Talk:Khambhat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Cities / Gujarat / History (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indian cities (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
An image has been requested for this article. Please remove the image-needed and in parameters once the image is added.

Requested move to Cambay per WP:EN[edit]

KhambhatCambay – Cambay is 5.5 times more common in English according to ngrams ([1]). Khambat has never been more common then Cambay. The only name that has is Cambaia (Portuguese), for a few years in the 1700s and 1904-1906. Cambaia has had almost no use in English since 1950, so it should not be the title. Cambay (https://www.google.com/search?q=cambay&oq=cambay&aqs=chrome..69i57.846j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#q=cambay&tbm=nws) has 525 news results for the past month, compared to Khambhat's (https://www.google.com/search?q=cambay&oq=cambay&aqs=chrome..69i57.846j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#tbm=nws&q=Khambhat) 4. One of those 4 results is Czech, and therefore doesn't count. Even if Khambhat is the official name, that doesn't matter for wiki purposes, see Ivory Coast  Relisted Andrewa (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Bobby Martnen (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, due to similar pages keeping their Indian names in past discussions. ONR (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Each case is unique. Cambay is clearly more common in English, so WP:EN clearly applies here. Bobby Martnen (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Is it more common for the present-day city, as opposed to the city in history? Andrewa (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The reason I checked news results is because they are almost always about current events, not historical events. Bobby Martnen (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Which past discussions in particular? Wikilinks and/or diffs please. Andrewa (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, each case is unique. I haven't looked at usage for this place, but I know that the reception of name changes in India generally has followed a different pattern each time, and the nominator makes a pretty convincing case. —innotata 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support DeistCosmos (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This would also be consistent with Cambay State, although that can be argued both ways... I wonder how many of the ngram hits refer to the history of the city? The article is focused on the present-day city. Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Google ngrams shows how many books a word has appeared in, not how many times a word appears in a book. (In other words, "Cambay" appearing 50 times in a book has the same affect as if it appeared once.) The fact that so many recent books mention "Cambay" but not "Khambhat" means that "Cambay" is still more common in English. If "Khambhat" had widespread English acceptance, it would be mentioned alongside "Cambay" in books. However, it is not. Bobby Martnen (talk) 00:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Disagree. Even if "Khambhat" had widespread English acceptance, it would not necessarily be mentioned alongside "Cambay", not at all. Any passing reference to Cambay would make the book a hit, but in those books in which the topic is old Cambay, the modern name would only be mentioned if there were at least some details given rather than just a passing mention. Andrewa (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I Disagree. If Cambay is the topic of any recent book, "Khambhat" would be mentioned, even if just in passing, which would still register as a hit. A modern book about the Ch'ing Dynasty that mentions Peking in passing would almost certainly include a note like (now known as Beijing) or something of the sort. Bobby Martnen (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
But the whole point here is that we are not talking only of books of which Cambay is the topic. We are also talking of ones in which it receives just a passing mention; These also appear as hits in the evidence cited, and the ngrams don't tell them apart. There may be a valid argument here concerning the parallel to Beijing, but it's mixed up with this invalid one. Would you like to try to disentangle them? Andrewa (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I may have been ambiguous here. By books in which the topic is old Cambay I mean all those that at least mention this topic, rather than just those that focus on it and give at least some details. The topic to which I refer is that of a passage in the book rather than necessarily that of the whole book. I thought that was clear, but obviously it wasn't. Andrewa (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
A passing mention of a place where the historical name differs from the common English name will still almost always mention the common English name. Oxford, the most accurate and complete English dictionary still uses Cambay, with Khambhat as an alternate, both in British and American English. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/Cambay-Gulf-of) and (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/Cambay-Gulf-of) but both say "Mumbai (Bombay)". This shows that If an Indian renaming has gained acceptance in English, it will be the primary name, but if it hasn't it will be mentioned as an alternate name. The same is true of dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Cambay?s=t). The Cambay Oil Fields have a website (https://www.oilex.com.au/our-projects/india/cambay-field) which contains information from this year. There is no mention of "Khambhat" anywhere on the site, even when talking about the geography of the region. (If this page is moved, then the article about the gulf should be moved too.) Bobby Martnen (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


  • Relisting comment: The possibility that the evidence above relates more to the city's history than to the article which is focused on the present-day city should be investigated IMO, also the claim by the one oppose to date that there are precedents against this move. I would not relist just for this latter reason, but together and in the light of the complication described at #Caution below I think it's justified. Andrewa (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's an article from 2009 with a map. Notice that Vadodara (on the map, not mentioned in the article) is not called "Baroda", but Cambay is still called "Cambay". (http://www.energy-pedia.com/news/india/gspc-to-tie-in-six-wells-at-tarapur-6-area) Bobby Martnen (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To develop Andrewa's comment above, it is not just the history of the region that needs to be considered. The names Cambay and Khambhat are used for several subjects, and there has been no attempt to discriminate between them when developing the above arguments. These subjects include the town (which this article is about) but also the bay, the history of the region, part of which is reflected in the article Cambay State, and the oilfields and associated projects in the bay. The history of the town and former princely state represent much of the book listings. The oilfields represent significant industry and are the subject of much media interest. A simple Google search for "Cambay town" in quotes brings 179 hits, "Cambay oil" brings almost 4k hits while Khambhat town produces 680. The argument for the move needs to show that the current usage for the town specifically is mostly for the name 'Cambay'. The one Gujarat government website I've looked at ([2]) as far as I can see use Khambhat only. Imc (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm actually Goan, but I lived in Cambay from 2003 to 2013 (I live in chicago now). When speaking English, natives of the city said "Cambay" virtually all the time. (And not just to Westerners, but too each other as well.) SitaramNaique (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - do we have a naming convention for Indian cities? And how is this different from Mumbai/Bombay? Guettarda (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia naming convention says: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage." "Cambay" is clearly the most common name in English. "Khambhat" may catch on eventually, but has not become more common than "Cambay" yet. The reason it is different for Bombay is because both of those cities are much more important, hence the name "Mumbai" will appear more frequently in news stories and travel guides, and become accepted into English much more quickly. Bobby Martnen (talk)
I was asking about whether there was an Indian-specific naming convention. As for common usage in English - the version of English that matters here is Indian English, correct? (As for Mumbai/Bombay, can you point to a specific point the archives of Talk:Mumbai where "accepted into English" was the rationale? The rationale for the page move, as far as I recall, had nothing to do with usage in English and everything to do with Mumbai being the 'proper name'. I might have missed something, but I can't find anything such in the archives.) Guettarda (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a bit mixed but in general WP:ENGVAR has usually carried the day in requested moves of this nature and what matters is the use in English in India, not what some paper in Chicago calls it. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Even in Indian English, "Cambay" is more common. (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Its-destination-Cambay-for-ex-babu-Sanjay-Gupta/articleshow/7624368.cms) (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Gujarat-learned-Chinese-paper-making-art-from-Arabs/articleshow/42702364.cms) (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Mausam-tidings-Heritage-wave-nears-Gujarat-coast/articleshow/38953645.cms) (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Mausam-to-link-10-Gujarat-sites-to-Indian-Ocean-world/articleshow/38948880.cms) (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Cambay) All of these articles are less than 2 months old. Bobby Martnen (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Caution[edit]

The target has a large and possibly significant history, which probably needs to be preserved for copyleft reasons. There's a worrying edit [3] in 2005 that may be an uncorrected cut-and-paste move. I can find no discussion regarding a merge if that is what it is. Either way the history is significant. Andrewa (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)