Jump to content

Talk:Bangalore

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sasinfo (talk | contribs) at 18:00, 9 April 2007 (Is this inappropriate?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleBangalore is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 2, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 24, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Template:Mergefromganeshbot Template:V0.5 Archives: 1, 2

Area

This pertains to the area of Bangalore mentioned in the article as 1280 sq. km. However, the area for Mumbai states it is about 498 sq. km. If this is so, why is Bangalore ranked smaller in size than Mumbai? Am I missing something? - Vayu 12:25, 28 Apr 2006 (UTC)

The definition of large and small is with regards to population, not city area size. AreJay 13:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Geography section, the conversions between sq km and sq mi are incorrect. It looks like a factor of 1.6 was used to covert, but the proper factor is 2.56 because we're talking about area rather than linear distance. I didn't edit the page because I don't know which of the figures given are correct: the sq km or the sq mi. Lkunz 16:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent information on literacy rate

This article claims that Bangalore has the second highest literacy of 80-odd% after Mumbai, and the article on Mumbai says the literacy rate there is 77%. Could we have a source for Bangalore's literacy rate and for the fact that it is the second highest in the country? Cribananda 03:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to fix it. --Blacksun 14:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The data for literacy in the Bangalore article was taken from here, which itself is sourced from the 2001 Census of India. The map shows Mumbai's literacy rate to be 86.4% and Mumbai (Suburban) to be 86.9%. It also shows Bangalore's literacy rate to be 83%. Appropriate modifications to the Mumbai article may be needed. I will look into that some later today. AreJay 14:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population rank

The population rank shows up with the population density. I'm not sure how to change this. - Cribananda 07:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you'd want to remove that. But, if one has to do that you need to remove the line "population_metro_rank = 5th |" from the article text. The code at {{Infobox Indian urban area}} roughly reads like "if the rank is available, display it there". I can do it if you tell why you'd want to change that. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May be I wasn't clear the first time. I don't want to remove it, but when the rank appears with the population density, it seems as if Bangalore has the 5th highest density of population. The way it should be (and the way it used to be) is that the rank showed up next to the population number. I hope you get the idea. Like here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangalore&oldid=55684170 Thanks. Cribananda 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh got it now. I've fixed it. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - Cribananda 08:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communal conflict

It seems to me that the information on the Kaveri and Urdu news riots would be better placed in the "History" section than the "Demographics" section. Just a small suggestion. -- Arvind 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveri to the north of Bangalore?

It is written in the article that the rivers Arkavati and Kaveri cross paths at Nandi Hills, which is to the north of Bangalore. Kaveri nowhere appears north of Bangalore. It is far down south. Arkavati beings in the Nandi hills and I believe it joins Kaveri somewhere near Kokkrebellur.

You're right. Kaveri dosen't flow anywhere near Bangalore. This has been corrected in the article now. Thanks AreJay 14:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Statesman!

No offense to anyone, but does Rajkumar really need to appear as a statesman. Inasmuch as I fully appreciate the effect of Rajkumar on Bangalore culture (much to my dismay), he really wasn't any more than an actor. Do we really need to acknowledge his absent "statesmanship"?

I just removed a reference to his picture, as it is irrelevant to the article, and his passing away happened some time ago. --Vivek 20:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rv'ed the deletion because I meant to capture an image of Bangalore-based media (in this case Deccan Herald). Whether or not Rajkumar was in the article that appeared is immaterial. A screenshot of a Deccan Herald frontpage will suit just as well as a screenshot from any other paper or magazine.
Fair enough. --Vivek 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal for Silicon Valley of India

* I don't see the rationale for having a separate article about the above, as "Silicon Valley of India" is said to refer to the city of Bangalore itself (so it is different from the original Silicon Valley (which strangely, the article does not link to or even mention) or areas such as Silicon Fen, which are unique names referring to the regions which are not identifiable as a grouped area in any other way). The phrase is also different from Big Apple, New York's nickname, as "Big Apple" is unique and has its own original history of creation. "Silicon Valley of India" has simply been coined to compare Bangalore to Silicon Valley, California. Also, the information going into the Silicon Valley of India article could easily go into the Bangalore article itself, or possibly an article entitled High technology industry of Bangalore. Mentioning the Silicon Valley of India nickname is fine, I just don't see how it belongs as the name of its own article since its not a unique name, and it apparently just describes Bangalore. Bwithh 23:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonment in History Section

Is such a detailed description about the history of cantonment required in History section?. It makes the history section very long. I suppose that can be moved to a seperate article. Sumanthk 11:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the recent addition to the history section, let me inform that I've reverted the copyright violation. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity

Electricity in Bangalore is provided by BESCOM which buys it from KPTCL, not directly by KPTCL

Dr. Raj Kumar a Statesman?

A statesman does not have to be a politician, academician or someone with great educational degrees. A statesman can be someone who brings the masses together for a unique cause while maintaining a clean image about himself. But eventually, it depends on how one views the word statesman. In this case to me it simply means "A Man who is undoubtedly the Pride of the State".

Dinesh Kannambadi


He was an actor; if all actors all listed as statesmen, it would be one big list!--Fishysushi 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed following Links

indiaroads.mapunity.org
bangalore-city.blogspot.com Bangalore City Blog
hosuronline.com/update/weather/changelocation.asp?code=INXX0012

The purpose of External Links is to provide sources and other points of reference related to the topic. None of the listed above websites do so, they are all adverts for the individual websites. Fail to see how these are usefell in informing people about Bangalore. Pastor Linu 05:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the External links due to above reason 125.22.42.178 03:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temples

I just rv'ed these edits, because they don't conform with Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. However, I do think a list of temples in Bangalore may be useful, and I recommend that the user create a separte List of temples in Bangalore article and link that back to the main article. Thanks AreJay 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass media

Is Deccan herald the largest circulated newspaper in Bangalore ?? I doubt it. As per the most recent surveys, TOI emerges as the newspaper with the largest circulation. Aditi.

Can you provide (preferably non-TOI) sources supporting this claim? We can then effectively make changes to the mass media section. Thanks AreJay 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it Bengalooru

I Think the government is planning to name Bangalore to Bengalooru ,(not Bengaluru),in accordance with the pronounciation in Kannada.Akshay

If you have a citation which supports this, please provide. As per the current citation added in the article, it is Bengaluru. - KNM Talk - Contribs 15:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had read that in the newspaper "Times of India" ,If you want i could search for the date Akshay

It's official. Bangalore now has a new name. It is time we update to reflect this new name. I saw on a debate as to what to name Venice. In India, Indian cities are the same for any language, whether you speak Hindi, Tamil, or English. So, I support renaming the "Bangalore" page to Bengalooru. We should also replace words stating "Bangalore" to "Bengalooru." And Bangalore should only be mentioned as a refernce to the city's former name. User:amitroy5

It is pronounced Bengalooru. The article mentiones the name as Bengalūru (with a ū instead of u) which I suppose takes care of the longish 'oo' but it may lead to confusion. I vote for Bengalooru, as there is no confusion. But in newspapers, it is still referred to as Bengaluru -- WikiCheng | Talk 08:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore meetup

Photo: Tipu sultans palace


Bengaluru

Let's move on with the official changes. It's Bengaluru in English as well. Please read the link [2]. I don't think we need to world to tell us what is right and wrong when it's already official. Once it goes on Wikipedia, the users will accept it anyway. Let's us not forget that this voting business is bogus, leaving out the common man on the streets with no access to Wikipedia whose wishes have been fulfilled. We don't need people from all over the world to tell us if Bangaluru is right or wrong. Isn't the whole idea of changing the name meant to send a signal to the world we are asserting our identity? Dineshkannambadi 14:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not official yet. Still 45 days to go. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I left some comments at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics#Article name updates for some Cities of Karnataka. The upshot is that the "official" name has nothing to do with what we use on Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia is not necessarily a place for the views of the "common man" to be expressed, at least in article titles. Please get a consensus in favor of the move before moving the page. Thanks! --Xiaopo (Talk) 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I moved it back. The proposed move has only been discussed around a day now, and nobody's even sure what the new spelling is. Also, moving the page totally broke the dab link at the top. Build up a consensus over at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics#Article name updates for some Cities of Karnataka and then move it. That's the wiki-way. ;-) --Xiaopo (Talk) 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion about the name. While Bangaluru or any other spelling with diacritic marks are not official, the correct spelling might be Bengaluru or Bengalooru. U. R. Ananthamurthy had suggested the latter, but apparently the Chief Minister chose the former (upon which Dr. U. R. Ananthamurthy reported to the government that the name might need to be changed again), but on November 1st, many newspapers published that the new name of Bangalore is Bengalooru. Can someone confirm with proper links what the correct spelling is? Thanks.

Also, wouldn't most of you think that 'implement the name change _from_ November 1st' seems a better way to put it rather than using _on_ ? -- Abhijitpai 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "on" is better. But maybe Indian English is different US English, where implement is used to mean "start" in such contexts.

Since people are still moving this, I'd like to point out that not even the Indian media are using "Bengaluru." The Hindu has used both "Bangalore" and "Gulbarga" in the last few days [3] [4]. So does the Times of India [5]. Same with Business Standard [6]. As for the foreign media, Forbes [7] and Reuters [8]. Meanwhile, let's all keep in mind that the name change hasn't even been implemented yet [9]. --Xiaopo (Talk) 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • it seems it is Bengalooru, not Bengaluru: [10]. Does anyone know which one is the official one? User:Atanamir


  • It is not Bengaluru untill the Central Government approves it. It is incorrect to change it untill it is decided for sure. This is a moot issue and don't change anything on the page untill there is a consensus. Tu160m 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

history section

The History section is quite large. Since the article is already at 49 Kb, I was thinking of keeping just a summary of the history in this article and moving the details to a separate article. I will wait to hear opinions from other editors before making any big changes. --ashwatha 10:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the History section as it stands as of now is actually a summary of the History of Bangalore article. The History of Bangalore article was initially a part of the Bangalore article. To conform to Wikipedia:Summary style requirements during WP:FAC, the history section was condenced and brought to its current state and a separate "History of Bangalore" article was created with the original material. AreJay 18:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it could easily be summarized more tightly; most such summaries are a paragraph or two. Does Garden City of India belong in this article, for example? Septentrionalis 18:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I think we need to be very careful as to what to retain and what to move to the other article. Personally, I think this is as concise a summary as I think I've come up with without having to leave out important historical information. For example, the Garden City of India is important because prior to Bangalore becoming what it is today to the rest of the country, it was famously referred to as the Garden City. It is part of Bangalore's history and the moniker is still popular among locals and folks from other parts of the country. AreJay 21:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ah, ok..yesterday, I saw the link to the non-existent History of Bengaluru as the main article in the history section of this article. So I assumed that a separate article did not exist. My bad... I see that someone has corrcted this link in the article too. Thanks! --ashwatha 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The citation for the statement that the Marathas sold Bengaluru to Chikkadevaraja in 1687 is: "The Mughal Throne", Abraham Eraly, Phoenix, London, Great Britain, 2004 (ISBN 0 75381 758 6), Incidental Data, page 538. Will someone please record it in the edit I have just made to the text? Thanks. Kanchanamala 06:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the citation. In the future you can do the same by enclosing the citation between <ref> and </ref>. Please see WP:CITE for further info. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Kanchanamala 22:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore news aggregator

After placing a link on the Bangalore page and having it reverted by an editor, I would like to propose here that a link to a website called Bangalore Buzz (at [[11]], be placed in the External Links section of the Bangalore page. While KNM informs me that links to blogs are frowned on, I suggest that an exception be made for this site, as its content is composed entirely of news articles about Bangalore, reprinted from newspapers; it does not contain any personal opinion (except editorials that were printed in the newspapers). It has proven a valuable resource to me as I research Bangalore for a book I'm writing, and I believe others would benefit from knowing about it. Thanks. MarkPritchard 03:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that link. For starters, even though that blog doesnt cite any personal opinions, it is a hopelessly biased blog. Most of its 'content' is gleaned heavily from the Times of India and many a time quotes articles selectively. It deliberately doesnt quote articles that give both sides of a story and even when it does gives disproportionate coverage to the POV of the blog owner. For example even in cases like the name change, BMIC controversy, the schools controversy etc., the blog heavily quotes only articles that criticise(many a time ad hominem) the government, its policies and many times even 'kannadigas'.
That blog is hopelessly biased and serves no purpose on WP. Even its opening lines,
Point to Ponder -
What do you call a congenial, captivating, cosmopolitan confluence of software and shopping malls, electronics and environment [snip] ....cities for business, December 1998. Does Bangalore resemble any of this today?
and its quote of Kennedy shows the biased nature and POV of the blog.
Who is to guarantee that the blog owner will not start adding his own comments too in the future? And who will keep a watch on such things?


And in any case, I think WP's policy about blogs is clear. A blog is a blog is a blog is a blog. Sarvagnya 21:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it Bengalooru?

See articles:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8148630
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8139874
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8345066
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/off_cuff/10087162.html

The Economist has adopted the name Bengalooru:
"The capital of the state of Karnataka, home to Wipro and Infosys among others, has changed its name to Bengalooru, following the lead set by Mumbai (Bombay), Kolkata (Calcutta) and Chennai (Madras)."
"They have every right to do so, of course, and it seems discourteous not to use their new names if they expressly ask you to. That is why The Economist adopts Myanmar, Côte d'Ivoire, Kyrgyzstan, Timor-Leste and now Bengalooru (see article) too. But it rankles, for several reasons."

Yet some other newspapers claim it's Bengaluru.

So is it Bengalooru or Bengaluru? This is ridiculous. Why don't people know for sure? --128.135.36.150 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought on WP:INB we all supported a move to Bengalooru.Bakaman 04:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is pronounced Bengalooru. The article mentiones the name as Bengalūru (with a ū instead of u) which takes care of the longish 'oo' but it may lead to confusion. I vote for Bengalooru, as there is no confusion. But in newspapers, it is still referred to as Bengaluru which is actually wrong. (Problem with non phonetic languages? :-) ). The newpapers don't care a hoot as long as they have something to print. -- WikiCheng | Talk 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It is only 'correct' as Bengalooru if you assume that 'oo' is consistently the long 'u' sound in English, which it is not (e.g. door, food, poor). If it is written Bengalooru you can be certain that many non-Indian English speakers, and most speakers of other languages written in Latin characters will pronounce it with the long 'o', instead of the long 'u'. At least with Bengaluru, the main problem will be with the length of the vowel. BTW, Google indicates that Bengaluru is more widely used than Bengalooru. Imc 10:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding another 'o' and make it Bengaloooru ? No confusion here. ;-). IMHO, a 'oo' in an unfamiliar word is generally taken to be the long 'u' and hence Bengalooru would be more correct (?!) than Bengaluru whereas Bengalūru is the perfect word when you know how to pronounce 'ū'. I am only against writing Bengalūru as Bengaluru which invariably gets pronounced with a short u --WikiCheng | Talk 14:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Page

Now that the name change is completed and official, there is little reason not to move the page. Hope there is a consensus this time. 155.69.5.234 20:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - its official.Bakaman 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That request has failed. Gene Nygaard 05:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new name Bengaluru should be reflected in the article and elsewhere in Wikipedia.Kanchanamala 09:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposal to rename Bangalore and move the page to Bengaluru.Kanchanamala 04:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed already. Please see Name updates for cities of Karnataka.The change will be done once the new name is widely used. Sumanth 06:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the change of name is complete and official, why wait for the new name to be widely used? It should be quite proper to move the page to Bengaluru ASAP.Kanchanamala 07:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read in Times of India that the state govt is waiting for the central govt to approve the rename. Hence the rename is not yet completely official -- WikiCheng | Talk 08:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiCheng, as soon as the new name officially replaces the old name, and if you come to know of it before any one of us does, please let us know.Kanchanamala 03:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will. I depend on the newspapers anyway. It is unlikely that I will come to know of it before any of you do :-) -- WikiCheng | Talk 03:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be Bengalooru, it's been widely accepted as the new name AFAIK.Deejaylobo 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)deejaylobo[reply]


Whichever spelling is officially accepted, that's the spelling Wikipedia should use. Let's wait and see. Kanchanamala 00:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen online, the major newspapers still seem to be using Bangalore. =\ deejaylobo 12:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses, will ya?Kanchanamala 07:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until such time as the "Bengalooru" becomes more commonly recognised than "Bangalore" by native English-speakers. This might take years, or might never happen at all. Meanwhile, the English-language WP ought keep the name more useful to its readership: Bangalore. -- Lonewolf BC 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the same reasons as above. We commonly have articles at "obsolete" names, if that name is more common in English. For example, Corfu is the old Italian name for the island now called Kerkyra, but we're not going to move it, because "Corfu" is still the more common English name. --Delirium 11:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shall cross the bridge when we come to it. Wiki Cheng is on the lookout.Kanchanamala 09:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person thee posts above mentioned he oppses it until it becomes "more commonly recognized." However, we cannot forget that this city will soon have a new official name. Also, we should use the correct modern name of the city. So, we can always redirect Bangalore. And who defines the "official English word?" India has English as one of its official languages, so the country has the right to call what its cities are. When the name change becomes official, then we should change the article name. Otherwise, we are just promoting false information. Just becomes something is popular doesn't mean is correct.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.74.3 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 12 January 2007.

I suppose that it is official when the state government changes (or at least initiates the change of) all its name boards, letterheads etc and starts using Bengaluru in all its correspondence. As this has not happened, we can keep the name as Bangalore till it happens. Frankly, I don't think it matters if the name of the page is Bangalore and Bengaluru is redirected to Bangalore or the other way round, as long the page contents are the same. I don't think it amounts to 'promoting false information'. Nobody is denying that the name is proposed to be changed (and in the process of being changed) to Bengaluru. The Wikipedia article clearly states However, the name change still has to be approved by the central government, a process that is expected to take a few months. -- WikiCheng | Talk 05:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, my friends, patience. Let's wait. Wiki Cheng is on the lookout.Kanchanamala 10:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Let's make the move now. The current issue of "News India-Times" of New York dated January 26, 2007, says that "Bangalore officially became Bengaluru a few months ago" [page 2].Kanchanamala 04:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose - I oppose of changing the name now. The Government of Karnataka officially announced the new name, and recommended to the Central Government for the name change. This is not yet approved/declared by the Central Government. Any how, the name change is a sure bet, which is going to be declared soon. The delay is due to the technical procedures of the Government missionaries. So, I suggest to wait till the official declaration is given by the Central Government.
Remember, the new name is officially recommended and announced by the State Government, but not yet implemented.
The Government sites are still using the name Bangalore. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 07:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In any case, saying something like Bangalore (officially known as Bengaluru in English) is extremely confusing and irritating. It sounds like I am reading a Wikipedia in some other language with the name of the city in English in parenthesis. I'm going to change it to also called. Cribananda 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the Government of India approves this change or not, the article should stay at Bangalore. The Government of India does not have the right to dictate to English-speakers around the world what its cities should be called, nor does any other Government. English has no regulatory body, so these things are determined by custom and use. If and when "Bengaluru" becomes more commonly used than "Bangalore" in English, whether in India or elsewhere, then the page can be moved, but not until then - that is Wikipedia policy. It is also common sense. Sikandarji 08:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajith Mohan: The newspaper report, it seems, is inaccurate. Your suggestion is reasonable. I now think that we should make the change when the Government of Karnataka and the Post Office start using the new name.Kanchanamala 09:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cribananda: You are not the King of Siam, and we are not your subjects.Kanchanamala 09:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At your feet, your highness...now, what was your bloody point anyway? You don't seem to have changed anything Cribananda 07:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sikandarji: Who the hell do you think you are anyway. Stop talking rubbish.Kanchanamala 09:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Cheng: Please continue to be on the lookout. Thanks.Kanchanamala 10:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support : Sikandar's comment is as impertinent as it is nonsense. What a city is called is most certainly decided by elected governments. It is not like, all the english speaking junta of the world got together and hit upon a name for Bengaluru! If Bengaluru was being called 'Bangalore', it is simply and only because that is what the govt., called it. Now if the govt., wants to call it Bengaluru, then that is what it will be called. If somebody doesnt like it, too bad that their opinions count for squat.

As for the "let it become common" pitch, I'd like to point to Pondicherry --> Puducherry. I dont think that anyone contests the fact that Pondicherry is infinitely more popular than Puducherry among those who speak English(and those who do not). So we have a precedent there and I am sure there might be several others where the article is named not after what is 'supposedly' 'more widely used', rather after what the 'correct'(politically correct, if i may) term is. Sarvagnya 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....which is also incorrect and in contravention of Wikipedia policy, as was moving the Calcutta page to "Kolkata". If what a city or country is called were decided by elected governments we would have "Köln" and not "Cologne", "München" and not Munich, "Torino" and not "Turin", "Deutschland" and not Germany. Bangalore is called Bangalore because that is how the English version of the Kannada name evolved - it was never imposed by Government diktat. Call it whatever you like in Kannada - in English it will be Bangalore until English-speakers switch to "Bengaluru", and even in India I don't see that happening any time soon. Sikandarji 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sikandarji, your comments belie the dignity of the school where you say you are a student. The country where you study does not give you the right to tell the rest of the world how to spell their names in the English language. The arrogance that you have betrayed in your comments will not earn you any respect. Shape up.Kanchanamala 02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Calm down, Kanchanamala. This has nothing to do with rights; as far as I know, anybody has the right to call any city whatever they want, regardless of what country they live in. The issue is what name the Wikipedia article is going to use. There is a guideline on this, and it's not "use official names," it's "use common names." We're supposed to use the title that the average person would type into Google, not whichever title the local government declares official. This, for example, is why we have the article under Czech Republic instead of Czechia, despite the fact that the latter is promoted by the Czech government as the official English name. Any official pronouncement by the Karnataka government is only relevant insofar as it influences common usage. --Xiaopo (Talk) 06:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one does not like the way you spell your name in English, and chooses to change it, will you like it? Bengaluru is a proper name which is not yours, and it shall be spelled that way by those to whom it belongs. If you still wish to argue your case, go before the Court at the Hague. I rest my case.Kanchanamala 10:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the page from the prominent daily Deccan Herald dated 24th Jan 2007 which clearly says that Bengalooru (or Bengalūru for that matter) is not yet official. Let us wait for it to be official -- WikiCheng | Talk 11:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sir. WikiCheng, thanks for the info. I, for one, do appreciate that you are on the lookout. I'll be interested to know how the P&T department spells the new name. Thanks again.Kanchanamala 11:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Uttaranchal was renamed with no problem. After all, this will also be the new official English term as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitroy5 (talk • contribs)

At the very least, this article should not be moved until there is some agreement about what the hell the new name is. john k 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Johnny, my boy, "what the hell" is the purpose of your outburst? Kanchanamala 13:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WikiCheng, can you ascertain if the postal department has started using the new name, and if the new name is reflected at the railroad station? Has Deccan Herald reported anything recently? Kanchanamala 02:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will. I don't think DC has anything newer than what I mentioned earlier -- WikiCheng | Talk 03:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of bangalore

How about moving lot of information from here to History of Bangalore and have few sentences here. It is too big now. If everybody agrees, I will do that. Mlpkr 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala

Hi,

The picture shows Kerala. Can someone please correct it?

Thanks, Anand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anand chandru (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Any why is the city called Kerala in the first sentence? Kerala is a state in south india and has nothing to do with Bengaluru/Bangalore. Daniel

It was some vandal, I suppose. It has been corrected -- WikiCheng | Talk 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Per Capita Income

The article mentions the per capita income as Rs 2.9 lakh. I think this is only for a particular section of the population.

The per capita income in Bangalore Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore_statistics is US$ 1,110.03

--Neohacks 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


also the net district income is 26259 crores and not 260259 crores as given in the article.....the source verifies it....

goram_vlad 10.30. 15 feb 2007

Intro Pic Needed

This page depseratley needs an intro pic. Every city has one.

Below are some other cities that have similar intro pictures Shanghai, new york city, dubai, london, paris, beijing, taipei, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore City, frankfurt....i can go on and on!

Can someone please find (or take) a pic of Bangalore that can be used as an intro pic. This can be a landmark in the city like the white government building. Since I live in the US, i cant really setp outside and click a pic of Bangalore.

Please add ur pic here:

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was A parallel poll was held at the same time, see below. Duja► 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore → Bengaluru — The city has officially changed its name as of today. There is precedent for this as Bombay redirects to that city's new name Mumbai. Chris Quackenbush 08:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

(Note: All opinions on this from throughout the talk-page that have been posted since the "Requested move" opened on 1 Nov 2006 have been consolidated here by copying them from wherever they were originally placed -- mostly the "Move Page" section. -- Lonewolf BC 09:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC), ed.)[reply]

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support It's official. Bangalore now has a new name. It is time we update to reflect this new name. I saw on a debate as to what to name Venice. In India, Indian cities are the same for any language, whether you speak Hindi, Tamil, or English. So, I support renaming the "Bangalore" page to Bengalooru. We should also replace words stating "Bangalore" to "Bengalooru." And Bangalore should only be mentioned as a refernce to the city's former name. amitroy5 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Lets move on with the official changes. Its Bengaluru in English as well. Please read the link [12]. I dont think we need to world to tell us what is right and wrong when its already official. Once it goes on wikipedia, the users will accept it anyway. Lets us not forget that this voting business is bogus, leaving out the common man on the streets with no access to wikipedia whose wishes have been fulfilled. We dont need people from all over the world to tell us if Bangaluru is right or wrong. Is'nt the whole idea of changing the name meant to send a signal to the world we are asserting our identity.Dineshkannambadi 14:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Now that the name change is completed and official, there is little reason not to move the page. Hope there is a consensus this time. 155.69.5.234 20:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - its official.Bakaman 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support The new name Bengaluru should be reflected in the article and elsewhere in Wikipedia.Kanchanamala 09:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support [Lonewolf BC] mentioned he oppses it until it becomes "more commonly recognized." However, we cannot forget that this city will soon have a new official name. Also, we should use the correct modern name of the city. So, we can always redirect Bangalore. And who defines the "official English word?" India has English as one of its official languages, so the country has the right to call what its cities are. When the name change becomes official, then we should change the article name. Otherwise, we are just promoting false information. Just becomes something is popular doesn't mean is correct. [User:68.111.74.3|68.111.74.3] 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support The city's official name should be used [User:83.189.3.85|83.189.3.85] 17:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support What a city is called is most certainly decided by elected governments. It is not like, all the english speaking junta of the world got together and hit upon a name for Bengaluru! If Bengaluru was being called 'Bangalore', it is simply and only because that is what the govt., called it. Now if the govt., wants to call it Bengaluru, then that is what it will be called. If somebody doesnt like it, too bad that their opinions count for squat. As for the "let it become common" pitch, I'd like to point to Pondicherry --> Puducherry. I dont think that anyone contests the fact that Pondicherry is infinitely more popular than Puducherry among those who speak English(and those who do not). So we have a precedent there and I am sure there might be several others where the article is named not after what is 'supposedly' 'more widely used', rather after what the 'correct'(politically correct, if i may) term is. Sarvagnya 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose Not yet. The question is, by WP:NAME, which name is most readily used and recognized by the whole English-speaking world, including India. Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Use common names in English. A tie-breaker giving preference to the official name when "common" is unclear is legitimate, and this is what was used to move Bombay to Mumbai, after Mumbai had caught on. If and when Bengaluru becomes commonly used in English (even if it doesn't quite surpass Bangalore), I'd support a move, but the day of its official renaming seems premature. --Delirium 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Use English.--Húsönd 03:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Stick with the common most searched name for now especially since there is no evidence the English usage will change with the Hindi name change just as Bombay and Calcutta have remained the most searched for those respective cities. Gateman1997 08:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose "Bangalore" is by far the most widely recognised name for the city in English, and this is English wikipedia. Moscow not Moskva, Florence not Firenze, Germany not Deutschland - need I go on? The recent "name-change" is irrelevant. Kannada-speakers will continue to call the city "Bengaluru" as they have always done, English-speakers and people from elsewhere in India will call it "Bangalore" as they have always done. The Karnataka State government has no power to impose a particular form of the name on anyone.Sikandarji 14:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - as the name is Bengalooru according to [13]; (see section above). Is there one single authoritative source for the name? Government of Bangalore/Bengalooru/Bengaluru? atanamir 09:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose A recent name change is irrelevant. Curious as to why this hasn't been closed as failed? Gene Nygaard 01:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose This name change hasn't been concluded. It has been approved by the state government only. That does not mean the change is confirmed. The public has to vote. The Central Government has to decide and the President has to approve the change. This process will take at least 6 months. Until then, the name is Bangalore. There is no point arguing whether or not there should be a change in article name. Tu160m 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I don't support any of the name changes, as it is a waste of money, and if Gandhi and Nehru didn't think of changing the names, then why should it happen now? There has been very little effort made to change the name of the city by any of its institutions, and they may still revert back to the old name. --w2ch00 18:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose until such time as the "Bengalooru" becomes more commonly recognised than "Bangalore" by native English-speakers. This might take years, or might never happen at all. Meanwhile, the English-language WP ought keep the name more useful to its readership: Bangalore. -- Lonewolf BC 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose As of now, a redirect from Bengalooru to Bangalore should suffice. Later, when it (the name) becomes as famous as Mumbai or Chennai, we can move and put a redirect from Bangalore to Bengalooru (or Bengaluru, whichever we agree upon) -- WikiCheng | Talk 13:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I oppose the changing of name now. The Government of Karnataka officially announced the new name, and recommended to the Central Government for the name change. This is not yet approved/declared by the Central Government. Any how, the name change is a sure bet, which is going to be declared soon. The delay is due to the technical procedures of the Government missionaries. So, I suggest to wait till the official declaration is given by the Central Government. Remember, the new name is officially recommended and announced by the State Government, but not yet implemented. The Government sites are still using the name Bangalore. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me...) :-) 07:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Hi, the discussion has already been going on in Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics#Article_name_updates_for_some_Cities_of_Karnataka as, this is not just applicable for Bangalore/Bengaluru alone, but also for several other cities of Karnataka.
Please participate in the discussion here - KNM Talk 08:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on the India topics Noticeboard page. This issue is being discussed in front of a bigger audience there. Please refrain from voting here and duplicating effort. Sarvagnya 03:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The English-language Economist is using the new spelling "Bengalooru." --128.135.36.150 21:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For more discussion on this, which took place during this "Requested move" debate, see the sections "Bengaluru" and "Move Page" on this talk-page -- Lonewolf BC 08:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC), ed.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Aftermath

OK, here is what happened: the poll above was opened after a wider poll on renaming was held here. I closed that poll as "move all", with an appropriate edit summary pointing to that poll. Since the entire moving job was fairly exhaustive, I probably missed this poll as well and it seems to have remained opened, and I unlisted it from the WP:RM page routinely. Apparently, people were lazy to check out what happened (and my move summary) and simply moved it back, and several other articles likewise in an avalanche fashion.

Now, since the dust apparently didn't settle, I think the only viable option is to close whatever polls were left around and start afresh; continuing 3-months old polls is a fairly bad idea. I invite anyone interesting to start a new, fresh, WP:RM so that consensus can be determined (and I won't touch it with a pole). Duja► 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "result of the debate" -- that is, of this "Requested move" debate -- was that consensus to move the page failed, and there was a clear majority for keeping it at "Bangalore". Although there may have been a parallel, omnibus survey-and-discussion, and although it may have had a differing verdict, and although that may explain why, back in November, you moved the page and delisted it from "Requested moves", that does not affect the outcome of of this discussion-and-survey. Please change your statement of "The result of the debate..." to reflect the actual result of this debate. -- Lonewolf BC 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a bleeding mess: I think that I now see why, on 7 November, you moved the page contrary to the consensus here (then as now), minutes later delisted it at "Requested moves", but left the discussion here open (and, I assume, unknown to you). This discussion was opened by one party, with the usual listing at "Requested moves", properly linked to the discussion here. Afterward, the "Discuss" link in the listing was improperly re-routed to the omnibus discussion. -- Lonewolf BC 21:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: I wasn't even aware about this poll at the time. Now, the "other" poll was a close call as well (somewhere between "move" and "no consensus"). This article ended up, one way or another, at "Bangalore" so there's no need to exercise WP:BURO and mess with poll results post mortem. Since "no consensus" is apparently demonstrated at least by frequent moving back and forth, I guess it's best to leave the things as they are at the moment. Duja► 07:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the omnibus discussion, at "Wikipedia talk:Indian Wikipedians' notice board" (as it was then called) was begun marginally earlier, and seemingly independently of this one. Neither Bangalore nor any of the other cities concerned were listed at "Requested moves" at that time, nor ever, with respect to that discussion (with the arguable exception of Bangalore, and that only through the "re-routing" of the link in its RM listing). That was okay as far as it goes, because none of the proposed moves needed admin assistance at that time. However, there were no discussions on any of the other article talk-pages concerned, nor even any postings thereon giving notice of the omnibus discussion. In other words, there was no indication on the talk-pages of the affected articles themselves that the moves were under omnibus discussion (with the exception of Bangalore, where the discussion began separately from the omnibus discussion). This was simply not an open and proper way of going about things, and it ensured that the discussion was heavily skewed toward Indian editors, whose support for the moves was essentially just a denial of WP:NC. Although there may have been more votes of support than opposition, the secretive way the omnibus discussion was carried out (whether or not the secrecy was intentional), and the illegitimate nature of the arguments in favour, render its prima facie outcome invalid. No pages ought ever have been moved on the basis of the omnibus discussion. -- Lonewolf BC 08:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit RV

I just rv'ed an edit that changed the lead text from "proposed to be renamed to Bengaluru" to "Renamed to Bengaluru". My understanding is that there is still a process under way that requires the Central Government to accept Karnataka's proposal to rename the city; until such time, the city's name officially remains Bangalore. However, if this is incorrect, please rv back to the other version and provide appropriate in-line citations supporting the change. Thanks AreJay 01:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

I feel I must explain some of the recent edits on my part to new users and regular contributors alike; Bangalore is a Featured Article and one of the first among a line of steadily growing Indian city featured articles. As such, Indian city featured articles are required to follow convention outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. This includes maintaining sections in Wikipedia:Summary style format and refraining from using "Fair Use" images unless absolutely necessary. My recent edits included reverting the Economy and Tranport sections to bring them in conformity with Wikipedia's Summary style and Wikipedia Indian Cities project guidelines as well as removing where possible, images that were not in public domain or licensed under CreativeCommons. Comments welcome. AreJay 03:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed to districtify

Hello Bangalorians. I need one of you to do me favor. I work on wikitravel [14] and we need to districtify Bangalore, i.e. split it up into 5-9 districts. If any one of you could help me, I'd be extremely grateful. The district names should sound natural and cover the entire city. You can contact me at any of the following -

Thanks — Upamanyuwiki 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this inappropriate?

I have added following links to the external links, some anonymous author is repeatedly removing this links..Are the following topics not relevant to this page on Bangalore?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangalore&oldid=121468109"