata.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article concerns

This article was promoted in 2006 and no longer meets the featured article criteria. The prose is in need of copyediting, there are many paragraphs and even entire sections of the article that are lacking citations, there are several dead links to sources, and there are major problems with WP:IMAGE and WP:LINK. This is only a sampling of the problems that need fixing and this isn't an in depth review. The issues pointed out need addressing or a featured article review will be needed. Brad (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Kolkata for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.)--- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 04:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Volvo aircel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Volvo aircel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Mani Square.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mani Square.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Dhakuria-lake.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Dhakuria-lake.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Map of India showing Kolkata

I would love to see a map of India showing the location of Kolkata in it. Can some Wikimedia whiz fix that? DBlomgren (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Selection of Images for Culture Section

As per the discussion in the FAR one of the issue was excessive use of pictures. While many pictures from different sections were removed by me or other editors during the process, We are unable to select the pictures for the Culture Section. Kindly vote for the following images/ or may suggest new pictures:

Candidate images for Culture.

• 
  C1 General Post Office, a piece of Edwardian architecture.
• 
  C2 Sandesh, a typical Bengali sweet.
• 
  C3 National Library
• 
  C4 Little Magazine Stall in Kolkata Book Fair
• 
  C5 A Murti (representation) of the goddess Durga, during the festival of Durga Puja.
• 
  C6 Jorasanko Thakur Bari, ancestral home of Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore
• 
  C7 Indian Museum, the oldest museum in South Asia.
• 
  C8 Marble Palace, known for its architecture and museum.
• 
  C9 Dance accompanied by Rabindra Sangeet, a music genre started by Rabindranath Tagore.

Alternate Images for Culture.

• 
  A1 National Library Alternate Picture
• 
  A2. Bengali sweet
• 
  A3. Bengali sweet
• 
  A4 Bengali sweet

Votes

• Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep: C3, C5, C8, C9, C2

Comments: I assume that C1 is placed as its an Edwardian Architecture and not for being General Post Office. In that case C8 does that job too. I liked the previous Sandesh picture File:Sondeshnolen.jpg. C4 has nothing specific related to Kolkata. Every stall in India would look similar (ofcourse the books wont be Bengali). C6 doesnt give good view of the building. Instead something else to represent Tagore should be used. Statue, books, etc. C7 also seems like a common building from its looks.

Suggestions: Costumes can be represented. Some Performing Art can go in this section.

Yes, C1 has been used as an example of architecture. The earlier sandesh pic doesn't qualify FA Criteria due to its small size. Alternative pictures has been posted. I agree with you regarding C6 and C7. As suggested by you, I have added a pic of rabindra nritya (Dance with Rabindra Sangeet). Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 10:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay! Have voted for C2 for Sandesh. C9 is also good. I have another silly reason to not vote for C1. Majority of the buildings in the article are white. This just adds one more to it. The Edwardian Architecture is anyways represented through Marble Palace (if we keep that). Hence we can skip this. Instead any picture of Writer's Building or Dakshineswar Kali Temple or something else can go. I know, too farfetched! C1 is not bad if nothing else works. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I assume that someone who knows image policy well has vetted these images for compliance? See:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Etymology sentence removed

Removed: "The change has not always been heeded by overseas media; however, news sources such as the British Broadcasting Corporation and The New York Times use the name Kolkata almost exclusively."

BBC uses Calcutta in bold on that page. According to discussion above, the sources above seem to contradict the BBC claim. However, foreign news agencies like AP, Reuters, NY Times, AFP, the Guardian have guides that advocate Kolkata. To reduce any conflict, it is best to not include such a sentence. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"India's second-largest bourse": Calcutta Stock Exchange

This claim is sourced to the official site of Calcutta Stock Exchange. Not a neutral source. As per my info, BSE is largest and NSE follows it. See also List of stock exchanges. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Section for my dumb questions

• Is it kilometer or kilometre in spelling in India? Need consistency per WP:ENGVAR throughout.

Metre is the British spelling and hence is used in Indian English. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Bengali comprise the majority of Kolkata's population,

Is Bengali plural?

Bengalis is plural. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• with Marwaris and Bihari communities forming a large portion of the minorities.[153] Some of Kolkata's minor communities include Chinese, Tamils, Nepalis, Oriyas, Telugus, Assamese, Gujaratis, Anglo-Indians, Armenians, Greeks, Tibetans, Maharashtrians, Konkanis, Malayalees, Punjabis and Parsis.[154]

  don't know what Konkanis and Malayalees are-- they need to be linked.

Hyperlinked now. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Animesh ... would you have time to address those in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

No clear consensus to move this title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move request was: No clear consensus to move this title, either name is appropriate for the article and no one made compelling Commonname arguments for either name over the other. Mike Cline (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Kolkata → Calcutta – relisted-Mike Cline (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC) This is the common English name. Kolkata may have been made the official spelling in 2001, but it has not yet caught up with Calcutta in English usage worldwide (cf. 83k hits at GBooks since 2002[1] vs. 244k for Calcutta[2]), and it is unfamiliar to most English speakers outside India, to the extent that even Indian authors continue to use Calcutta when addressing an international audience (Samaren Roy, 2005, Calcutta: Society and Change 1690–1990; Krishna Dutta & Anita Desai, 2008, Calcutta: A Cultural History; etc). As with Orissa/Odisha, Burma/Myanmar, or for that matter United States rather than locally preferred America or official United States of America, the consensus has been that we follow common international usage rather than official dictates or local forms. See WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAMES, and WP:COMMONALITY. In the past, arguments have been made for local forms along the lines of "we have the right to decide what to call our own city", but that is not the business of Wikipedia. — kwami (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Support. Wikipedia's policy on names is clear: WP:COMMONNAME. We don't follow local government dictates when English usage supersedes it. If search results were close, then "Kolkata" would be an appropriate version. But when the unofficial form is overwhelmingly the one in use in English, it must take precedence over any local government dictates. --Taivo (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Support: "Kolkata" is a recent, unaccepted innovation that is totally unfamiliar to non-Indians, and many Indians too. Shrigley (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Then this is the way to get familiarized with the changes that happen in the world. Welcome! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Stats here are dominated by ages of history, and it will take decades to revert the ratio. Britannica [3], UN [4], CIA World Factbook [5] (see map and "people and society"), US Dep. of State [6], IMF [7], Library of Congress [8] support the Indian Government change to Kolkata (haven't looked for other reliable reports). Actually, it is quite the same situation for Chennai (Madras) and for most city names in the Soviet Bloc countries. (say, Leningrad is a ghost name, yet it gives many millions of hits on Google books, comparable with St. Petersburg). Materialscientist (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC) That's why I restricted the search to after 2002, the year after the change went into effect. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I understand, but believe such stats can't be a strong reason when a city changes name. It takes years for people to readjust, and with millions of hits it is impossible to tell which period do they cover. Try with Leningrad and see. Materialscientist (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I am uncomfortable with this move. If this goes forth, the implications across articles on other Indian cities which have also changed name recently promises to be a move-warring nightmare. Is there really anything more than sentimentality driving this change? Walrasiad (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC) There is no need to envision a vast renaming throughout India because of this one change. The situation for Ukrainian cities is a good example. Prior to 1994 all cities in Ukraine were known by their Russian names. But in the English-speaking world there were never really more than two or three placenames in Ukraine that were widely known and used--Kiev and Odessa, and perhaps Sevastopol and Crimea. Thus, when it came time for Wikipedia to reflect usage on Ukrainian placenames and decide whether the Ukrainian forms or the Russian forms would predominate, it became fairly easy to sort them out. All placenames were changed from Russian to Ukrainian except for Kiev and Odessa. When doing searches for these names, it was clear that the number of hits for any place in Ukraine other than these two was tiny, so there was no "common English name" for any of these places other than Kiev and Odessa (which have remained at their Russian variants per WP:COMMONNAME). You mention Leningrad. But Leningrad was known as St. Petersburg for centuries before it became Leningrad, so changing the name was not really a case of going to something new and unfamiliar, but simply restoring what was already a common English name for the city. It's not relevant to this case. City names across India are virtually unknown in the English-speaking world, so there is no pressure to either change or not change the majority of place names in Wikipedia. But Calcutta and Bombay, and perhaps Delhi, are the only cities that the majority of English speakers are familiar with and the only ones that truly have "common English names". Thus, we have to ask, what factors does Calcutta share with Bombay and what factors are different? The new name for Bombay is actually quite commonly found in English language sources now. Indeed, it has been a very long time since I've heard or read the name Bombay. It is found in the news media and elsewhere quite commonly. But Kolkata is still virtually unknown in the English speaking world. This city is still known most commonly as Calcutta. Wikipedia has a principle, WP:OTHERSTUFF, where we don't draw parallels to other articles. In this case, there is a very real difference between Mumbai and Calcutta in terms of common English usage. But there is a linguistic reason why Mumbai and Calcutta are different situations and why Kolkata has not caught on in the English speaking world. Bombay > Mumbai is more like Leningrad > St. Petersburg because the "new" name is phonetically different than the old name, so replacement is much clearer. Kolkata is more like "Moskva", "Praha", "Warszawa", and "Roma", simply a different transliteration scheme and not fundamentally different words from their common English forms "Calcutta", "Moscow", "Prague", "Warsaw", and "Rome". Shifting a name to something different catches on much more easily in English than simply changing the spelling of the old form. Mumbai and Calcutta are different situations and that is evidenced in how commonly they are really found in English. --Taivo (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Also, Walrasiad, some of them really have caught on. I would oppose changing Varanasi back to Benares, for example, because I expect your average reader would think, "Benares? Oh, they mean Varanasi". So the new name would win out. But this is the opposite: your average reader will think, "Kolkata? Oh, they mean Calcutta". So we should just say 'Calcutta' to begin with. There might be a couple other cases where we'd want to move back, but there can't be very many of them. As Taivo points out, most Indian place names are too obscure to most non-Indians for there to be a conventional form, whereas Calcutta is a world-famous city. — kwami (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Support as per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAMES, and WP:COMMONALITY.--Pseudois (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Retrograde move bearing in mind they speak English in India. Both sound the same anyway, so it's best to use the new official spelling. We should not be moving Beijing back to Peking either. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC) That's a strawman: 'Beijing' is now well established as the dominant form in English. And no, they do not sound the same, any more that 'Beijing' and 'Peking' do. — kwami (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Official spelling in a given country is not relevant for English Wikipedia. There can't be any official ENGLISH SPELLING as English is a non-regulated language. Instead, Wikipedia policies do apply for the the English Wikipedia, and in the present case Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.. Based on WP:COMMONNAME both Beijing (see here) and Calcutta (see here) should be preferred.--Pseudois (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Well yes, but English is widely spoken in the second most populous country in the world, and there they universally refer to the city by the name 'Kolkata'. That really ought to trump any armchair research. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Oppose. I have to oppose this, this is an official name since 2001 like (Bombay → Mumbai), (Cawnpore → Kanpur), (Madras → Chennai) and (Pondicherry → Puducherry). I remember Bangalore would change to Bengaluru and it is not officially changed by Indian residents. ApprenticeFan work 14:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Oppose. The government of India has changed the spelling in English "to match the Bengali pronunciation" (quote from article). I support "Kolkata" because I see it as respecting the local culture. I was not aware of the spelling change, which has been in place for 10 years, until I read an article in Wikipedia. Therefore, I think that using the "Kolkata" spelling in this Wikipedia article will speed up the process of acceptance of the new name. As to those who say that the old name is better known and change is confusing, imagine that a city in your country decided to change its name. Would you think maps and articles about it should continue to use the old name because people know it as that? I think you would agree that you wouldn't. On the other hand, I agree that "Kolkata" goes against the WP:Commonname policy ("Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.") In this case, I disagree with the policy. That's my two cents, rupees, whatever. :) DBlomgren (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC) "Speeding up the process" is not Wikipedia's function. This is an encyclopedia, not a manual of usage or style. We report the facts, not the local desires of what should be. Take, for example, Waurika, Oklahoma. The local government contacted me several years ago to find out what their name meant in "Indian" (since I'm a specialist on a group of Native American languages). I told them the truth--it means "Worm Eaters" in Comanche. (It's funny to a Comanche, not so funny to an Anglo.) They didn't like it and decided to look elsewhere for a meaning. Now, if we constantly took "local preferences" into account in Wikipedia, we would have to delete that etymology from the entry on Waurika and enter whatever false drivel they found elsewhere or invented for themselves. Wikipedia isn't a travel brochure, it isn't an arm of local government, it isn't an agent of change. It is simply a reporter. That's why we have policies like WP:COMMONNAME in place. "Calcutta" is still the most common name of that city in English. --Taivo (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Here is some relevant data from English language media: New York Times, 2005-present, Calcutta (without Kolkata) 403 results; Kolkata 94 results: Calcutta is four times as common The Economist, last year, print only, doesn't count findings, but there are three results from Calcutta (without Kolkata) and two pages with just Kolkata: Kolkata is virtually only form The Times (London), 2005-present, Calcutta (without Kolkata) 1189 results; Kolkata 243 results: Calcutta is four times as common Washington Post, 2005-present, Calcutta (without Kolkata), 2 results; Kolkata, 46 results: Kolkata is virtually only form This limited search yields two facts. First, in these English media that refer to Calcutta in any real volume, "Calcutta" is the preferred form four to one. Second, in these English media that rarely refer to Calcutta, "Kolkata" is the preferred form. So what we're really dealing with is two situations. Where Calcutta is rarely mentioned, "Kolkata" is carefully used, but where Calcutta is much more often the topic, "Calcutta" is much more commonly used. It seems quite clear then that "Calcutta" is still more commonly used. Materialscientist uses the wrong sources for discussing WP:COMMONNAME. He uses style guides and official decrees. These are immaterial. All that matters is usage, not declaration. We don't measure common English usage by its occurrence in style guides or official declarations. We measure it by actual occurrence. I've given four examples of measuring actual usage here, kwami has given another above. --Taivo (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC) A lot of people have switched from "Calcutta" to "Kolkata" in just the last year, including New York Times and AP. Kauffner (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Support; the new name has not yet supplanted the old in common English usage. Powers T 20:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Support: The Franch call London Londres and Dover Douvres, which is fine. In the same way, Kolkata in English is Calcutta and that is the way it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.59.109 (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Support. Wikipedia's policy on names is clear: WP:COMMONNAME. We don't follow what local government dictates when English usage supersedes it. The unofficial form is overwhelmingly the most used in English, it must take precedence over any local government dictates. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Comment The presnet location for the atticle reflects its official name, which applies to Indian English as well as Hindi. The VJP government indianised a lot of names and they have not officially been changed back. It does no one any harm for the article to stay where it is, as long as Calcutta remains as a redirect and that name appears clearly in the lead of the article. Please remember that English is an ofifcial languiage of India, so that the French spelling of Londres is not a good precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Strong oppose: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all and it should be always be updated, no? If we move Kolkata to its older name, then there are a lot of Indian cities which should be moved: Mumbai to Bombay, Chennai to Madras and so on. DdraconiandevilL (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Support. I am an Indian, and have stayed in Calcutta/Kolkata for a couple of years. Like others have mentioned here, English is a popular language in India and is one of the official languages recognized by the government. From what I have personally seen in India, while usage of "Kolkata" has gained traction over "Calcutta" in the past few years, many people (including myself) still usually refer to the city as "Calcutta". This is just inside India, I suppose most people outside refer to the city as "Calcutta". I support the renaming of the article, with the alternate name mentioned prominently in the opening section. I agree that this opens the door for similar changes to other cities like Bombay and Madras - but each case should be discussed separately. Aurorion (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC) It sounds like this is a bit like Ganges, then, with usage within India divided, though Kolkata is probably more widespread than Ganga outside India, due to official promotion. Yes, Madras would have to be a separate case, argued on its own merits. Bombay has probably been discussed to death. As for Kolkata being mentioned prominently, I would expect the opening of the lead to read s.t. like "Calcutta, officially Kolkata, is the capital ..." — kwami (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Oppose per other English-language reference works: American Heritage, Britannica, Collins, Columbia, Encarta (2009) and Oxford. The latest editions of Webster's Collegiate, Webster's Geographical and Random House still use "Calcutta", but they're all about a decade old. I don't think this needs to be debated three times in less than six months. Prolog (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Per Materialscientist. It is not quite easy to filter out old results from the new. I agree "Kolkata" may not be as popular as "Chennai" or "Mumbai" in the English speaking world, but India is a major English speaking country, and most Indian news agencies (barring The Telegraph) use "Kolkata". (Note: I don't agree to the "Its my city, I will call it what I want" logic). Lynch7 17:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Support per WP:COMMONNAME/WP:OFFICIALNAME. (WP:COMMONALITY might also apply.) I have stayed out of previous discussions but Wikipedia is having a case of crystal ball blues here, hence the continual move proposals. Calcutta is still the most common name in English. If this changes in the future, the issue can be redressed then. —  AjaxSmack  02:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Oppose In addition to references by Materialscientist and Prolog: Lonely Planet, Google, Yahoo use Kolkata. --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Oppose As per all the guys who have opposed. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Oppose An argument based on common name could go either way. Kolkata has reasonable amount of traction in usage and in RS, and it's an official English language spelling in a country where English is an official language. If common isn't overwhelmingly persuasive, go with the trending and official. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) Support, per kwami and others. Undoubtedly the most common variant. Rennell435 (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Oppose No convincing evidence has been offered that "Calcutta" is the most common contemporary variant - people have either simply asserted it, or relied on old Google searches going back 6-10 years. The fact that style guides such as AP, the Guardian and the New York Times now prefer Kolkata shows that mainstream usage in 2012 either is there already, or is at least heading that way. A Google News search (which will only bring up very recent media usage) backs that up, revealing a ratio of 4:1 in favour of Kolkata just now. If we were still at Calcutta, a just-about-but-barely-convincing case could be made to wait a bit longer to switch; but now we're here at Kolkata, it seems perverse to suggest swimming against the rather obvious tide and go back when everyone is moving the other way (ps: despite some people pushing this as a reason, the fact that the official name is Kolkata should of course count for nothing in itself. - WP:COMMONNAME is the key. It just happens that they meet on this occasion). N-HH talk/edits 14:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Oppose - First, it is not a new name, it was always pronounced Kolkata/Kolikata by the locals for the generations. It was pronounced as Calcutta, to suit the tongues of our Colonial masters, who could not pronounce it properly. The word Kolkata has been accepted by most of the media, both local and international in recent times. 06:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Support per nom. This is the English Wikipedia. JonCTalk 15:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC) No, this is the English-language Wikipedia. And can you or anyone else provide hard evidence - or even vague evidence - that Calcutta is still the preferred spelling/name in English in 2012? No one above has yet, even though they make broad claims to that effect. N-HH talk/edits 00:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Check ngram or Insights. Kauffner (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks .. those appear to suggest (albeit perhaps by differing criteria) that Calcutta was more common up to 2008, and that Kolkata is now more common, as of 2012. What other conclusion can be drawn from that than that WP is 100% correct to have moved at some point recently from Calcutta to Kolkata? N-HH talk/edits 10:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC) You're misreading the stats. They do not show that usage has changed between 2008 and 2012, they show only a 12:1 preference for "Calcutta" in 2008. — kwami (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Oppose I believe that the usage of Kolkata exceeds the usage of Calcutta in English language sources and, as Jonchapple points out, this is the English Wikipedia. Sodabottle has an exhaustive analysis in the move request of 4 months ago that is persuasive and I note that The New York Times uses Kolkata exclusively, without even a "formerly known as" explanation.(cf. this)--regentspark (comment) 13:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Can you provide a link for that? — kwami (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC) For the NYT, the link is above. For the majority of English language sources, see Sodabottle's analysis from this move request. --regentspark (comment) 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC) That's an analysis of Indian media. Yes, Indian media prefers Kolkata, but WP prefers a world view and international forms. Calcutta is more widely understood than Kolkata. — kwami (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC) The 'world view' is provided by the fact that The New York Times prefers Kolkata. Since the Times doesn't bother explaining that Kolkata is Calcutta, I don't think the statement "Calcutta is more widely understood than Kolkata" is a valid one. --regentspark (comment) 00:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Yes, the NYT results support your POV. However, when you said that "Sodabottle has an exhaustive analysis", I was expecting to find an exhaustive analysis, and there isn't one. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't call it my 'POV'. I personally prefer to use Calcutta (and Rangoon for that matter). However, it seems to me that Kolkata is the policy way to go on this. But, que sera sera. --regentspark (comment) 01:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Comment: Search results Ngram 2001–2008 (the year of the name change to the most recent year available) shows an overall decline of 25% for the two names together. That is, while use of "Calcutta" has declined, "Kolkata" has not made up the difference. In fact, "Kolkata" itself declined 60% from a peak in 2005. As of the cut-off date, "Calcutta" outranked "Kolkata" 11 or 12 fold. Now, the Insight results from the US linked by Kauffner differ substantially, with the two terms about even in 2008. That is, although "Kolkata" is minority usage in published sources (at least in books), it is disproportionally the subject of web searches. This is the skewing effect you get from a term that readers do not recognize—what DBlomgren summarized as seeing "Kolkata" in an article is disconcerting. Oh, Calcutta is what they mean. By analogy, the words that get looked up the most in a dictionary are not the most common words, but the ones which most commonly cause difficulty. — kwami (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Anything from 2012, which is the year we are at now? A Google News search for today - yes, limited to online news, but a good starting guide to very recent, contemporary, general use - has, for me at least in the UK, 4,240 for Kolkata and 1,260 for Calcutta. Anything from style guides from major news or publishers, which offer us explicit judgments rather than stats we can make our own guesses about in terms of what they might mean or, even it would seem, of what might be supposedly going on in other people's heads? Again, media-biased, but we already have cited above AP, the Guardian and NYT, which all use Kolkata. The first of those is pretty crucial, given how widely it will be followed by others. Even if the usage ratio is close (which I'm not sure it is anyway), any evidence that the trend is moving back to Calcutta, such that we should too? Cheers. Time to close this one? N-HH talk/edits 10:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC) One doubt! I dont know what this Google Ngram exactly uses. If a book uses a term XYZ, does it count this book as one entity or does it actually count how many XYZs it has used and then use those as n-enteries for graphing. Because if it does the later, i dont think its wise to use this Ngram for justifications. A book that calls the city Calcutta once will keep on calling it so throughout n number of times. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Actually, just the opposite. A book may use both "Calcutta" and "Kolkata" in the first mention, and then settle down for one or the other. Such a book should count most heavily for its preferred form, not equally for both. Also, a book that mentions the city once in 800 pages won't be weighted the same as a book about or set in the city, which is how it should be. — kwami (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC) If you want a number of books, you can search Google Books for "Calcutta" and "Kolkata", with post-2010 English-language deghosted counts of 313 for Calcutta and 216 for Kolkata. I think the ngram is goofed up somehow. It shows six to eight times more results for "Calcutta" than for "Kolkata", whereas every other measurement shows this as a close call. This can be correct only if there is a longstanding pattern of a small number of books using the word "Calcutta" a whole lot, which seems unlikely. Kauffner (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC) GBooks hits over about 700 are meaningless, even when deghosted. You can use them to compare usage, but not frequency; the raw figures are unreliable estimates, and deghosting introduces its own biases. (If you are going to use Google estimates, the raw figures, both inclusive and exclusive, have "Calcutta" at about 4× the usage of "Kolkata", with surprisingly little overlap.) — kwami (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Our guidelines recommend determining common name based on searching Google Books or News Archive (not ngram). If you know better, you can rewrite them. Kauffner (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Last I read them, they said those are useful for comparing usage, but not for hit counts, and in fact linked to a discussion at LinguistList about how meaningless hit counts are. — kwami (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC) The distinction that you are making eludes me. You compare usage without looking at the hit counts? It sounds like a magic trick, or perhaps a Gestalt technique of some kind. Perhaps what you mean is that if the number of results is too high, it won't deghost properly. But these results did deghost properly, so that's not really relevant. Kauffner (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC) What I mean is that GBook searches are good for seeing which kind of texts use which terms, but they're basically worthless for absolute frequency. For example, if most of the hits are in technical books, we might conclude that it's jargon; if they're mostly from one country, we might conclude that it's local, etc. How did you determine that these results deghosted properly? — kwami (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC) I agree that this is getting far too technical and speculative. Not only that, but it's arguing the toss over usage from years back. As I asked above - where is the statistical evidence specifically in respect of 2012? Are you aware of other style books that contradict the three high-profile media ones already highlighted, that all use Kolkata? Even if the split remains close as of 21/01/12, is there any evidence that the direction of travel in the rest of the world is back towards Calcutta, such that we should revert back to it to? N-HH talk/edits 10:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC) We don't need to argue that usage is trending back toward Calcutta. That's not WP convention. What we need to show is which form is dominant in international English. Yes, it's possible that the ratio has gone from twelve-to-one to even in three years (Dec 2008 – Jan 2012), but that has not been demonstrated. — kwami (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Precisely, and you haven't shown that Calcutta is dominant in international English in 2012. You're the one asking for the move, show the evidence to support it - those of us supporting it staying as it is don't of course have to demonstrate anything, even though we have. And the point about the direction of travel is the secondary, practical one that we are at Kolkata now, for better or worse - even if we made that move a little prematurely in that international usage is still, say, evenly split, there is no point reverting to Calcutta if usage is nonetheless about to tip from balance into Kolkata-as-dominant. Now, my three questions? If you can't answer them - especially the first two - I suggest you withdraw this request and save us all some time. N-HH talk/edits 11:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Okay: BBC News: Kolkata 419 hits, Calcutta 1639, 4× in favor of Calcutta Christian Science Monitor: K 38, C 315, 8× in favor of Calcutta LA Times: K 15, C 28, 2× for Calcutta Chicago Tribune: K 187, C 1120, 6× for Calcutta The Globe and Mail (Canada): 68 to 412, 6× for Calcutta USA Today: 208 to 2530, 12× for Calcutta — kwami (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Um, why are you posting these results, which presumably aren't just for 2012? Looking at the BBC site, they go back to 1998, although current usage does appear to prefer the hybrid "Calcutta (Kolkata)". I's been pointed out above that a Google News search - which will look at very recent use, across all mainstream online meda, is 4-1 in favour of Kolkata; that the AP, Guardian and NYT style guides all prefer Kolkata. Now, for the fourth time - what evidence do you have that actually offers an alternative implication to those? Such as other 2012 search results, other style guides. N-HH talk/edits 12:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Could you point out the links to the style guides? Asking for results from 2012 is not reasonable, since that would only cover 3 weeks, and would not be statistically significant. Three years is more like it, and would pick up where ngrams left off; one year would be a snapshot. So, 2009–present and 2011–present: BBC: 3yrs 372:868 (233%), 1yr 326:777 (238%) Ch.Trib: 1yr 1:11 LATimes: 1yr 0:8 CSM, G&M, USA Today: (no date-limited search function) The Ch.Tribune & LATimes only allow searches up to a year, and are almost entirely 'Calcutta'. The BBC has stayed level over one year compared to three. Even going back five years (2007–present), the ratio is 396:975 (246%), hardly any change. The BBC it would seem is not trending toward "Kolkata". — kwami (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC) The links are in the threaded discussions above. You posted this move request, it slightly behoves you - and it's in your interest - to read what arguments and evidence people cite against it. The key point as well is that the AP and NYT links very specifically name the point where they switched - in March 2011, I think from memory. Now, if we're looking at what name we have this city at in 2012, we have to look at what other people call it in 2012; not some kind of averaging out going back even only one or two years, however little of 2012 we have had so far. That's basic accuracy, surely. And your suggestion that looking at the 3 weeks of this year in any individual media source would not allow a statistically significant spread, and your comment about the BBC trending or not, betray a fundamental misunderstanding about how media and publishing work. They will follow their style guides, full stop (with exception for editing error etc). An individual media source won't start increasing the percentage of term Y it uses over term X once they decide to prefer it - when the style guide changes, that's it. It'll go from 100% of term X to 100% of term Y from that date onwards. Not only does that mean that any switch is definitive for that media outlet, but it further exposes the flaw in going back years for searches when there has been a recent change, since in effect that merely offers more and more weight to old, outdated use. Your links above suggest that some media are indeed still at Calcutta, including the BBC. That's fine, and to be expected (FWIW I'd guess they'll move eventually). But AP, the NYT and the Guardian are all pretty big-name media brands (especially AP), arguably bigger than most you've named. As is Reuters, which I can now add to the list, along with AFP it would appear. And, like I say, try a Google News search, which gives you what nearly all media have done just in the last couple of weeks. That's 4-1 to Kolkata. So, the main big-name media, including the two/three biggest international English-language newswires, and the majority of all online media, as of 23 January 2012, have demonstrably fixed on Kolkata. In the absence of any counter-evidence to that, from the media or the wider publishing world, why would we want to move back to Calcutta? N-HH talk/edits 14:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC) No, they don't "follow their style guides, full stop". That's horse manure. I'm not so emotionally vested in this particular move to spend several hours on the issue, but when I've done this in the past on other moves where I was more highly motivated, I've found dozens of examples where "style guide changed on X date", but "old usage still prevailed on X + one year or more". Style guides are not the end of the issue any more than government pronouncements are the end of the issue. Only actual usage prevails. These discussions (and I've been involved in many) always come down to the evidence, one way or the other. And style guides are not evidence on the same level as actual usage in media. In the end, the evidence of usage always prevails over evidence of style guides or official pronouncements. And Kwami is right, you cannot base evidence of usage on three weeks of January. You have to look at a year's worth of evidence (at least) from each media outlet in order to determine. If the style guides say X, but the usage figures for at least a year don't reflect it, then the style guide is just someone's opinion. If the style guide changed in January or December, then it has not had any time to change actual usage and you can't cite it as evidence. You are bound by usage figures here, not pie-in-the-sky wishes of what you would like to be true. No matter which way the usage evidence goes, style guides are poor evidence in these discussions. WP:COMMONNAME isn't about style guides, it's about actual usage. --Taivo (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Of course there will be editing errors, news websites will cross-post copy (especially wire copy) from elsewhere and in some more diffuse organisations (eg the BBC) there are various bits that do different things. In that case, there may not be 100% consistency with the style guide, or separate style guides for separate parts, but to assert that - within that individual publishing organisation - style guides are "just opinions" shows you really do not know what you are talking about. Editors, sub-editors and proof-readers edit to their house style guides - that's what they do; that's what the style guides are for. AP usage will follow the AP style guide; and AP usage will change when the AP style guide changes. In a broader context, yes, they are only the opinion of that individual organisation - that's why I highlighted the prominence of the ones that have been cited, and asked for alternative ones in a bid to assess the overall view; but no one's presented any that contradict the pro-Kolkata line in 2012. I also pointed to a Google News search for recent overall use evidence. As for how long we go back, of course we don't go back, even just to 2011, to judge usage in 2012. We don't need to. And when there has been a recent shift in usage, it's actually misleading for precisely the reasons that I have explained, but which you have chosen to ignore. N-HH talk/edits 15:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Again, you don't seem to understand what WP:COMMONNAME means. It means that we don't judge style guides or government dictates. We judge usage. That's the part you don't seem to understand completely. I know very well what role style guides play in an organization and know very well that they very rarely are the straightjackets that you think they are. I've done the research and know what I'm talking about, so don't give me that "you don't know what you're talking about" crap. I've worked as a professional writer and know exactly what they are and are not and how writers and editors do and do not use them. For example, the AP Style Guide is over four hundred pages long. Are you actually implying that if one word (Calcutta > Kolkata) is changed, that every editor using that style guide will uniformly be aware of it? That's some fantasy world you've created. No. It doesn't happen that way. And more often than not, when I've worked on these name change issues in Wikipedia, it takes years for usage to catch up to some name change in a style guide. And again, you think that three weeks of usage is indicative? Again, you don't understand the importance of volume in statistical issues of usage. You're not going to get a reliable measure of usage after three weeks. Period. One year's worth of usage statistics is the minimum for a valid judgment. Style guides are just one piece of less reliable information when dealing with usage. No, there have not been a lot of usage data presented by either the supporters or opponents of this move. Your style guide evidence is unsatisfactory unless it's coupled with actual, focused usage numbers. So far, neither side has presented the hard evidence necessary for a comfortable or factually-reliable conclusion. --Taivo (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC) I understand wp:commonname completely thank you. In addition, style guides within an organisation very much are a straitjacket and do drive usage very strictly within that organisation; and I am very much saying that if AP's guide prefers Kolkata and has done since March 2011, we know that all AP copy posted since then will (or at least should) use "Kolkata" and will continue to do so. However, of course, they do not dictate other usage and I am not taking AP and other style guides as definitive here. I'm saying they seem to be pointing us, prima facie, in one direction and asking if they seem out of kilter with others or with evidenced use elsewhere. I've also pointed to Google News as a more broad look at actual, recent usage - which seems to offer the same conclusion in favour of Kolkata - and asked for reasons why we should discount all that when trying to establish what standard use is in 2012. Neither you nor Kwami have offered any serious rebuttal or counter-evidence to ANY of those points, other than pulling spurious theoretical reasons as to why certain evidence should be ignored entirely and arbitrary "minimum" periods of review for "valid judgment" out of your back pocket; while at the same time insisting, oddly, that we should review usage going back to 2008 or even 1998 in order to find out what usage is as at January 2012 in a situation where the terminology is very definitely, if nothing else, in flux. I wouldn't usually mind being accused of peddling "horse manure", "crap" or "pie-in-the-sky wishes of what I would like to be true" or of living in a "fantasy world" or of not understanding the role of volume in statistics, but it galls a little when that cap seems to fit far, far better on the other head. And, as it happens, I personally baulk slightly at Kolkata - Calcutta seems instinctively more normal and comfortable to me. But I have learned to put preference and prejudice to one side and look at, and assess, the evidence that's available and has been presented. Regardless of what I might or might not "like". N-HH talk/edits 18:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC) The personal attack in your edit summary is noted. You still seem to think that editors and writers automatically march lock-step when a 480-page style guide changes one word. That is, indeed, your fantasy. But you shifted your comments to attacking me for not providing evidence. You will also note if you read my comments carefully, that I very clearly said that neither side had really presented sufficient evidence to make their case. My sole point in this exchange is to get you to realize that style guides are an inferior level of evidence to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. I said absolutely nothing about your Google News searches. Both sides have presented some appropriate evidence, but neither side has yet made a convincing case for common English usage. And you are still wrong if you think that three weeks of 2012 is a sufficient data base to judge usage. You do, indeed, need at least a year's worth of data. That should not be a very hard standard for either side to meet. But keep your personal attacks to yourself. I have been very focused in my comments--your argument was horse manure, not you; your understanding of WP:COMMONNAME was misguided, not you in general; your understanding of the role of style guides is a fantasy, not your pursuit of your chosen profession. While our rhetoric often gets blunt, it should always stay focused on the issue and relevance to the issue. You want me to start impugning you personally? I didn't think so. So keep personal attacks out of this. --Taivo (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Your personal attacks and suggestions that I don't really know very much about anything I am saying - now repeated in a battering-ram list - are noted too, however much you try to weasel out of them with the old "they're not aimed at you, they're aimed at what you write and think". I also noted your specific comments just above about the inadequacy of either side's evidence - as I did your explicit support for the move back to Calcutta, as the very first post-proposal commenter. Regardless of whether you are indeed a "professional writer" or an "associate professor", as you claim here on and on your home page respectively, the most egregious piece of nonsense written by anyone contributing here recently is that AP will not follow its own style guide when it gets updated because it's quite long and AP editors might not remember or notice it's changed; of course that will happen due to occasional error and oversight, as acknowledged, but that's a marginal point. If AP's style guide says use Kolkata, then we can safely conclude that is what AP uses for this city from the date that was changed - as with Reuters and AFP, the New York Times and the Guardian. Can you also perhaps point us all to the rule, or statistical standard, that says we need to track use for a year? If we have a ratio of 4 to 1 based on a total sample of 4-5,000 instances of recent use in online media - which we do - in what way is that not comprehensive evidence of common use as of now? What would extending the time frame back further actually do other than bring in older usage of terminology that we know has recently been updated in several outlets? And if there's no clear evidence either way, as you claim, isn't this move request pointless because, in the absence of it, no one would approve the switch to Calcutta and hence we'll likely default to staying where we are now anyway? N-HH talk/edits 20:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC) You have a serious problem with knowing what a personal attack is ("you're lying about who you are", "you're not qualified to be who you are") and what I wrote ("you don't understand X policy", "you have a mistaken notion of Y concept"). I don't have to justify why I voted the way I did. I haven't been participating in this discussion other than to point out that you have based your opinion too heavily on style guides. And I demonstrated why that was so. I haven't put forth very much effort at all to change anyone's mind about the move, it will succeed or fail on the evidence. But the existence of style guides is simply not good evidence. I have seen too many cases where writers simply ignore the style guides, and even when "middle section" writers conflict with the "front page" writers, to simply fall over blindly to the argument that the style guide is the end of the matter. It simply isn't. A good example was at the move proposal for "Kiev" to "Kyiv". Several style guides were dictating "Kyiv", and had been for over a year, but the evidence was that the writers and editors were continuing to use "Kiev" overwhelmingly, no matter what their style guides said. That's just the way it is. Sometimes the writers and editorial staff pay attention to the style guides and sometimes they don't. Therefore you simply can't state categorically that style guides demonstrate usage. They may try to dictate usage, but that is a very different matter than demonstating usage. --Taivo (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Well, it seems I really don't know anything about anything then, and we can now add linguistic semantics and the subtleties of barely concealed personal attacks and bizarre accusations of all-round ignorance to that list. Oh well. I have, rather clearly, never said style guides were the end of the issue, not least for the reason that they are all different. Hence, the Google News search stats. However, the idea that the fact the style guide of the world's major English-language international newswire - as well as several other major news organisations - uses Kolkata is not probative as to common use, including as defined in wp:commonname, at least as a starting point that needs rebuttal by specific counter-evidence rather than spurious argument, is absurd. The fact that you may have seen poor editing to their own style guides within some random publisher or other is neither here nor there. Any serious publisher will follow its own style guide, albeit with the inevitable exceptions and errors of the sort that I have long pointed out and acknowledged. Those errors will be small in number and/or can and should be discounted as errors - in the context of that publisher's output - just as we would genuine spelling mistakes. Anyway, I'm done - this page is at Kolkata. The burden of evidence is on those - including yourself apparently - who are seeking to change it back to Calcutta. Good luck. N-HH talk/edits 16:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Comment: I dont understand how published books of years gone by can be used for finding out what the "current" status is. Using News search seems reasonable. But i myself did a weird search. Ofcourse there are flaws in it as it was a sample survey. But i can conclude from it that "Kolkata" is a better title for this page. I went on the websites of few International Airlines to find out what they use because i consider that they would surely put in the name that their customer's understand now, & not what they understood 30yrs ago or what government calls for. I also wanted to compare it with Mumbai/Bombay. Here is the table. Surprisingly all of them use "Kolkata" (if they at all use) but some still use only "Bombay". That was weird of US Airways. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Airline CCU BOM Delta Airlines --- Mumbai - Chhatrapati Shivaji Intl, IN United Airlines Kolkata, India - Netaji Subhas Chandra Airport (CCU) Mumbai, India - Bombay (BOM) Lufthansa Kolkata, Kolkata (CCU), India Mumbai/Bombay, Mumbai - Chhatrapati Shivaji Intl. Airport (BOM), India American Airlines CCU Kolkata, Netaji Subhas Chandra, India BOM - Mumbai - Chhatrapati Shivaji, India Air France --- Mumbai, Chhatrapati Shivaji (BOM) – India KLM Kolkata - Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose (CCU), India Mumbai/Bombay - Chhatrapati Shivaji (BOM), India US Airways Kolkata, India (CCU) Bombay, India (BOM) Qantas Kolkata, India (CCU) Mumbai, India (BOM) British Airways Kolkata, India, CCU, Kolkata Mumbai, India, BOM, Chhatrapati Shivaji Intl AirAsia Kolkata (CCU) Mumbai (BOM) Emirates Airlines Kolkata, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport, India (CCU) Mumbai (Bombay), Chhatrapati Shivaji International, India (BOM) Those "years past" are the years since the name change. That's why they're relevant. Like consulates, it's common for airports to use official names. I don't think that has much to do with common usage. (Though yes, "Bombay" certainly stands out there.) But remember the comment above, that it doesn't matter because they're pronounced the same anyway? That shows that that editor was unfamiliar with "Kolkata" in speech—he only knew it from print. That's not assimilated into English. How many people here are comfortable with using "Kolkata" in a conversation? Unless they also speak an Indian language, almost everyone would say "Calcutta", which means that's the preferred form in English. — kwami (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Airports should use the official names. But the websites from where you book tickets need not use any official name. They, for their customers, should use the names that customers are familiar with. They could very well use both names. Like Lufthansa uses for Mumbai/Bombay. After all the code CCU is of relevance to them. But when you start typing Calc.... nothing appears in the dropdown. You have to start with Kolk..... And someone did point out how it doesnt make sense to revert a page's title that is now trending to something that was used in past. Few months would go and someone will again request for reverting it back to Kolkatta. And just like how non-Indians started using Mumbai, they can start using Kolkata too. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC) "Should" has absolutely no value in Wikipedia. Zero. Only actual usage counts here. And Kwami is right, people may see "Kolkata", but in an English conversation, they are vastly more likely to say "Calcutta". --Taivo (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC) & things like "likely to" are called Original Researches in WP. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Indeed. This whole discussion features a lot of evidence-less assertions about what is or is not "common usage" (as well as some statistical evidence going back 10 years). In addition, as a genuine question, does it matter what people say? Even if the assertion here is correct, should that affect the written name we use here? N-HH talk/edits 10:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Relisting comment for this RM to be closed with anything other than a No consensus decision based on the discussion todate, editors both supporting and opposing must work together to develop a clear, collegial consensus around using either the current name or proposed name.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Support. The Telegraph, the city's largest-circulation English-language daily,[9] uses "Calcutta". (A look at the paper's Metro section leaves no room for doubt.) The proposed form is preferred by Merriam-Webster, the authority on American spelling, as well as by BBC, by A Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (2005), and by Random House (2012). It is the "conventional" spelling given by GeoNames. I note that the local spelling and the GeoNames conventional spelling are specifically recommended by WP:NCGN. I get 11,700 post-2008 English-language Google Book hits for Calcutta city, 4,470 for Kolkata city. Kauffner (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Perhaps oddly, the Telegraph appears to be pretty much out on a limb when it comes to media, including other English-language Indian media, where Kolkata seems to be much preferred (stats above and elsewhere). Whether we would place more weight on it as a local paper, or work on the assumption that they wanted to maintain the historic name/masthead of their paper and, hence, could hardly change their spelling when they refer to the city in articles, who knows? Certainly a Google News search done in the UK the other day for Calcutta reveals the name coming in at a third of Kolkata; with most of what does come up in the early pages either coming from the Telegraph or via references to the Calcutta Cup. N-HH talk/edits 11:30, 31 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

IN use

I'd like to put the article {{inuse}} for about half an hour to an hour to do some citation standardizing (page ranges and capitalization) ... I see Redtiger is at work now ... could you give me the all clear when I can take over? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You can go ahead. If you see any page number missing, please tag it, so we can keep a track of things to do. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Stopped for now-- exhausting work-- I didn't catch missing page nos because I was focusing on fixing capitalization and page ranges (we should use the last two digits, for example, 344–356 would be shortened to 344–56), and I found too many missing dates and things while I was in there. I'll do more later. I cannot decipher why Cite document is used in some cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing such a pain-staking job. Actually, for the past several years, the article was not scrutinized regularly. As a result, so many discrepancies have found way into it. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Same here. It is now much easier to scan through and edit the syntax. What a difference it makes ... Saravask 04:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done yet, and I have to go back and fix one thing-- Dwaipayanc, at some point I think you took the caps out of some publishers-- since the Publisher names are proper nouns (organizations and the like), the caps should stay on them. I'll check those when I finish up, but it's the kind of work that requires sustained focus :) The article is moving along nicely! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Sorry. I did that in a few citations. Then I kind of realized that probably I am doing something wrong, and stopped :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Name bullshit???

Why is this article named this way? When it's known for the most part throughout the English-speaking world as Calcutta!? I don't get it...for instance the Japanese like to called their homeland Nihon but we call it Japan because that's what the southern Chinese called it when the Portuguese first enquired. Likewise the Republic of Korea is Tehanminɡuk but for English speakers its simply South Korea. So I don't get why this article's name is what the "locals" want it??? It seems to me that the tone, slant and opinion contained within almost every article on this so-called "font of knowledge" site is entirely down to a majority decision of those who have a vested interest in that topic. So to conclude am I to believe this article is named Kolkata because the Indian government says this is how it should be spelled in English?? Surely what the local name and the title used by international community are absolutely two different things, unless the UN enacts a proclamation which states that in the interests of international harmony the native name should always be used in preference to the one used by any given respective languages. As far as I am concerned it's Calcutta, if the Indians want to call it Kolkata fine, but what has that got to do with the English language???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.248.57 (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Supported. Urbanus Secundus (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that seeing "Kolkata" in an article is disconcerting. Oh, Calcutta is what they mean. However, when I read Renaming of cities in India and saw that the Indian government changed the name in 2001, it made more sense to me. I'm guessing that the government wants to transliterate the native language spelling to the Roman alphabet to make it closer to the pronunciation in most Indian languages. I kind of wish the UK would do something similar. (Change Greenwich to Grennidge for example.) Yes, changing the spelling is inconvenient, but I'm into changes for the ease of future generations. DBlomgren (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Further to the points above, this has everything to do with impartiality and basis in fact. It seems that there is a high number of Indians who, due to their linguiotic ownership of English (and the fact there are millions of English speakers), have taken over the English speaking version of Wikipedia. Which makes all the nature of the Kolkata vs Calcutta nonsense even more galling. The UK has an order of merit, called a Commander of the British Empire or CBE. Now if you go to the redirect page you will find that there has been a lame edit war going on with Inidans who have been changing the redirect of the CBE (Roman-alphabetic language) from Order of the British Empire to a place called Coimbatore?? It is all here here. Furthermore the complaints are listed here. Therefore my point is simply this: if people who speak English but are not English are allowed to dictate what is on the English Wikipedia is that not just POV-psuhing on national lines? Kolkata is a local name used for national purposes. If this is meant to be an English language encyclopedia who is it for? English speaking Indians nationalistic overtones or first-language English speakers? Due to English usage being hijacked by the non English majority, other Indian-related names are now used...Indian Mutiny is now the India's First War of Independence. Using this corollary, if enough Muslims bother to learn English then the September 11 attacks could soon be known as Heroic Martyrs Day Against the Western Imperialist. Besides according to Arabic Wikipedia 9/11 is translated simply as The events of 11 September 2001, no mention of any attacks. Pandering to people who want KolKata is just transcribing their POV to an English-speaking audience, don't you get it!!!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.73.0 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Improvement

I last edited this page a few months back; I had pointed out that the article was a mess, and I had tried to do my bit to collapse images into file templates as the article was over-flowing with badly-placed photos. Now, I must commend the editors working on this article; believe me, the improvement has been stunning to say the least. A big thanks to the involved editors; I would have been most unhappy if this article dropped out of FA status.

A few minor issues still remain, like minor copy-editing in certain sections, especially in regards to the festivals as some spellings are incorrect. These matters can be sorted out pretty quickly, I suppose. But I wonder what happened to all the images removed from this article. Have they been re-used in other articles or are they simply free? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Btw, another important (and related) article requiring help is West Bengal. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please go ahead Ankit for any shortcomings, errors or copyedit needs. Just one thing, SandyGeorgia has done a tedious and awesome job by doing very detailed copyedit of the article, especially for the references. So, while adding references, please see some previous edits of SandyGeorgia, what kind of format she used for referencing etc.

The images removed from the article stayed as image files in wikipedia, or in commons, unless they were deleted for copyright issues.

Regarding West Bengal, notice has been given it its talk page attracting attention to need for improvement. I requested DanaBoomer for some more time, as Kolkata is in wp:FARC. After this FARC, we have to work on West Bengal as well. It will essential to have as many interested editors as possible. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Calcutta

I know this was tried a couple weeks ago, and I know there was no clear consensus. Therefore, I think that we should find the most common name, and use it. According to Google Ngrams, Calcutta is still more common http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Calcutta%2CKolkata&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This argument of Google Ngrams was also used. Infact the range used in it was much more sensible one. Why would you use the range from 1800?! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 March 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata#Economy in this section please change: "As of 2008, Kolkata, with an the estimated Gross domestic product (GDP) by purchasing power parity of 104 billion dollars, ranked third among South Asian cities, after Mumbai and Delhi." to "As of 2010, Kolkata, with an the estimated Gross domestic product (GDP) by purchasing power parity of 150 billion dollars, ranked third among South Asian cities, after Mumbai and Delhi."

reference: http://business.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/apr/23/slide-show-1-the-top-10-cities-in-india-by-gdp.htm

Abhi.culguy (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for improving Wikipedia! mabdul 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Population

Under the info box near the bottom of the article, it says for populations: 1981 - 9.1 million, 1991 - 11 million, 2001 - 13.1 million, 2011 - 14.1 million

This is information for the metropolitan Kolkata (Calcutta) area, not the city proper. The city proper populations should be given, the same way it would for any other city's article. At the very least, both statistics should be given, such as a "city" column and a "metropolitan" column with the corresponding information listed under each. But if one can't pull up the Los Angeles article and see population 17.5, or Chicago population 10 million, then Kolkata should have its city proper population listed as well in that info box. Somewhere in the article it can give the statistics on the metro population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

main

latest modlis of study — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.186.119.190 (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes — JonC^ॐ 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 June 2012

<257. ^ Chatterjee, Monish (September 2001). "Calcutta". Smithsonian; Sep.91, Vol. 22 Issue 6, p.13. URL: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/letters/10280229/calcutta .

Chattemr (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you want to edit specifically? I read the letter to editor by Chatterjee, Monish in Smithsonian. The letter does not have any specific thing that needs to be added to this article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  TOW  talk  18:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

The text under this heading is speculative, at best, and even confusing. Does anyone know, actually, where the word originated?Fconaway (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed speculative, as there is no single best etymological source. There are many theories. However, if the section is confusing, it may gain from some re-writing. --Dwaipayan (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on the etymology section of the article. The etymology of Kolkata remains shrouded in mystery. There are multiple theories, which have been mentioned in the section. Unfortunately, no one theory has been proven to be the best.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a contemporary comment in a diary, perhaps of a merchant or other traveler, or any similar record of someone who was there in the very early days, could be helpful.Fconaway (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Kolkata means "Kali's Tongue." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.49.175 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No section on Sister Cities

Earlier, there was a section on Sister Cities, seems it is deleted. There are six sister cities of Calcutta/Kolkata: These are Naples (Italy), Odessa (Ukraine), Thessaloniki (Greece), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Macau (China) and Long Island (CA, USA). Please add a section with these six sister cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saranya1974 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the section was deleted after consensus by the major contributors during its FAR, as reliable sources for such information could not be found. We would be glad if you kindly provide us with the references about the cities you mentioned. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 11:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The sister cities of Calcutta/Kolkata are Long Beach, USA; Naples, Italy; Odessa, Ukraine; Thessaloniki, Greece; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Macau,P.R.China. The wikipedia sites for these cities show Kolkata as a sister city which should be enough proof. But additionally, there are these references: 1. "Sister Cities of Long Beach". Sister Cities of Long Beach, Inc.. http://www.sistercitiesoflongbeach.org/index.htm. 2."Gemellaggi". Comune di Napoli. 8 January 2008. http://www.comune.napoli.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/5931. 3. "Αδελφοποιημένες Πόλεις". City of Thessaloniki. http://www.thessaloniki.gr/portal/page/portal/DioikitikesYpiresies/YpiresiesYpostiriksis/DiefDimosDiethnSxesTyp/AdelfopoimPoleis/AdelfopoiimenesPoleis. When small Indian cities like Trivandrum in their websites can have sister cities, it is a crime not to include the sister cities in the website for Kolkata. Please correct it. Seems people are no longer allowed to edit the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.57.245 (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

4G / Broadband

I am unable to find the exact rate of statistics related to Broadband. Can we replace the sentence to read like

As of 2010, Kolkata has 7 percent of the total Broadband internet consumers in India (http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/Documents/Rcommendation81210.pdf) ; BSNL, VSNL, Tata Indicom, Sify, Airtel, and Reliance are among the main vendors. pp122 -126 http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PIRReport/Documents/Indicator%20Report-dec-2011.pdf

A line regarding, Kolkata being the first city in India to start 4G services can also be added. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO the proposed sentences regarding broadband is good.4G will be a welcome addition.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternative data set found for Newspaper data. Though the data is bit old, ie, 2007 -2010, I think this can work as alternate link (it has archival link as well). http://www.auditbureau.org/abctrends123.xls . What say?

I think 2007-08 data is acceptable. We are not ranking the newspapers in terms of circulation, just mentioning which are the major ones. Individual rankings may change slightly from 2008, but overall the group of major newspapers should not change. I do not remember any major new newspapers launching since 2008.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2012

In the Education section, please include: "and Nobel laureates Sir Ronald Ross, Rabindranath Tagore, C. V. Raman, Mother Teresa and Amartya Sen." instead of "and Nobel laureates Rabindranath Tagore,[179] C. V. Raman,[177] and Amartya Sen."

From :Ross studied malaria between 1882 and 1899. He worked on malaria at the Presidency General Hospital, Calcutta. Presidency General hospital is called IPGMER and is in Calcutta so it proves that he worked in Calcutta. About Mother Teresa, she has been mentioned about in the article on Kolkata itself, so it is logical to include her name in the list of Nobel laureates who worked or studied in Kolkata as she worked extensively in Kolkata.

We would not repeat the information in the same article, as the same has been provided in the Demographics section. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 02:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Omegaepsilon (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)omega Omegaepsilon (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. To the new version as well - Wikipedia is not a Reliable source. Mdann52 (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request for Kolkata wiki page

Please remove the picture of slum from the Kolkata pictures. Slums are everywhere in India not just Kolkata. No need to highlight them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vuvu78 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 November 2012

Please add the section for Sister Cities. Each big city in the world and even some smaller cities has this section in Wikipedia. Kolkata has six sister cities: Naples, Italy; Thessaloniki, Greece; Odessa, Ukraine; Long Beach, CA, USA; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Macau, China. Please add this section with all the six cities. When Mumbai, New Delhi, Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Pune all have a section for Sister Cities, why should we omit this section for Kolkata? Saranya031074 (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Already provided reliable sources. Anyway, I am providing the same below. The sister cities of Calcutta/Kolkata are Long Beach, USA; Naples, Italy; Odessa, Ukraine; Thessaloniki, Greece; Dhaka, Bangladesh; Macau,P.R.China. The wikipedia sites for these cities show Kolkata as a sister city which should be enough proof. But additionally, there are these references: 1. "Sister Cities of Long Beach". Sister Cities of Long Beach, Inc.. http://www.sistercitiesoflongbeach.org/index.htm. 2."Gemellaggi". Comune di Napoli. 8 January 2008. http://www.comune.napoli.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/5931. 3. "Αδελφοποιημένες Πόλεις". City of Thessaloniki. http://www.thessaloniki.gr/portal/page/portal/DioikitikesYpiresies/YpiresiesYpostiriksis/DiefDimosDiethnSxesTyp/AdelfopoimPoleis/AdelfopoiimenesPoleis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saranya031074 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Geography section new edits

Urbashi (talk · contribs) made some edits in the geography section recently which were reverted by another user. I feel the additions made by Urbashi definitely has merit, although the style format were not optimum. I am proposing the new text as follows (combining the the text that was deleted due to Urbashi's edit and the text that Urbashi added). I have some changes in the text, played with the sentence sequences a bit, and corrected the reference formatting. I am inviting Urbashi, in the capacity of a geoscientist, to have a look to ensure correctness. The following text can be started as a new paragraph after the sentence on the East Kolkata wetlands. If this is okayed by other users, we can make the change.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Dwaipayan! The text below is technically correct and I think this can be put in the Geography section. Waiting for other users reply. Urbashi (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a question for you. What is a trap wash? Can you link that to a better wikilink? Should it link to Trap rock or Flood basalt?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Trap is a type of igneous rock. Here, Trap wash means the sediment derived from the Trap rock around the Bengal basin. In the Cretaceous time there was Rajmahal Trap (Rajmahal hills) which is equivalent to Deccan Trap. So in this article Trap wash means the sediment coming from the Rajmahal Trap. Rajmahal hill is called Trap because it fulfils the definition of Trap rock. It can be linked to Trap rock. It is better to write an article about Rajmahal Trap. I will try to write. Urbashi (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Okk, now it's completely clear. We do not need to mention Rajmahal trap in Kolkata article. But if you can write that article, that would be great! Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I will try to write. It may take 2/3 days because I have to read literature. And I am really running out of time in my life. :( Urbashi (talk) 06:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Addition Support It would be a nice addition. Thanks Urbashi. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 10:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Text

As with most of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, the soil and water are predominantly alluvial in origin. Kolkata is located over the "Bengal basin", a pericratonic tertiary basin. Bengal basin comprises three structural unit: shelf or platform in the west; central hinge or shelf/slope break; and deep basinal part in the east and southeast. Kolkata is located atop the western part of the hinge zone which is about 25 km (16 mi) wide at a depth of about 45,000 m (148,000 ft) below the surface. The shelf and hinge zones have many faults, among them some are active. Total thickness of sediment below Kolkata is nearly 7,500 m (24,600 ft) above the crystalline basement; of these the top 350–450 m (1,150–1,480 ft) is quaternary, followed by 4,500–5,500 m (14,760–18,040 ft) of tertiary sediments, 500–700 m (1,640–2,300 ft) trap wash of cretaceous trap and 600–800 m (1,970–2,620 ft) permian-carboniferous Gondwana rocks. The quaternary sediments consist of clay, silt, and several grades of sand and gravel. These sediments are sandwiched between two clay beds: the lower one at a depth of 250–650 m (820–2,130 ft); the upper one 10–40 m (30–130 ft) in thickness. According to the Bureau of Indian Standards, on a scale ranging from I to V in order of increasing susceptibility to earthquakes, the city lies inside seismic zone III

Edit request on 2 December 2012

File:Eden

Eden Gardens, Kolkata

Debayan roy (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The file name you tried to link is incomplete. (I tried adding .png and .jpg, but clearly there's more than just the extension missing.) Also, please specify exactly where in the article you'd like the image, and whether you intend it to replace another image or not. Rivertorch (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Kolkata Urban Structure now includes more areas

In 3rd paragraph of 'Urban Structure', it is stated that From south-west to south-east, outlying areas include Garden Reach, Behala, Thakurpukur, Kudghat, Ranikuthi, Bansdroni, Baghajatin, and Garia. However, due to recent expansions, the KMC now includes all these areas and should be considered as parts of Kolkata city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snehansu89 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware of this expansion. Do we have any reliable source on this?--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As per this KMC website, Joka - I & II Gram Panchayet has been added to KMC in 2012 taking the total area of KMC to 200.71 Sq.Kms. https://www.kmcgov.in/KMCPortal/outside_jsp/Incorporation_erstwhile_Joka.jsp. While, these report confirms the addition of areas like Behala, Thakurpukur, Regent Park, Kasba, Jadavpur and East Jadavpur to KMC. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-13/kolkata/29652514_1_police-stations-kolkata-police-traffic-guards http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-30/kolkata/29944168_1_purba-jadavpur-police-stations-traffic-guards

Related changes must be made, the jurisdiction structure of Kolkata is the most complex I guess. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 14:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

But the borough and ward structure page in KMC site still says it is divided into 141 wards. This will be a challenging edit :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, I added some information from these sources to Civic administration of Kolkata.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

editting the article kolkata

Some of the pictures below in many sections is not shown in wiki page,why??

The University of Calcutta, a renowned seat of learning and the oldest Western-style university in South Asia.

The Indian Institute of Management Calcutta at Joka, a well-known business school.

The mentioned photos are present in the article, which are automatically rotated by using a code. It is not possible to see all the image at the same time. However, different users may see different images at different time based on a computer algorithm which changes the image from time to time. This has been done to prevent cluttering of images on the page. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 12:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Photos of yuva bharati krirangan

Can we add the photos of Salt lake stadium to article kolkata from its main article. (example:-Salt Lake Stadium - Yuva Bharati Krirangan , Kolkata - Calcutta 3.jpg) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitek bhattacharya (talk • contribs) 10:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

New Pictures

I have been looking at the current Kolkata page and, compared to pages for other major Indian metropolises', there are very few pictures. I had once tried to add more pictures, but, upon being requested to get permission from other members, I decided to ask about it here. More pictures would make the page look better, as well as adding a different perspective to the information in the article. If I do get permission, most sections of the page would have new pictures. I hope to here your feedback, Geography101 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you don't need "permission" from anyone really. However, since this article is a featured article (one of the best works in Wikipedia, the status gained through review by many editors through an established process), it would be nice to have consensus first in the talk page about the images. Why don't you upload the images in Commons and then provide the thumbnails (or their links) here in the talk page? Interested editors can come to a consensus after that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a gallery of the possible pictures that I believe would be proper in the article. I may add or remove a few of the pictures from the list, but for now, these are the first ones that I would add.

Geography101 (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments *Writers Building - I don't think this picture can be added in the history section, as there is no corresponding text in the section related to Writer's Building. I think a more recent picture of the Writer's can be added in the administration section. The old picture does not look good.

• Belvedere House - Already a recent picture has been added in the Culture section
• Satellite image - A satellite image focusing on the city is already present. The picture you want to add reflects more on the Sundarban Delta area and fails to recognize Kolkata.
• Autumn sky - A good picture I must say, we can add a switch code to alternate with Monsoon sky. I agree with Dwaipayan's reasoning
• Nor'wester - A monsoon sky is already present which I think is more appealing.
• Treasury and Mint building - Please let me know in which section you want to add it. Then we can decide on merit.
• Flower market - Already present in the Economy section with a switch code.
• South City - May be added with a switch code in Economy section. A proper caption need to thought of. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Calcutta University image: should be in switch mode with IIM in education. This image, or other CU image
• Bengali cuisine image: I like the dishes, man... Well, it can be added in culture section.
• St Paul's cathedral: already present in the infobox montage
• Autumn sky - although nice looking, I think, does not add much encyclopedia value (unlike monsoon cloud image)
• South city mall image: agree with Amartya
• Tagore image: well, umm... would prefer generic image rather than personality in Culture section, despite Tagore's omnipresence in the city. Not disagreeing outright though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Victoria house - Add it in utility section with a switch code
• Writer's building (new) - The image is not of a high resolution.
• Chinese new year - Low resolution. Missing meta data.
• CU - A cropped image of similar pic is already in the Education section. The cars in the foreground seems distracting. May be we can have another cropped version of this image and then check which one looks better.
• Tagore image - I concur with Dwaipayan.
• Bengali cuisine - Missing meta data, low resolution. Cannot be added. You can find another representative image.
• Airport - Low resolution. A high resolution image need to be added of the new terminal.
• Nakhoda mosque - I think Tipu Sultan Mosque is more famous. We can add a pic of Tipu Sultan mosque and Dakhineswar pic which has been removed by someone in a switch code.
• Metro - Blurry, grainy and low resolution. Need to find good image of AC metro coaches.
• AC Bus - We have image of transport system of Kolkata which shows a true representative of the System. While not denying the fact that AC buses has been introduced in certain routes, it is not common in most places in Kolkata.
• Panaroma image - Need to be removed. Too much distracting at that place. Other editors comment please.
• Slum image - This needs separate discussion. I propose for the time being, that we balance it with a switch code showing atleast houses in other part of Kolkata. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. As for the Treasury and Mint pictures, I will probably add them in the Economy section. However, I can easily add them anywhere else if there are other ideas. Geography101 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We already have 3 pictures in the section, adding more images will clutter the page, may be we can add them to Economy of Kolkata. In addition, I am proposing addition of Ballygunge area skyline, to be added in the demographics section having a switch with the slum pic.Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with ballygunj skyline in switch mode with the slum image. A good caption will be neede, introduscing the audience that such mid height apartment buildings are often the dwellings of middle class or something like that. Also, it seems there is a deleted image link in the image immediately above the slum image. What's that?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That used to be South City skyline pic, I think it got deleted due to some copyright issues. I have added Nakhoda mosque pic as a switch with Dwakhineswar pic. Kindly check the alt tag and caption of the added images. FYI, I have requested another user on Flickr/SSC (also a Wikipedia user) to upload another picture showing a larger part of South Kolkata skyline. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It was Unfair that some of the senior editor of West Bengal Kolkata are not allowing latest pics to be added in Kolkata wiki page.

It's a open forum where every one has a right to speak up and post. I was recently blocked by One of the senior editor of Kolkata Wikipedia forum from posting pic's to Kolkata wiki page.

I don't know why it is that... The Kolkata wiki page is always having the same outdated pic's.

Last week on 9th May 2013... When I posted some pic's of Kolkata Economy adding IT Infrastructure pic's of Unitech Kolkata, Technopolis, DLF (IBM), Wipro . Some of the senior Kolkata wikipedians deliberately removed them giving useless excuses.

Which I think is very unfair...

So, Do I need to make my own page now adding Kolkata IT Economy???.

Really it's hectic and dominating explaining reasons to some unwanted senior editor's who always think their edit is correct and shouldn't me removed Swarupboserkl (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction. You were blocked for making personal attacks not for posting pictures. --regentspark (comment) 12:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Swarup, you have already explained in your talk page by Amartya Bag. Why don't you first put the images here in the talk page of Kolkata, and then propose in which section(s) of the article you want to add them? If you read above, another editor (Geography101) wanted to change some images, and he first proposed that here; we agreed that some of the images were really good and encyclopedic, and used those in the article.

Meanwhile, you can add some images (if appropriate) in Economy of Kolkata. But please remember, wikipedia is not merely an image gallery, although images are very important.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Require Help from wikipedians for proposed article of IT Infrastructure and Business center running in Saltlake city and New Town, Kolkata

Hi Wikipedians,

As proposed I'm working now on new article based on IT Infrastructure and Business center running in Saltlake City and New Town. I would really like if any wikipedia volunteer help for the photo's and content like (revenue generation and financial part, Clients associated with) major business center running over Saltlake City and New Town.

Proposed Requirement would be latest updated:

1. Photo's
2. Address of Business Center (For that We can use Nabadiganta Kiosk situated in Technopolis and College More Sector V, Saltlake city)
3. Business Process running in MNCs (financial, revenue generation etc)

I have mentioned the requirement as for the article needs. If any thing more please add up to the Kolkata Talk page

Thanks.Swarupboserkl (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

New Proposed Pictures to add for IT Infrastructure/Economy in Kolkata wiki page.

These are the latest proposed pic's which I think should be updated in the Kolkata wiki page. Moreover I stay in Saltlake City I'm trying from my end to put up a new page specially for #SaltlakeCity IT Infrastructure and Business centers running in Saltlake City, Kolkata. Thanks. Swarupboserkl (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• 
  Unitech InfoSpace Hi-Tech Park (New Town) Kolkata
• 
  Unitech InfoSpace
• 
  Hidco Bhawan (Narkel Bagan) New Town Kolkata
• 
  DLF (IBM Pvt. Ltd.) IT Tech Park, New Town, Kolkata
• 
  Inside Wipro Technologies Saltlake City, Sector V, Kolkata
• 
  Wipro Technologies, Saltlake City, Sector V, Kolkata
• 
  College More, Saltlake City, Sector V, Kolkata
• 
  Technopolis, Saltlake City, Kolkata
• 
  Saltlake City, Major Economy Towers

Hi Swarup. It's great to see so many photos you have uploaded in wikimedia. Your idea about starting a n article on information technology infrastructure in Kolkata could be good one. Only after you start the article, and add meaningful content, the community can decide on its viability. I personally think the article might be an useful one. However, alongside the images, the article should have encyclopedic content, too. Some of the images can definitely go to the article Economy of Kolkata, and may be one representative image can be incorporated in the economy section of Kolkata, replacing the existing image of a IT building (I forgot which one we have, as they all look pretty much the same to me!).

Moreover, since you seem to be a good photographer and located in Kolkata, why don't you take images of other things also? The sleek buildings are useful, and at the same time, more humane photos, and other encyclopedic images will be good as well. If you take images of major streets, and add them to the respective street articles (even create the street articles if they don't exist), that will be very helpful. You can take images of other landmarks, too. Welcome once again, and thanks for editing wikipedia.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a really good idea. We're missing articles on most major Kolkata streets (AJCB road, DH Road, etc.) and the neighborhood articles are also quite weak and need pictures. Any help in building those or adding photographs would be great. --regentspark (comment) 20:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

User:RegentsPark Ha! you say it so simply, why don't to you go and click photo's. Even if one does the hard work of clicking pic's and adding those photo's to Wikimedia commons. You guys simply come their and remove the edit's. I'm trying my best from my end. Still I'm waiting these pic's to be featured in Kolkata page. Thanks Swarupboserkl (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I would if I could Swarupboserkl. Unfortunately, the last time I was in Calcutta was well before the birth of Wikipedia (and it was still Calcutta then!). Don't get frustrated, change in an established entity is always best done incrementally and with consensus. Manage your interactions well and you'll find that Wikipedia is a very welcoming place. --regentspark (comment) 12:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

ohh!! Really User:RegentsPark now wikipedians like us need to learn from you. See my approach is straight with proper explanation why the pic's need to be featured.You damn give all the foolish reasons no way man...You know one thing Kolkata is such a diverse and rich cultural place where I love to stay and add many thing to wikis. This year when I relocated to #Saltlake City from Bangalore. I came to see that many good featured articles about #Saltlake city is missing. So I decided to start from One corner but came to know that very very few guys like us are their who is interested doing edits.

Moreover If guys like you will teach us how to interact then really it piss me off and make me think why I'm giving my Quality time editing in wikis. You don't see the contribution and dedication, you judge through your own eyes.. Change your outdated mindset man..If you can't help me in my contribution then don't come to this talk page every now and then and put your useless comment.Which I hardly see of any use to me.Thanks Swarupboserkl (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm ready with my article for IT Infrastructure and Business Centre Running in #SaltlakeCity and #NewTown, Kolkata

Hi Wikipedians,

The content which I propose here is all about the IT Infrastructure and Business Center running in Saltlake City and New Town.

The project will contain:

1. Template for IT Infrastructure in Saltlake City and New Town.
2. Template for major Business Centers including all the Malls, Banks, Major MNS, Health care etc.
3. Recent Photo's uploaded to Wikimedia commons.

I expect all the major senior wikipedians to help and support me to complete this project.

I'll be starting this project with Templates and latter on adding pic's to the content page.

I hope it will take me 1 month for this work.

Regards, Swarupboserkl (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As you have indicated that you need almost a month for writing this article, you are requested to use sandbox. You can create your article at your sandbox, where you can improve the article at your own pace, without the risk of getting deleted. Once you are ready with the article, you can move the info from the sandbox to a new article. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok!! User:Amartyabag you will sit back and order do this do that...Disgraceful Swarupboserkl (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am just trying to help you out, so that the process become easier for you. I have never directed you, but my previous comment was just a suggestion which I hope you can make out from the usage of "can" or "requested", rather than using "must" or "should". I will be very happy to help you out with formating, references and other minor things. However, due to my offwiki commitments it is not possible to create or expand contents at this moment. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's Okk Amartya Swarupboserkl (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial local time; is this real?

This is mentioned in the infobox (+05:54), but it's not referenced and it's not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That was crap. Thanks for catching this. Now removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

British Influence?

How was Calcutta divided into two halves black & white, when according to the 1901 census there were 615,491 Hindus, 286,576 Muslims (plus Jains, Sikhs etc.) and 11,425 British - about 1% of the total population!!! What a false image the article creates! In Kolkata today, any tourist will almost exclusively visit things the British left behind (Eden Gardens, Victoria Memorial etc.). The grand museum was Asia's first. The British built the Howra Bridge (up until the 1990's the only bridge over the river - and still the main bridge) and all the above ground railway lines (which were never expanded). The government still works from the old (very nice) British buildings. In Calcutta today, if you are doing well financially, chances are you will strive to get your kids into an old British school, and hang out at an old British club. What about Kolkata's love of cricket! - I wonder where that came from? What about the press? India's first newspaper was introduced by the British in Calcutta (fact unmentioned) and the English language press is still important there. Thackeray was born there. The cause of Asia's worst disease was discovered there by a British doctor. Many books are still printed in English in Kolkata for local consumption. The way this article reads - the British were numerous and of limited influence, the reality was 100% the opposite. The city's police and fire service still adhere to their British origins, in structure and organization. The army in the city (a very British type of army by the way) bases itself at the same place as the British army did (Fort William). It's pretty much impossible to remove the British influence from the city's daily life and culture - but congratulations Wiki in this article - you did it!!! The only facts given, are ones that support an Indian patriotic/nationalist outlook. Also about the founding of Calcutta - please!!There were three muddy villages, one of which had been completely abandoned, none of which had ever been considered a single entity, and none of which were identified as "Kolkata". The British stitched the three together into a single urban and administrative framework, and seemed to have coined the name Calcutta (origin unknown) which was pronounced Kolkata by the locals (the name "Kolkata" was completely unknown, before the British "Calcutta") and which around 1700 largely referred to the former village of Govindpore anyway. Is this mentioned? No, of course not, because that sounds too much like the British founding Calcutta doesn't it? Why can't you just be less anti-British and a little more honest? Timothy 58.165.140.157 (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Apologies if you felt the article is anti-British. Of course, the whole development of the city happened thanks to the British. And the History section describes that. As for "black" and "white" towns, that is referenced from a book article written by one Robert Hardgrave (Hardgrave, Robert L. Jr (1990). "A portrait of Black Town: Balthazard Solvyns in Calcutta, 1791–1804". In Pal, Pratapaditya. Changing visions, lasting images: Calcutta through 300 years. Bombay: Marg Publications. pp. 31–46. ISBN 81-85026-11-4.)

Nearly all potentially challengable statements in the article is referenced. If you think something important needs to be mentioned, you can state that here, and provide reference (that makes additions easier). Indeed you can go ahead and edit in the article.

The India's first newspaper, for example, is missing, as you have mentioned. Can you please provide the info. We'll be happy to add that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I just added the info on the first newspaper, the Bengal Gazette.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

"Kolkata"

Ok, no offence to the locals, but this title is silly. "Calcutta" is the WP:COMMONNAME title [10][11], by a massive margin (15,000,000 vs. 450,000). Could someone please point to a naming convention that justifies such blatant disregard for WP:NAME? -- Director (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here. Google Search result is not the ultimate indicator. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, could I trouble you to please link to one indicator that suggests Kolkata is more common? Because I'm struggling to find such a one. -- Director (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I've read through the entire linked discussion and have researched most recent terms. I see no argument relevant to WP:COMMONNAME, and, to put it one way: nobody knows what "Kolkata" is. Seems the moves are mostly stonewalled by Indian folks..

I would really like to see anything that indicates "Kolkata" is the more common term in English, otherwise, an RM seems in order. -- Director (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, WP:COMMONNAME is not about counting google hits, especially as most sources dealing with pre-2001 period will use 'Calcutta'. Anyhow, here are some indications that 'Kolkata' is not a fringe wording in English-speaking world: [12], [13], [14] --Soman (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely with User:DIREKTOR. "some indications that 'Kolkata' is not a fringe wording in English-speaking world" is about as weak as it can possibly get and is nowhere near strong enough for WP:COMMONNAME. Outside of the sub-continent "Kolkata" is virtually unknown, whereas "Calcutta" is a famous world city. This is very silly. DeCausa (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Soman.

• Calcutta is also more common in modern-day usage, as well as in the past.
• WP:COMMONNAME is about determining the more common name for a subject in the English language. WP:SETs are a universally employed and well established method that helps towards making said determination. They are of course not supreme, as such, but they are certainly better than absolutely nothing, which is what this obscure title seems to have going for it. I would like to hear which method you propose besides "counting"?
• The issue is not to determine whether or not "Kolkata" is a fringe term, the issue is whether its more common in English language usage than "Calcutta". It would appear there is no contest in that regard.

-- Director (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Some points: What's the reference that 'Calcutta' is more common today? In Indian English language media, 'Calcutta' has completely disappeared. In foreign English-language media both names are used. It's reasonable to assume that coverage of the city is more frequent in Indian media than in foreign English-language media, which should be taken into account. The google count of Calcutta/Kolkata also includes a lot of hits from other non-English languages that uses Latin script (French, German, Swedish, Norwegian, etc.), where the Calcutta/Kolkata shift is probably proceeds much slower (as no media in those languages are produced in India itself). The problem here is the underlying notion that the English language is somehow primarily the language of White Anglo-Saxons, discarding the fact that English is used extensively in South Asia as well. --Soman (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done the tests. No matter how you twist it, "Calcutta" turns up on top [15]. In modern-day sources usage as well as when only English sources are taken into consideration. And no, I don't think its "reasonable to assume" anything. Now, I must've participated in a hundred RMs and usually in these sort of discussions someone or other disinclined towards one side digs up some obscure test, or some weird test parameters, to give the other position some semblance of support. However, the point here is to "determine the prevalence of the term in reliable English-language sources". That's pretty much been done. And there is no contest. -- Director (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Amartyabag pointed to the last lengthy discussion on this, where the flaws in simply throwing Google numbers out were discussed and alternative evidence clearly set out. Of course Google Book ngrams and searches going back to the 1950s show a preponderance of Calcutta. Even the figures from 2008 alone will. Even those from the present day will, due to historical references to the city itself and references to phrases based on it such as Black Hole of Calcutta, Calcutta Cup and Calcutta Telegraph. Contrasting evidence was also presented about references to the contemporary city in contemporary sources, showing that Kolkata is more common in such places. For example, the AP, New York Times and Guardian style guides have all switched to Kolkata. Britannica and the CIA World Fact Book have, as cited at the very beginning of that previous discussion. I would add though that the "Indian" vs "Anglo-Saxon" English is a bit of a red herring. We follow common, modern usage in the English language as a whole (plus this argument might not lead to the result its proponents want: international usage is often, in fact, a bit ahead of the curve when compared to Indian English-language sources. If we followed, say, local media we could very easily justify Calcutta of course). N-HH talk/edits 11:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It is silly beyond words to discuss any one individual source when discussing overall prevalence. And it makes no difference why the city is known as Calcutta (which is indisputably, of course, the city's history). -- Director (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nothing I said was based on an "individual source" nor did I discuss the "why" of the city's actual name at any point. I referred to several of the world's major English-language media and reference sources. I can't see either any response to the detailed points about the fallibility of Google numbers, especially those that go back to the mid 20th century or are referring to the city in that period. If you want to look at Google numbers, how about doing a genuinely narrow Google search, which focuses on contemporary references to the city in ultra-recent publications, ie via Google news: where I am, that's 9,510 for Calcutta – many of which aren't even references to the city itself – and 73,800 for Kolkata. N-HH talk/edits 12:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You were listing individual refs, which is not really relevant. Saying "things like this, this, and this show that sources like this use kolkata" is just weasel words; all you've listed are a couple individual links among literally millions, and asked us to take your word that this is somehow indicative of something. It also makes little difference why the name "Calcutta" is more prevalent, which is what you were referring to when mentioning phrases. Words, shockingly, are usually used in phrases.

Yes, as I mentioned, some permutation of search parameters in some area is bound to give "Kolkata" as more common. Here we have second-rate news sources in an "ultra-recent" search. This, again, indicates little or nothing as to the true prevalence of the term in sources. -- Director (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned "for example" one or two of the world's major media and reference sources, and their consistent use of Kolkata these days. These are not random individual references but the serious mainstream. AP for example probably supplies more news copy to international English-language media than any other source. I then buttressed that with a wider news search, which of course brings in some less than top-tier publications. No, that's not definitive, but it's part of the balance of the evidence, and it's certainly nonsense to suggest there's "no contest". The "millions" you cite for Calcutta – and of course there are millions too for Kolkata – are totally unknown as to their provenance, buried as they are in raw Google numbers. They're not only not definitive either, they're meaningless as raw numbers. As noted, not only are they as likely as not to be in old publications and/or references to the city's history, or to be not even references to the city at all, but could be in children's books, self-published imprints or whatever. Your critique of "second-rate .. sources" applies just as much to the books searches as it does to the news search. Google book and web searches bring up millions of hits for Constantinople and Leningrad too. We don't simply rely on those in that context, for precisely those reasons.

And ultimately, there's a practical point here. You have two choices: you can open an RM asking for the page to be moved back and we can go over all the same arguments we had a year ago and, after acres of wasted space and hours of wasted time, come to the exact same conclusion again, that there is no compelling or overwhelming evidence and no clear consensus to move; or you can come to terms with the fact that, however much it might jar with you (it does to some extent with me btw), most serious sources in the modern world, when talking about the modern city, probably do indeed use Kolkata. And that includes the British and US governments, guidebooks such as Lonely Planet and Rough Guides (I could go on but I'm sure you'll just say they're "only individual sources"). N-HH talk/edits 13:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

More examples; Go to airfrance.com, klm.com or britishairways.com and good luck trying to find a flight to "Calcutta". (at united.com "Calcutta" gives no result, but CCU is listed as "Kolkata Calcutta") --Soman (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

tripadvisor.com uses "Kolkata (Calcutta)". Booking.com uses "Calcutta" in the URL, but only "Kolkata" in the text. Hotels.com uses "Kolkata" (but their search engine redirects "Calcutta" to "Kolkata"). Hyatt.com calls their Kolkata hotel "Hyatt Regency Kolkata" (but does mention "(Calcutta)" in parenthesis in the text. Swissotel.com calls their hotel "Swissotel Kolkata" but does mention "Kolkata (Calcutta)" in the description. Interestingly googling Hotel, Calcutta -Kolkata, gives no direct link to hotel companies in the first search results. The pattern is clear. Kolkata has replaced Calcutta as the primary name in travel industry, but "Calcutta" is still present as a cultural/historical reference. --Soman (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I can't argue with you two. You just have much more links than I do. :) Imagine if you copy pasted them and posted all the links twice, or even three times.. -- Director (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Another reason is that the English spelling "Calcutta" has given rise to mispronunciation. In Spanish and German, the city's name is pronounced Kalkootah because in those languages an U is an OO, full stop. This pronunciation reminds Indians more of a black dog (Hindi kala kutta) than of the capital of Bengal. The new name is easy to pronounce everywhere, plus it's the local name. Curryfranke (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That could not be less relevant. -- Director (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Change it back to Calcutta. It's great if people in other place want to say it or spell it differently, but they don't get to dictate a change in English spelling in other countries, and they don't get to dictate word choices of the English language. I'm so sick of this altering names of cities pointlessly.

Kolkata football

Include Kolkata Football in SPORTS Section - http://www.kolkatafootball.com/index.htm Mykolkatafootball (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

All most a paragraph has been written about football in Kolkata in that section. Be specific about what more to be included. But if you want the link to the website to be included, I am sorry that cannot be done. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Book or Link Farm. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Best public transport system

I propose addition of the following line in the Transport chapter: According to a 2013 survey conducted by International Association of Public Transport, Kolkata ranks the top among the six cities surveyed in India, in terms of public transport system. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 08:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2014

Kolkata is among the Megacities of India. So please change the Metropolis to Megacity as its unethical not to have an updated description. Wikiboy2364 (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done "Megacity" is not a common description, and there is no agreement on the definition of what constitutes one. It is not used in any of the WP articles on any of the 30 cities listed in the table in Megacities. The most common description is Metropolis (which is what we are using on Kolkata), or Metropolitan Area, although some, like National Capital Region (India) have very specific, legal descriptions. Arjayay (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

Please add a bengali transcription for "Kolkata" it would read কলকাতা -Thank you 94.200.169.78 (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Per WP:INDICSCRIPT, indic scripts are not to be included. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Settlement type

Mega city status update for Kolkata , as the population crossed 1billion. Ref: Population of UAs/Towns (5. Mega Cities) definition.--Vin09 (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead

"Sourav has created kolkata for its venues and franchises,He is the best Kolkata differs from other Indian cities by giving importance to association football and other sports." Besides being poorly written, where is this sourced? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead does not necessarily need citations if the information is cited in the appropriate sections of the article. The sports scenario in the city is discussed, along with citations, in the sports section. This sentence is a summary of that section. Now, of course any improvement in the language is always welcome.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Kolkata differs from other Indian cities by giving importance to association football and other sports" is not cited anywhere I can see. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

whicy part exactly are looking the citation for? ThatKolkata differs from other cities ? Or that kolkata gives importance to football? That High incidence of football games or clubs has been cited in the sports section. Now whether that is a peculiar characteristic of kolkata (different from most other indian cities) has not been cited. We will search for that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

this one may suffice [ http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-06-13/news/50564484_1_arsenal-soccer-schools-football-player-football-training], I will add this one later when I edit from a computer. May be will find more--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—1.39.12.195 (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. You haven't explained how you think the coordinates are in error, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is a problem with the coordinates, please post a clear explanation of the problem. Deor (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Kolkata's importance with regard to foreign offices.

As written in the "Bangalore" page, I would like to add a small list of foreign embassies and consulates which are present in Kolkata. I have seen in the aforementioned page, that some embassies were mentioned. I would like to mention some embassies in the "Kolkata" page as well. They are :- Austria:,Bangladesh,Belgium,Bhutan ,Bolivia ,Bulgaria,Canada,Czechoslovakia,Denmark,Egypt,Ethiopia,Finland,France,Germany,Greece,Hungary,Indonesia,Italy ,Japan,Nepal,Netherlands,Norway,Philippines ,East Peru,Rumania ,Russia ,Singapore,Spain,Sri Lanka,South Korea,Sweden ,Switzerland,Thailand,Turkey,UK and USA <refhttp://www.kolkata.org.uk/embassies.html></ref> DebjyotiSam (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)DebjyotiSam 25/10/2014

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2014

You may want to check the following redundancies that I found during the short period that I search the article:

Hooghly river 1 redundant

Port of Kolkata 1 redundant

Nawab of Bengal 1 red

Siraj ud-Daulah 1 red

Indian independence movement 2 red66.74.176.59 (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Done -Thanks for the improvement suggested. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

There should be a panoramic view of Kolkata's skyline .

Swapnil Chatterjee (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. - Arjayay (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2015

VILLAGE KOLIKATA Not too far from the capital of Bengal, there exists a village called Kolikata. Away from the bustle of the city, life goes on here at its own slow pace, reports ACHINTYARUP RAY (This was published in The Times Of India, Date: October 30, 2011)

   Around the same time that Job Fucknock got off his vessel at a “low swampy village of scattered huts” to set up the Bengal headquarters of the Honourable East India Company there, 50 kilometres away, at another village, one Jagannath Roy received some land from the Maharaja of Burdwan for his household deity. The first village was on the banks of the Hooghly and the second one was by the river Damodar. And while the former grew up to become the second city of the Empire, the latter remained unknown. The world never really came to know about this small hamlet called Kolkata — or Kolikata, to be precise. 

   The village — now in Howrah district of West Bengal, India— became a subject of discussion among the pundits for the first time in 1938, when national professor Suniti Kumar Chattopadhyay wrote an article in the Bangiya Sahitya Parishad Patrika on the name of the city of Kolkata — or Kolikata. The professor was trying to look for the origin of the name. For that, the first thing he did was to find out if there was any other place in the (undivided) Bengal by this name. And there actually was. Not one, but two villages named Kolkata — one under the Lohajung thana of Dhaka, Bangladesh and the other under the Amta thana of Howrah of West Bengal, India. He started gathering information about the places and found one thing in common between Kolikata, the capital of Bengal, and the village by the Damodar in Howrah. In both the places once thrived the small industry of making lime (koli) by burning snail shells (kata). 

There still exist a few chunari families in village Kolikata, whose business till two decades ago was making lime. “But not any more,” said Shankar Das Chunari, a 55-year-old resident of the village. Shankar used to help his father burn snail shells when he was a teenager. “Now we do odd jobs, like pulling rickshaw vans, for a living. Some of us work as land labourers and sharecroppers,” he said, standing near the ruins of the nilkuthi (indigo factory).

   It’s indeed a strange experience to be in a village that shares its name with a megapolis. Away from the hustle and bustle of the city, life here goes on at its own slow pace — with a few small shops, a marketplace, remains of a nilkuthi, a small building of Kolikata Prathamik Vidyalay, a couple of village clubs, some old temples and of course, the river. 

   The earliest record that can be found with the name of the village as Kolikata is the sanad (deed) of Burdwan’s Maharaja Krishnaram, whereby he gave some land to Jagannath Roy for the latter’s family deity. It was dated 1091 Bangabda (1684 AD). Jagannath was the son of Ramakrishna Kavichandra, who had penned Shivayan Kavya. Two more old deeds — one dated 1169 Bangabda (1762 AD) and the other dated 1185 Bangabda (1778 AD) — could be found till a few years ago with signatures of Kshudiram Deyashi and Atmaram Banik respectively, both of whom were residents of village Kolikata. 

   The 1,500 residents of this village affectionately call it Chhoto Kolkata (little Kolkata) — in comparison to the metropolis. (Although settlement records show the name of the mouza as Kolikata. JL No. 152.) The locals also love to name different spots of the village after places of the city. So, the marketplace has been named 

Bowbazar and an open field near the Gorhdanga mound is called Gorher Math (named after Kolkata Maidan). “And see, this is Nimtala, our burning ghat,” shows villager Gobindo, not without some pride. The village already had a Dharmatala — the place near the old temple of Lord Dharma.

   The Dharma temple is quite old. It was built in 1797 (1204 Bangabda). According to the inscription above the temple gate, Gayaram Deyasi of village Kolikata built this temple and the mason 

   was Abhaycharan Mistry of village Thole. There is another ancient temple nearby, which is older than this, but nobody knows today for which deity it had been built. 

   The 95.55-hectare village is divided into four neighbourhoods — Mondal Para, Chunari Para, Purba Deyashi Para and Paschim Deyashi Para. 

   “Today, people don’t know about our village, but it was once an important centre of lime manufacture and trade,” says Tapan Mondal, who runs an NGO called Agragati. “And the boats which were used by traders of nearby Betai port were owned mostly by the Majhis of Kolkata village. Boat making was also an important industry here. People knew this place for its lime and boats,” he adds. 

   But not anymore. Today, Kolkata is just like any other village — small, nondescript and forgotten by the world outside. 

(Above) A village club, called Kolikata Netaji Sangha; (left) the remains of an old indigo factory; (bottom) river Damodar flows by the village

(Above) The 214-year-old Dharma temple at Kolkata; (right) the building of Kolikata Prathamik Vidyalay

117.249.83.79 (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 11:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Black Town / White Town ??

"By the 1850s, Calcutta had two areas: White Town, which was primarily British and centred on Chowringhee and Dalhousie Square; and Black Town, mainly Indian and centered on North Calcutta"

This is false. According to the 1901 census (the historical height of European numbers resident in Calcutta), Calcutta had a population of 949,144 of which the British portion was 11,425 - around 1% of Calcutta !!! And it was suggested at the time that even this tiny British head count (including soldiers, sailors and British people just passing through) was artificially inflated by many Anglo Indians posing as Irish. (Source HEA Cotton, Calcutta Old & New, page 199). How could the native population have been centred on the North of Calcutta??? The Europeans may have had their tight little enclave in Chowringhee and Dalhousie Square, but all other areas of Calcutta - I repeat: ALL OTHER AREAS OF CALCUTTA were a minimum of 99% Indian - east, west, north, south and central. Why has the numbers of Europeans in Calcutta been so grossly exaggerated, to suggest that the native population was centred in the north, and that the city was divided into two? I suspect that Indian nationalists like it that way. I have read a dozen books about Calcutta written during the British era - and never a mention of any "black town" ! Let's face it, the concept doesn't even make sense.

Thanks....

TIMOTHY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.131.10 (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2015

1.39.8.230 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please make a request if there's something specific that should be done. —SpacemanSpiff 17:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox: Megacity 4,496,694 - cannot be right.

The infobox says under population "Megacity 4,496,694" and under area "Megacity 205 km2". This is obviously wrong, as a megacity must have 10 million+ inhabitants.

It might be seen as an issue with the way the Template:Infobox_settlement works, but strictly speaking surely Kolkata metropolitan area is the megacity, and Kolkata is a city. Batternut (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2015

117.194.245.222 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC) census of india 2011 religion hindus 76.5 muslims 20.6 christians 0.88 sikhs 0.3 buddhists 0.1 jains 0.47

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2015

nick name bubai

202.142.77.85 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Map of all of India?

Just looking at this article, and it seems like it might be prudent to include a map which includes its relative location in India. I'm quite familiar with its location but its not immediately apparent to many who will be reading this article. Just a thought to any individuals active on this article. I don't see any other discussion throughout the talk page but I may have missed it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

hiNativeForeigner: are you asking that , A map showing all of India with the location on Kolkata , be used here ?--Aryan ^from हि है (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110719034005/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/Sovan-Chatterjee-to-be-new-Kolkata-mayor/Article1-554057.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Sovan-Chatterjee-to-be-new-Kolkata-mayor/Article1-554057.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110813092204/http://ceowestbengal.nic.in/news_pdf/gazette123.pdf to http://ceowestbengal.nic.in/news_pdf/gazette123.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111020144353/http://nacoonline.org/upload/AR%202009-10/NACO_AR_English%20corrected.pdf to http://nacoonline.org/upload/AR%202009-10/NACO_AR_English%20corrected.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111122071350/http://www.aitatennis.com/New%20AITA/about.html to http://www.aitatennis.com/New%20AITA/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2016

Please change

Rainfall

File:Kolkata monsoon clouds.jpg

Dark monsoonal clouds & heavy wind covers the sky of Kolkata near Howarh Bridge

into

Rainfall

File:Kolkata monsoon clouds.jpg

Dark monsoonal clouds & heavy wind covers the sky of Kolkata near Howrah Bridge

(it's Howrah Bridge).

217.94.220.117 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Done Done, good catch, thanks --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121123190741/http://www.asianage.com/india/bengal-gives-second-language-status-urdu-18-areas-955 to http://www.asianage.com/india/bengal-gives-second-language-status-urdu-18-areas-955
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121203071623/http://www.banglarmukh.com:80/portal/banglarMukh/Government/Departments/DepartmentListPortletWindow?action=1&deptId=21&deptName=Home&deptDispName=Home to http://www.banglarmukh.com/portal/banglarMukh/Government/Departments/DepartmentListPortletWindow?action=1&deptId=21&deptName=Home&deptDispName=Home
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016221039/http://timesfoundation.indiatimes.com:80/articleshow/657741.cms to http://timesfoundation.indiatimes.com/articleshow/657741.cms
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060723083755/http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/Publications/TPTS_pubs/bulletin74/bulletin74_ch5.pdf to http://www.unescap.org/ttdw/Publications/TPTS_pubs/bulletin74/bulletin74_ch5.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130510201217/http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&show=archive&id=385831&catid=73&year=2011&month=10&day=8 to http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&show=archive&id=385831&catid=73&year=2011&month=10&day=8
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140424193859/http://www.auditbureau.org/trends-123.xls to http://www.auditbureau.org/trends-123.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Howrah

are Howrah and this the same city --Aryan ^from हि है (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Although there is an industrial city of the same name, Howrah is primarily a district. The Wiki page on Howrah lists it as a "Twin City" to Kolkata, which is reasonably appropriate. However, there is no doubt that Kolkata ends on the other side of the Howrah Bridge. Cheers. -- sdnomlA 21:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdnomla.rettib (talk • contribs)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2016

Area is 210 sq km

111.93.80.164 (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070820234733/http://www.kolmetro.com:80/ to http://www.kolmetro.com/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120417132128/http://www.indianrail.gov.in:80/ir_zones.pdf to http://www.indianrail.gov.in/ir_zones.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Images

An advise to active users, remove some images that are in excessive usage, particularly of structures that are of government office/private companies and of modern buildings, it is spoiling articles standard. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2016

45.250.247.228 (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC) also aditya shukla was born here

Not done: as the person mentioned does not appear to be "notable" - we have no article on them - Arjayay (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Indian Economy about economy size and rank claims

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Economy#City economy size and rank claims - a consensual approach which could affect this article. Please add all comments on that talk page regarding economy size and rank claims. Thanks, Batternut (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the hatnote to indicate the disambiguation page Kolkata (disambiguation)

{{About|the city|the namesake district|Kolkata district|the metropolitan area|Kolkata metropolitan area|the Indian Navy destroyer|INS Kolkata (D63)}}

change to:

{{About|the city|other uses}}

This page is about the city. For other uses, see Kolkata (disambiguation).

-- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Done that. Batternut (talk) 14:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Naming of article.

How is it that the name of this article can reflect the official name of the city, and presumably local usage, whereas articles on places in Ireland with Irish names do not. Was there resistance to correctly naming the article from self appointed imperial era English name guardians? For years many of us have had to put up with a refusal to rename articles on our towns and villages to reflect official and local names; currently still an issue with my area of west of Galway city. Hope to get advice and support on this bugbear. Taibhdhearc (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Look in the archives of this talk page, in the archives of other city pages where the local language name does not match the common English name, and in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). There has been massive controversy over these questions, with hundreds if not thousands of pages of arguments being written over these questions. —Lowellian (reply) 06:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You are right, it's a big problem with wikipedia these days. Wikipedia has essentially become political but I think it's unavoidable. Thus we end up with the absurd situation of Calcutta being called, incorrectly in English, "Kolkata" - somehting like 99.99999% of English speakers in India and abroad call it Calcutta but the editors find a way to "prove" that since the BBC call it "Kolkata" that's the most appropriate name while by contrast for example Londonderry (the official name, as much as "Kolkata") is not used but "Derry" instead. There's no point bothering frankly, on these type of issues a few dozen obsessives have taken control of the relevant pages and will not ever change. It is, utimately, the limit and downside of wikipedia; the lack of an editor means that such groups can push an agenda, such as deliberately using the name "Kolkata" incorrectly in the English language wikipedia - wikipedia introduced structures and rules in good faith to stop vandalism but like all structures and rules some people game them better than others. It's a shame but there's nothing we can do and so Calcutta is, absurdly, referred to as "Kolkata" - a name no native speaker would ever use. It is something that would appear absurd to almost any native English speaker but we can't change it. In the end, it proves only the benefit of a traditional encyclopaedia (at least for subjects that are political). Nothing is perfect in this world. 86.173.22.91 (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2017‎ (UTC)

Please read the Frequently asked questions (FAQ) at the top of this page, Q4: The name of the article should be Calcutta, not Kolkata! and then the big discussion it links to. Batternut (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Anecdote transfer

Can the anecdote about the Etymology of Kolkata be inserted in the main page it is widely prevalent among all residents of Kolkata

An interesting anecdote exists on the nomenclature of Kolkata. According to it, a British merchant was travelling through the village, when he came upon a peasant stacking hay into the barn. Not knowing where he was, the merchant asked the peasant about that place. The peasant, unfortunately did not understand English, and he guessed that the Sahib must be inquiring about the date the crop was harvested. In his own language, he replied "Kāl Kāʈa" which in Bengali language means "harvested yesterday" (Kal – Yesterday, Kāʈa – cut, which here means harvested). The merchant was happy in the knowledge that he had learned about the name of the place, and left the place. Following English transcription, "Kāl Kāʈa" became "Calcutta" WIZRADICAL (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A good reference would be needed, and I have not find one using Google. Batternut (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

An Ode to our Legacy by Mr T. H.Ireland WIZRADICAL (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The name Calcutta arose a few hundred years ago - your Mr Ireland was born in 1952. Where did he get the anecdote from? Batternut (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know ? I just the found a book which reffered to it and I wrote it here !-It was kept in our house and while leafing through I just found the reference. WIZRADICAL (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way just for the record Mr Terence Hamilton Ireland is the Principal of a highly reputed and about 150 years old protestant school (St James School ) in Calcutta. WIZRADICAL (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think I have been approaching this the wrong way, hoping for evidence of the truth of the anecdote. But accepting it as widely repeated anecdote is more a question of accepting its prevalence rather than its truth.

So, if most inhabitants believe it then it would be an encyclopedic addition to the article. If most people know the anecdote and are liable to retell it then it might be encyclopedic. Your worthy Mr Ireland's book should be enough to show the existence of the anecdote, but is there evidence of how widespread the tale is? Batternut (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You have set me a tough task I'll contact you here if I get what is needed WIZRADICAL (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203002244/https://kolkata.citydetails.in/city-guide-leftmenu-117/359-kolkata-the-cultural-capital-of-india.html to http://kolkata.citydetails.in/city-guide-leftmenu-117/359-kolkata-the-cultural-capital-of-india.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114162511/http://www.westbengaltourism.gov.in/web/guest/dalhousie-square to http://www.westbengaltourism.gov.in/web/guest/dalhousie-square
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103145620/https://egovernance.ndita.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=58 to http://egovernance.ndita.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=45&Itemid=58
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011210335/http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-bio.html to http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-bio.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.keip.in/bl3/pdfFiles/master_plan.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060511133821/http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/ESTdir/Pub/MSW/SP/SP4/SP4_2.asp to http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/ESTdir/Pub/MSW/SP/SP4/SP4_2.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.westbengal.gov.in/portal/banglarMukh/Government/Departments/DepartmentListPortletWindow?action=e&windowstate=normal&mode=view
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927084149/http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/Documents/Rcommendation81210.pdf to http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/Documents/Rcommendation81210.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120113155246/http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/kolkata-metro-reaches-new-garia.html to http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/kolkata-metro-reaches-new-garia.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111221052334/http://www.westbengaltourism.gov.in/web/guest/kolkata-para to http://www.westbengaltourism.gov.in/web/guest/kolkata-para
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gcac.edu.in/history.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/stories/classicderby/news/newsid%3D1414458.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://the-ifa.org/archives.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/rivalries/newsid%3D1414458/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hpa-polo.co.uk/about/history_polo.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321205257/http://www.srilankasquash.lk/slsf_index.php?more=history to http://www.srilankasquash.lk/slsf_index.php?more=history
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/qualifying/news/newsid%3D2028326%2Cprinter.htmx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151025091257/http://kolkata.usconsulate.gov/about_the_consulate.html to http://kolkata.usconsulate.gov/about_the_consulate.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060419055547/http://cse-india.com/cse_factbook.htm to http://www.cse-india.com/cse_factbook.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120526230024/http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/UserFiles/Documents/AnuualReports/ar_10_11.pdf to http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/UserFiles/Documents/AnuualReports/ar_10_11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120526133859/http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PIRReport/Documents/Indicator%20Report-dec-2011.pdf to http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PIRReport/Documents/Indicator%20Report-dec-2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111226021808/http://www.hcidhaka.org/pdf/Maitree%20Express%20Facts.pdf to http://www.hcidhaka.org/pdf/Maitree%20Express%20Facts.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117071129/http://mib.nic.in/ShowContent.aspx?uid1=2&uid2=94&uid3=0&uid4=0&uid5=0&uid6=0&uid7=0 to http://mib.nic.in/ShowContent.aspx?uid1=2&uid2=94&uid3=0&uid4=0&uid5=0&uid6=0&uid7=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502190254/http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=3663 to http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=3663
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64y62qtMl?url=http://mib.nic.in/writereaddata/html_en_files/tvchannels/channellist.pdf to http://mib.nic.in/writereaddata/html_en_files/tvchannels/channellist.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830065710/http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=kal-baisakhi1 to http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=kal-baisakhi1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060512065317/http://folk.uio.no/gheierst/nandikar.pdf to http://folk.uio.no/gheierst/nandikar.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060314030646/http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/suhrawardy/direct_action.html to http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/suhrawardy/direct_action.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130404061736/http://www.indianlink.com.au/travel/the-city-of-wonders/ to http://www.indianlink.com.au/travel/the-city-of-wonders/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

yoman mma name is Jollyroger182 or Kspicer333 ORyou can call me Guest666...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.171.153.128 (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

The word Kolkata derives from the Odiya term Kôlikata (Odiya: ମୂଳ) [ˈkɔlikat̪a], the name of one of three villages that predated the arrival of the British, in the area where the city eventually was to be established; the other two villages were Sutanuti and Govindapur.[16] Chinmayamahapatra (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The name

I think the name should be changed to "Kolkata, India" MouliB (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@MouliB: Why? It's sufficiently obvious which Kolkata is being referred to. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not necessary. Batternut (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205032240/http://www.ccfc1792.com/aboutus.php to http://www.ccfc1792.com/aboutus.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Population

The population in figures in the table at the top is not being seen, although references have been cited for the same. Please correct it. I couldn't do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:53AF:2FD9:2B44:53DE:11B7:C38 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Which figure, which table? Batternut (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104210935/http://www.adlittle.com/downloads/tx_adlreports/Arthur_D._Little___UITP_Future_of_Urban_Mobility_2_0.pdf to http://www.adlittle.com/downloads/tx_adlreports/Arthur_D._Little___UITP_Future_of_Urban_Mobility_2_0.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426072456/http://cpcb.nic.in/upload/AnnualReports/AnnualReport_37_ANNUAL_REPORT-08-09.pdf to http://cpcb.nic.in/upload/AnnualReports/AnnualReport_37_ANNUAL_REPORT-08-09.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kolkata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121204170242/http://www.lonelyplanet.com/india/kolkata-calcutta/transport/getting-around to http://www.lonelyplanet.com/india/kolkata-calcutta/transport/getting-around

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Vehicle registration

Technically WB 23 and 24 for Barrackpore RTO and WB 25 and 26 for Barasat RTO should come under consideration of Kolkata, also WB 96 i.e. Baruipur RTO should be considered for same reason Kallold (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Pron audiofile

Hi. I would like to submit an Audio file for the pronunciation of the word "Kolkata" as I noticed there isn't one already. I have created and uploaded the file to wikimedia commons as required, with the following path " https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Bn-ind-Kolkata_Eshwer.ogg " . Please add the pronunciation file to the Artice. Thanks ! Eshshiv (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the file. Batternut (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Food

FOOD: the food is incredable and wrothy. the puchkas are world famous. they are called differently all over india but kolkata has the best in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashaswi khemka (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source for this opinion? Batternut (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Cacutta > Kolkata

There needs to be consistency in when Kolkata is used, and when Calcutta. They seem to just be substituted randomly in this article, as well as biographical articles. Chaos. I would respectively submit that when a 19th century event is involved, Calcutta should be the spelling. If 21st century, more likely Kolkata. Namaskar. rags (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Cultural capital????

Kolkata's reference as the 'cultural capital of India' remains disputed. PlutoniumBackToTheFuture (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I would place greater trust in more independent sources, preferably non-Indian, to decide this claim. (btw, I have no ties to Kolkata, Delhi, or other claimants of this crown.) I find the Business Standard source, coming actually from West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, to particularly lack independence. Batternut (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

References

I thought this was the English Wikipedia, not the Bengali Wikipedia.

In English, the name for this city is Calcutta. Foreigners whose native language isn't even English have no right to dictate how the English language is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9504:45AF:E97A:FE2E:7414:6213 (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2018

Sovan chatterjee resign on mayor of kolkata, now this time Firhad Hakim is the new mayor of kolkata. Hossain211298 (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

Please allow me to make changes to the "Culture" section. Mritunjayverma07 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. NiciVampireHeart 17:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits 19 August 2019

Greetings, I do believe we can discuss here and find some agreeable solution. I am creating this section as I can not see any discussion on this talk page. Of course, we can discuss on somewhere else (such as user talk pages). However, article watchers of Kolkata can easily join here. This was not an acceptable source. Can't we find some reliable source to cite this information? Should we try for it? --Titodutta (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Amity University, Kolkata.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Featured article?

This article no longer meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Even on a brief scan it is obvious that there are unsourced statements; miscellaneous and unsourced lists of companies, consulates, neighborhoods, research centres, festivals and sports personalities; extraneous and ungrammatical text, such as "Calcutta drainage and sewerage 1856" inserted into the middle of a section; and outdated data from over 10 years ago. This article has consistently and persistently been listed as the article with the most cleanup categories (currently 12) at https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/alpha/Featured_articles.html. Attempts to address these multiple problems, e.g. [16][17][18], are not only actively resisted and reverted[19][20], they are actually edit-warred over in order to perpetuate the worser version[21][22][23][24]. If editors are unwilling to improve the article, then it should be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured articles. DrKay (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Titodutta: @Ms Sarah Welch: @Kautilya3: @Fowler&fowler: @Joshua Jonathan: @Sitush: @Johnbod:. Someone address this issue.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Edits by User:Abdulquadir14

I am perturbed by User:Abdulquadir14's addition of unreferenced information to an article of FA status ([25], [26]). They have also removed maintenance templates without resolving raised issues ([27]). Their resort to ad hominem attacks and self-perceived ownership of the article ([28]), and consequent disregard for Wikipedia's verifiability policy brings me to discuss this issue here. Hoping to hear from Abdulquadir14 as well as others. --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Volunteers for peer review.

FA It is very sad to see removal of FA. This article was one of my favorite and inspiration, in-fact the best FA article among Indian cities. Can I ask for some volunteers to do peer review. --Omer123hussain (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Kolkata Municipal Corporation (emblem).png

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

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

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

-- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove Unofficial Stats

Please remove the unofficial "Metro GDP/PPP" numbers from the Infobox and from the main article both in lead/economy section. Three different sources given are unofficial; none of them from Govt of India or State Govts source. So please remove those figures.--103.218.236.58 (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: all of the sources given reliable sources. Don Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 19:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

GDP can't be given from three different sources that to in a range. GDP must always be from official Govt source. And govt does not publish city wise gdp data; we already have state wise gdp data. The range figures are given very old too. Please scrape these data. @Goldsztajn: pls help. Thanks--103.218.236.58 (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: There is no consensus that “GDP must always be from official government sources,” and I don’t see why there would be. I also don’t see anything wrong with multiple sources being cited. Please establish a consensus for your changes on this talk page before using the {{Edit request}} template. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 15:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Unhealthy edits

I feel very sad this article has lost its FA status. This article was my inspiration behind Allahabad. Somebody had played deadly with this article. I will try my best to help it to achieve FA status again. Thanks--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 05:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It will be great if you can help. I do not have much time now. A very first step would be updating the data/statistics in different sections.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

25 Cents FC  Great! ~ Amkgp 💬 02:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2019

Central Kolkata Nazni Begum (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 10:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I think "The City of Joy" should also be added as another nickname of Kolkata along with "The Cultural Capital of India" Bruce Lightener (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020

Top para of the lead section states "the birthplace of modern Indian literary, artistic and political thought and several Nobel Prize winners have been known to be associated with the city" is recently added by User:Rbhu23 on 25 August, but, the sources provided on the para does not confirm this statement. Kindly remove that statement. And, simply put Kolkata is called the "Cultural capital of India" as per source.--103.102.116.123 (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done for WP:NPOV concerns. Nobel Award mentions is also not that significant, as every major city likely has a few laureates. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 03 September 2020

A new editor User:Rbhu23 added information on 1 September in the lead section of the top para, it clearly violets WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Kindly remove those information immediately from the top para and restore its earlier version, which was a stable version. Thanks--202.78.236.6 (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Rbhu23. I wouldn't call this WP:SOAP necessarily, but use of puffery as well as WP:UNDUE is more of a problem here. The lead paragraph is supposed to be a general overview of the entire city, and mentions of Nobel/Oscar winners are too specific here. So here's what I changed:

• Phrase about "liberal arts" is unreferenced and removed.
• Nobel mention is now in third paragraph. "Greatest work" and its wording is too far, just state it as it is.
• Oscar mention is removed. Ray is mentioned in the "Culture" section already, and his work belongs with the rest of the Tollywood information.

Let me know if there's any other questions. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 21:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Thanks for correcting the lead. Overall the lead is looking somewhat satisfactory.

• But, mentioning the Nobel in the third para of the lead section is ridiculous because no city article mentions Nobel in the lead I'm pretty sure about that. Rather mention it in the "education" section of the article since only two Nobel laureates were born and brought-up in the city, while others laureates either studied or worked briefly in the city. Moreover, other city articles would start mentioning Nobel in the lead if somehow they find any connection with it.
• Another point mentioning "cultural capital of India" is a vague term considering the quality of sources it has provided. A politician and an Indian actor claim that point. The politician is also the current Chief Minister of the state. The Daily Telegraph source elaborates clearly on this issue. I would urge you go through the source and do what is good for the article.--202.78.236.6 (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby:: Thank you for your edits. The use of puffery as well as WP:UNDUE, was not parameterised or consciously done. The character of the city was more of a concern here, as is in the case for pages on other cities of India.

Changing some picture

I really thinks that there is a strong need to change some picture in this article with the one, which are more clear and looks good Ultimateoutsider (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimateoutsider, kindly mention which pictures you wish to replace and why. The current images are fairly descriptive. They provide the necessary context to the relevant text. Prolix 💬 11:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

They are fairly descriptive but we need some picture which will show that Kolkata is a modern city with high rising building not like the crowded city (eg. dhaka) in the economy and transportation part of the article. I further think that its time to completely change the template of pictures with the new one which are in high quality and the modern skyline and beauty of the city can be shown through them. I think that the city should be shown to the people as modern city (like western nation's city) because the westerns have a very major impact on the city and it is one the oldest megacities of the southeast asia Ultimateoutsider (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimateoutsider, The purpose of images in any article (apart from the infobox) is to serve as added visual context. They aren't meant to look pretty or beautiful. Even so, most of the images in the article showcase relatively modern and developed parts of the city so I'm not sure what images you're referring to. Prolix 💬 11:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

And please Prolix don't put your nose in each and every article i edited, it shows like you have a personal grudges against me. If you want to edit a war. Say it clear like a man. Ultimateoutsider (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimateoutsider, which articles I choose to edit are frankly, none of your business. If you have a personal matter to discuss go to my talk page. Article talk pages are for article related discussions only. WP:TALK#USE Prolix 💬 11:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Prolix i don.t have any personal matter with you. i don't even know you and frankly if i know you then also i don't give you a damn. you are not editing anything, you are just reverting my edits in order to settle you ego (which i dont think why you have cause you are such a loser and a crybaby). so be a mature guy and let another new editors to give their contrubutions to the wikipedia. Ultimateoutsider (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimateoutsider, like I said, if you want to continue hurling personal insults please do so at my talk page. Prolix 💬 11:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Prolix i just want to say that, you alone can not decide what should be in the article or what not. if other editors also objects on it. i will back off sincerely. but till then you cannot revert my whole article without even looking at it cause it really shows that you have some personal grudge against me. Ultimateoutsider (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimateoutsider, I do not decide what gets to be on an article, the whole point of WP:BRD is that people will object to bold edits, when that happens a consensus process should follow. You would have known this had you read the policies Fylindfotberserk pointed you towards. I've made my objections to your (unnecessary) image changes quite clear, you've failed to provide your reasoning, instead choosing to go off on a tangent that clearly does not belong on this talk page while simultaneously edit warring. Prolix 💬 12:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimateoutsider, I second what Prolix has said. WP:BRD is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. You need to discuss after your edits get reverted and reach a consensus. Second, maintain WP:CIVIL no personal attacks, nobody owns Wikipedia articles either. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ultimateoutsider. Every genuine editor's intention here is to improve the article to its best, and their every action will be in accord with the guidelines, not with any personal grudge against anyone. That said, you can always express your concern on the talk page in a polite way (please see Wikipedia:Civility). We're here to help each other so that ultimately we get the best output. You're most welcome to contribute your own pictures, but always see to it that the image is of better quality and more descriptive than the current one. Let us join together to create best articles in Wikipedia. Thank you. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding demography

Plz prepare a pie chart regarding the languages of Kolkata city. Here is the reference of kolkata city demography based on languages as per 2011 census - https://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/C-16.html. 2409:4065:404:F307:3B12:DC0A:C955:3D50 (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit requests must be made in the form "please change X to Y". If you wish the change to be made please gather the data yourself and then use Template:Graph:PieChart to create a pie chart and then list that with the edit request. Make sure to mention where the chart should be added in the request Terasail^[✉] 16:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I've added the pie chart, though the formatting is a bit messy. Murkut23 (talk)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The 42, Highest Building in Eastern India.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2021

Please remove [[File:Emblem of West Bengal.svg|60px|center]] from infobox (because its about the city not the state) and add | image_shield = Kolkata_Municipal_Corporation_(emblem).png in the infobox. See for e.g Mumbai. Thank you. 42.110.200.50 (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@ItsSkV08: tagging last active editor for help. 42.110.200.50 (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

I want to edit some foundation related data. Their are some misconceptions about Kolkata foundation. Soumyadeep176 (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I want to update some foundation related data. Their are some misconceptions about Kolkata Soumyadeep176 (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

See the panel above: "... the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." --David Biddulph (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

dear sir Kolkata's gdp ppp is more than 250 bilion us doller.

kolkata's gdp pppis more than 250 bilion us doller 2409:4061:4E91:2A9B:A04E:92B1:6712:217A (talk) 06:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021. Kolkata's gdp is more than 250 bilion us doller

2409:4061:4E91:2A9B:A04E:92B1:6712:217A (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   melecie   t 07:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

Please revert vandalism. March 2nd's change by Rajen Gain (changing the description of a cathedral to "Hindu temple", that of the business district to "poverty" and that of a tram to "slums") is not only nonsensical but also broke the formatting. Nikolaj'u (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

ITC Royal Bengal

Is that a CGI image instead of a real picture for ITC Royal Bengal? I think better images should be added. 103.161.55.94 (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

New Commissioner of Police is-Vineet Kumar Goyal, Soumen Mitta is former C.P of Kolkata.So kindly amend it sir/ma'm Achijege56 (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you sir Achijege56 (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2022

The present mayor of Kolkata is firhad Hakim (Bobby ) from tmc party 103.220.210.38 (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Calcutta History - DUBIOUS sentence

It says: "By the 1850s, Calcutta had two areas: White Town, which was primarily British and centred on Chowringhee and Dalhousie Square; and Black Town, mainly Indian and centred on North Calcutta." This simply isn't possible, the European element of Calcutta according to the 1901 census were 11,425 British in the city, the total population being 949,144 - so the British were roughly 1% of the population. Even though the Europeans may have enjoyed more personal living space, it's abundantly clear that aside from a few streets and tiny enclaves like Chowringhee and Dalhousie Square, the metropolis was (demographically speaking) overwhelmingly Indian in virtually all geographical areas. To say that the Indians mainly centred on the north, presumably leaving the other vast areas of the vast city (East, West, South, central) dominated by or with a substantial presence of Europeans, is clearly FALSE. One source given for this statement is this tiny article: https://web.archive.org/web/20120112023055/http://www.laits.utexas.edu/solvyns-project/hardgraveportrait.html - in this short article I can find no reference to anything about any so-called "white town" nor any information about Calcutta's erstwhile racial demographics, nor anything relating to the 1850's! Instead it's about an artist that drew some nice drawings of city life between 1791-1804. The second source given was a book "Calcutta through 300 years: Changing visions, lasting images" - which I admit I haven't read, but it appears to be a coffee table picture book, with postcard and artists impressions of the city over a period of a few centuries, a glossy unofficial souvenir book published to mark the city's 300th anniversary (1990), very nice I'm sure, but not really an academic source I think. Zac 26/11/19 - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:109b:cb00:e161:5eec:6a8e:b2dc (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is a source that seems to speak to this issue: Blurring Boundaries: The Limits of "White Town" in Colonial Calcutta(Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Jun., 2000), pp. 154-179). As a Jstor link, this is available through Wikipedia library (for those who are eligible ... I would appreciate hearing from people about their experience with WP library, as I generally find access to WP library to be very problematic.) Fabrickator (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of cities

This is a general question: why does Wikipedia cover articles of cities as if they are a travel guide or advertisement? Kolkata is a wonderful city but it has serious problems of poverty, sanitation, shortages, etc, and there is insufficient coverage of that IMO. If this article (and others like it) were truly balanced, the images and data would discuss the urban problems in greater detail. 2601:14B:4400:4365:2C59:BCFF:46F6:531B (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Location of large scale scam operations targeting english speaking countries.

https://theprint.in/features/kolkata-is-indias-newest-biggest-scam-zone-police-youtubers-mice-cant-shut-it-down/1035160/ Lord Rai Sparks (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Sports

X : In the sports section, a non English word should be Italicized with translation. Y : Yuva Bharti Krindangan transl. Young India Playground.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. TGHL ↗ 🍁 02:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2022

It says in the economy section that Kolkata is the only airport in the eastern region of India, apart from Bhubaneswar to have an international airport. But actually, the airport at Siliguri is also International, which is also present in Eastern India. Please correct this information. Ducky the editor (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: the {{Airports in India}} template shows Bhubaneswar, Guwahati, Imphal, Kolkata, and Kushinagar listed as international airports and Varanasi, Bagdogra (Siliguri), Gaya, and Patna as customs airports (permitting a limited number of international flights). I added the other three international airports not mentioned in the section. If you have any future changes to make, please mention the specific edits in a "change X to Y" format to maintain attribution. Thanks, TGHL ↗ 🍁 02:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2022

The choices of the images in the infobox is so much inferior. Why vidyasagar Setu is there while howrah bridge is present? Two bridges at the same time? Add more pictures that makes the identity of Kolkata, like trams. Replace st. Cathedral with Kalighat temple as it is a hindu majority city and also it plays role in its nomenclature. Kolkata is famous for durga puja, got UNESCO title last year, you can add it too. Ku423winz1 (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.. Please also be specific in the image requests: exact file links to Wikimedia Commons would be beneficial. TGHL ↗ 🍁 02:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@User:TheGoodAndHolyLord Ku423winz1 (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Change cover photo

Please change the cover photo. It's not looking good. Give the cover photo of skyscrapers or Victoria Memorial. Manideepa Banik (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

Could somebody add pictures of some famous buildings in Kolkata here in the Profile Box? Like The 42, Forum Atmosphere, or maybe picture of the Kolkata skyline?

It would help to diversify the Internet traffic's and this page's view on the city. Ducky the editor (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Which picture? Lemonaka (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. @Ducky the editor: feel free to help find free images! Once they are uploaded to commons or enwiki, start a discussion here on the talk-page about which specific ones should go where. But I note that already 5 of the 8 pictures in the current infobox montage are of buildings in various ways, including File:Calcutta skyline.jpg that is (as its name indicates) the skyline. DMacks (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2023

Demographics Please replace Gujarati with Telugu as all the reliable sources, including Wikipedia and the official website of the West Bengal government confirm the claim that unlike Gujarati, Telugu is a co-official language having the population of around a lakh which like Gujarati people are mostly concentrated in Kolkata. Kannadigan (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide those sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Kolkata gdp (2023)

Kolkata gdp is near 190- 200 billion $ in 2023. 2405:201:9000:AF07:88CB:D5C0:288E:A4FF (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I am also eager to know the new gdp as the present data is of 2016. Do you have proper reference?? Please provide it. Ku423winz1 (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

USD - INR conversion outdated

in the economy subpart, last line, it is written "...live on less than ₹27 (45 US cents) per day..."

due to inflation, 27₹ = 33% if a dollar = 33 cents. Unnunoctium (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Change "three centuries" phrase in intro

The text currently says that the British ruled Kolkata for three centuries following 1757, meaning until 2057. "Nearly two centuries" would be better 104.13.59.103 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Etymology of Kolkata

The world Calcutta might have come from a vacation of Calicut 117.200.230.189 (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, This might be. Please cite reliable source proving the claim & your requested edit would be done. Sarangem (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

The GDP mentioned about Kolkata on kolata's Wikipedia page are earlier figures and the site also described Kolkata area as 4888 sq.km, but the actual size is 4888 sq.km, so it misses some important areas to Cound. The 150 billion USD figure has shown in different sites for several years. The actual figure was 150 billion USD(PPP) in 2017. Please give permission for edit. Akash0075 (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2023

Kolkata area is 4888 Rooon Rupp (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC) kolkata area is 4888

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Rooon Rupp: What is your reliable source for this 150% grown in the city's area? —C.Fred (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)