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 Yath (talk | contribs) at 22:06, 4 September 2007 (→Am I missing something?). 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:V0.5 Archives: 1, 2

Requested move (back to "Bangalore")

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was restore the established page name, which is Bangalore. A look through the deletion history of Bengaluru shows that the page was tagged as CSD-G6 and speedy deleted on August 23. This is a valid method for the uncontroversial reversal of a redirect, but extensive discussion in the archives, as well as the debate here, shows that this move was known to be a controversial change. Further, the redirect from the original title was altered upon the initiation of this discussion. This prevented any users from moving the page back themselves. It has been made clear by ArbCom that an RM discussion is not necessary to restore the original title in such a case. A future discussion may show a consensus in favor of changing the name of this article to Bengaluru, but the evidence here is that no such consensus has yet been reached. Everyone need not be happy with this close, but please respect the integrity of established titles and try to make yourself aware of previous discussions when thinking about renaming an article. Thank you. Dekimasuよ! 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I have some concerns about the recent move of the page from Bangalore to Bengaluru. It seems this was done by a user (User:Naveenpf) without any discussion or consensus. My concerns are:

  1. Although the Central Government has approved of the name change last week, there is no official communication in any government publication/website saying, for example, that "from today, Bangalore shall officially be called Bengaluru". The Government of Karnataka and Bangalore Municipal Corporation continue to use the name Bangalore on their websites. Moreover, news outlets published from the city itself viz. Deccan Herald still use "Bangalore" and not Bengaluru.
  2. According to this article in Deccan Herald, "Bangalore can officially junk its Raj nomenclature to become Bengalooru only after a final gazette notification is issued.", something that we do not have yet.
  3. Online versions of other encyclopedias that we love to hate (EB, Encarta etc.) have not changed the names of their articles about Bangalore.
  4. The "Requested move" thread (although it is about 8 months old now) on this talk page still has some good arguments for why the move should not be done yet. Please do go through them.
  5. Late addition: WP:NAME Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) suggests the use of a name that most English speakers all over the world would recognize, and "Bangalore" wins that game by a long shot. — Max 17:11, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

In light of this, I propose we restore status quo and move the article back to Bangalore, pending official announcements and acceptance of the changed name (atleast by major news services). I hope this will be alright. If you have any objections, I will be glad to answer them. Thank you, Max - You were saying? 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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.

In the interests of keeping the survey clear, though, please do not use use it as a place to argue against (or otherwise comment upon) the opinions of others. Please use the "Discussion" for that.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support a move back to Bangalore. Wait until official change. Better yet, wait until English usage reflects official change. — AjaxSmack 04:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, in accord with prevailing English usage. -- Lonewolf BC 06:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, as nominator. Reasons are outlined above, and in inline replies to the opposition. - Max - You were saying? 09:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per Lonewolf --Yath 09:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Let's stick to the more popular name, governments don't run this encyclopaedia. Most mainstream media, airlines, travel agencies, corporate websites all refer to the city as Bangalore. Even the state govt and central govt websites still refer to it as Bangalore (so much for being the official name). Until the name catches on, the article has to be called Bangalore, not Bengaluru, Bengalooru or Bangaluru. As for following the example of Chennai, Kolkata or Mumbai they all had this name change about a decade ago, so no point using that line of argument.Lotlil 19:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (See in "Discussion" for follow-ups.)
  6. Support - Per nom. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - wait until Bengaluru enters common usage.Hornplease 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support. No more evidence of usage in English now than there was at the last discussion, still on this page. We don't do official names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support The move was done ignoring consensus against the move. Wikipedia does not depend on Government edicts, rather on the society. Bangalore is in immensely popular usage than Bangaluru. When this name become popular replacing Bangalore, this article may be renamed. Parthi talk/contribs 08:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support — by far the most common and widely-used name and per above. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 08:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support The common name, not official name is used on Wikipedia. There are many articles on people who are known by nicknames and accordingly, the title of the page is their nickname if it is common. GizzaDiscuss © 10:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support change name back to Bangalore. Better yet, change it to Bangalore (Bengaluru) since I am an advocate for indigenous names and language preservation. However, official recognized name must be shown first, until it officially gets changed to Bengaluru, just like when Madras was changed officially to Chennai. Wiki Raja 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • just fyi - "Bengaluru" is official.[1][2]
    Sarvagnya, You're going to have to show me some proof that it is. Wiki Raja 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did u click on those links? Sarvagnya 23:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you still haven't shown me valid referenced sources that prove that Bengaluru is the official name. Wiki Raja 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, personally, I think we should wait until "Bengaluru" is common usage in English, rather than merely official. john k 17:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose - Well, its officially Bengaluru now. The initial announcement by the state government was made almost an year back. The central government has given its approval now. In the lines of articles Mumbai (and not Bombay), Chennai (and not Madras) and Kolkata (and not Calcutta), the article name should now be Bengaluru and NOT Bangalore. - KNM Talk 04:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (See in "Discussion" for follow-ups.)
  2. Oppose - That Deccan Herald link is from October 2006. Not sure why it is being passed around here. As the rediff link above shows, it is "officially" Bengaluru now. Also that 'online versions' of EB, Encarta is a bogus argument. EB and Encarta arent really 'online' encyclpedias like wikipedia. They are traditional encyclopedias which also have online editions and I dont think they're maintained everyday. They will change it when they make the changes and we dont have to wait for a green signal from them or anybody else. Sarvagnya 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (See in "Discussion" for follow-ups.)
  3. OpposeNaveenpf 05:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose the move back. Things like this dont always take a fixed route. There is really no gauge for what is the "popular name" and what is not. The central government has accepted it after the state government had proposed it and will notify on Nov 1st. Take the case of Bombay becoming Mumbai. How many people know that the Maharashtra state went ahead and notified without informing the central government and later sent the proposal to the centre. Lets give some credit to a more democratic approach taken by Karnataka of atleast submitting the proposal to the centre. I dont see any need to wait.Dineshkannambadi 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Calcutta gets more ghits than Kolkata. However since the official name (in english) in Kolkata, the name kolkata is used in en wiki. This is an analogous situation.Bakaman 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (See in "Discussion" for follow-ups.)
  6. Oppose, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Bengaluru is official now, along with a couple of other cities, which have got their named changed. Another example of this as a precedent on Wikipedia is the Cho Seung-Hui article, which was changed to Seung-Hui Cho because Cho was the family name. Whether it has entered into common usage or not is an irrelevant argument. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose - We do do official names. Note that Calcutta is five times more common than Kolkata on Google[3][4] but we put it where it belongs. At the official name. Let us try to be consistent on this encyclopaedia. Reginmund 06:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And I wonder how much wikipedia mirrors add to "Kolkata"'s bulk. skew it in favour of Kolkata! Sarvagnya 06:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Google hits take into account past historical usage. Google news, however, indicates whether the new name is in general use right now. I think we will notice very different results for Kolkata and Bengaluru. Hornplease 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First, there is just no metric(that we all can agree upon) to gauge 'general use' levels. Sencondly, we werent bothered about 'general use' until now. No reason why Bangalore should be an exception. Sarvagnya 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, in lines of Puducherry, Kolkata etc. Bangalore can very well sit in its official name of Bengaluru - ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits06:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose as per KNM. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose as per Dineshkannambadi and KNM. -- Naveen (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. oppose per Sarvagnya Iwazaki 会話。討論 06:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, per KNM and Sarvagnya, what more proof do you want? It is the government that decides the names places, NOT common usage. Also, to quote from WP:WWISG
    While traditional encyclopedias might be revised annually, current affairs articles, as well as older articles being edited, are updated thousands of times an hour.
    We don't wait an year to change things on Wikipedia. Leave Britannica to play the catch up game. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, if it's official, no need to wait. --Filip (§) 07:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Bangalore is officially Bengaluru. --Grubb 18:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The move to Bengaluru was done in opposition to consensus, so you don't really need a requested move to move it back. --Yath 09:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting on the "Oppose" of KNM)
With all due respect, since when has Rediff replaced official sources such as a government notification in a gazette? As for your second point, it is only because of the time factor that the articles have been known by their new names. Consider this - Bombay was renamed in 1995, Madras in 1996 and Calcutta on 1st January 2001. Wikipedia didn't even exist back then. In the meanwhile, the new names of these cities were officially changed and widely accepted in English usage. Hence, the articles began with their new names when Wikipedia was in its formative years. I'm sure if Bangalore's name had been changed then, we could've had an article with the new name a lot earlier, but that's not how the circumstances are, are they? - Max - You were saying? 09:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt see you cry hoarse about Pondicherry -->Puducherry. Or do you want me to believe that Puducherry is more popular among English speakers? Nor did I see you nitpick about a gazette notification on that move. Sarvagnya 01:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting on the "Oppose" of Sarvagnya)
The link is being passed around because it highlights the official procedure before a name change takes place. So what if it's from October '06? Plus the link is from Deccan Herald, and despite the fact that it is an English language newspaper published from Bangalore, it doesn't refer to the new name in any of its reports till date. That was only an example. DH is just a small regional paper. What is more important is that almost all of the major Indian or international news outlets still use "Bangalore". As for Rediff, it cannot be a replacement for official sources (see reply to KNM above). You will also notice the glaring irony of the same Rediff article being written by a certain Vicky Nanjappa in Bangalore. Clearly, no one has adopted the new name yet. So yes, I think we do need to wait for a green signal from outside, until there's a proper government notification and the new name enters widespread English usage. Who says that Wikipedia is supposed to play the role of a trendsetter? Aren't we supposed to base our facts on stuff that already exists and is well-accepted? - Max - You were saying? 09:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care what reasons Deccan Herald or any other newspapers may have for their choice. Its purely their choice. Even if they continued to use Madras and Bombay and Calcutta, it doesnt remove from the fact that those cities have been renamed. Same with Bangalore. The govt., didnt need Deccan Herald's permission to change the name and we dont need it either. My name is what I say it is and the city's name is what the govt., says it is and not what your whims dictate. As for gazette notifications, I am no legal expert, so please come up with a source from aug of 2007 which says that a gazette notification hasnt been done yet. Or drop it. Sarvagnya 01:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon? You're asking me to come up with a source which says that a gazette notification has not been done yet? That's like a fundie asking an atheist to prove that God doesn't exist. Mate, the burden of proof of finding a government source is on you or the person who moved the page.
It's funny that you say that we don't need permission from news sources to rename the article but then depend on the reliability of the same sources to prove that the city has been renamed. Don't you think the editors of these sources would've checked to see if the name had been officially changed? If articles on Wikipedia depend on well-established and reliable external sources for their content, and if those sources haven't yet changed the way they call this city, why are you in such a hurry?
Looking back at the talk page, I think you had supported moving the article a year ago, when there was a mere announcement about the name change. After the Central Government's assent, the process has taken just one more step ahead but is by no means complete. No government website mentions that the name has been changed, not even the Government of Karnataka or BMC. I guess the article name may be changed eventually, but it's too early right now - Max - You were saying? 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm just pointing out that gazzette notifications are not required for us to make a change on wikipedia. Hundreds of articles have been written on wikipedia on Indian politics and I am yet to see anybody ask for or produce a gazette notification or even confirmation of a gazette notification. Bengaluru doesnt have to be an exception because you choose to nitpick. And oh, btw.. where are the gazette notifications for Pondicherry and Chennai and Ooty and Mumbai.
Rediff is a reliable source and they say in no uncertain terms that the name change is "official" now and we'll just go with it. Again, it doesnt concern us in the least whether Rediff in its infinite wisdom chooses not to accept the name change. That is rediff. We are wikipedia. We go by facts and not editorial whims.
Your "..even GoK websites.." line is pathetic. I've already pointed that out. According to the same GoK website, "Sri. T. N. Chaturvedi" is Karnataka's governer. But we know better. Dont we?
Stop with your specious arguments. We had none of this nonsense in the case of Pondicherry or Calcutta or Ooty or Trivandrum etc.,. No need for this useless exercise just for Bengaluru.
Sarvagnya 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tch, tch. Getting all hot under the collar, aren't we? :-)
I didn't mean only a gazette notification, but any sort of official government endorsement of the changed name. Alright, let's forget the government for a moment. Then what do you have left? One Rediff news item? The WP articles on Mumbai and Kolkata are named so because the names "Mumbai" and "Kolkata" have been widely accepted, and appear on government documents and websites. If you used some common sense, you'd realize that it's only because of the time factor. The question of finding a "gazette notifications" for these cities, hence, is of no consquence. If you don't agree, be my guest and move those articles back to Bombay and Calcutta.
As for Pondicherry/Puducherry, atleast there's some shred of official confirmation on their website which mentions "Government of Puducherry" on the home page. And to beat that, they have this. Enough said. Do note that the territory was renamed in 2006 but the article itself was moved to the new name very recently. Heh, I hope my "specious arguments" have been specious enough for ya. - Max - You were saying? 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting on the "Oppose" of Baka)
Not quite. Not that ghits should be taken as the litmus test, but just thought I'd clarify: Calcutta gets 10.7 million ghits versus 8.6 million for Kolkata. OTOH, Bangalore generates 18 million against a whopping 250,000 for Bengaluru (total of all spelling combinations). Lotlil 03:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uttaranchal has the same thing compared to Uttarkhand. However we use the official name, not the old name.Bakaman 04:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This time we are talking 2.2 million hits versus 1.8 mil. Unlike percentage-point variations with Uttaranchal or Calcutta, the Bangalore case is orders of magnitude (80x ?) apart, using your own metric. Let's give up on the ghits argument and move on. Lotlil 04:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Commenting on the "Support" of Lotlil)
Govts., dont run the encyclopedia but travel agencies do. Right. And linking to Indian govt., sites is an extremely poor argument. Indian government sites are notoriously shoddy at updating info; its probably a miracle that the sites even show up. For that matter, according to this GoK website, "Sri T.N.Chaturvedi" is still Ktaka's governer. Now, go figure. Sarvagnya 05:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Govt. websites are not reliable on official name changes that "happened" one full year ago, but a solitary random article from rediff.com is ?!! I'm yet to see a single entity that has started referring to the city by the proposed name. Government, newspapers, tv, IT companies, airlines - nothing. Wikipedia would be the first (and probably only, for a long time) place one would find this name, thanks to the persistent POV pushing. Lotlil 07:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this entire "most common english name" argument is bogus. Pondicherry, Ooty, Calcutta etc., are all easily the 'most common English names'. But they all sit pretty at Puducherry, Ootacamund, Kolkata etc.,. Sarvagnya 06:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calcutta isn't the 'most common english name', not even easily so. Lotlil 07:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to use the same yardstick for all cities and towns, irrespective of size and importance. If Bengaluru needs to move back to Bangalore, every town/city on wiki that carries its native name as opposed to a more popular English name needs to revert back too. I think the onus of doing this research lies with those people who want to move back. Every one is crying hoarse about what the media is saying (news papers etc) only days after the announcement of name change, is'nt wiki also media? Why should one source of media follow other sources.Dineshkannambadi 14:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with moving other cities back to the more common usage (if we can clearly demonstrate what is more common). The onus is really on the supporters of the new name to prove that it is common, given that this move was done against previous consensus. Since this is very recent change, why don't you guys just wait until the name becomes commonplace? I'm sure you must have verified by now that it has not caught on with one single entity of significance. Not yet. Lotlil 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Lotlil. I am sure, you have not looked into several websites. With just a quick search, I got below links.
http://www.efytimes.com/efytimes/fullnews.asp?edid=18510
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/22bang.htm
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bengaluru,+Karnataka,+India&sa=X&oi=map&ct=title Google Maps!
Other Wikipedias:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengaluru
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengaluru
Even the Jet Airways, one of the top rated air carriers of India, now says Bengaluru and not Bangalore when you try booking a reservation.
So, the statement "it has not caught on with one single entity of significance" is not true. - KNM Talk 15:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KNM, do you have a government source that gives official confirmation of the name change? - Max - You were saying? 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No KNM, you are misinterpreting your sources. The rediff link merely reports the story about the name change, rest of the articles in rediff still use Bangalore. And those two other language wikipedias were using 'Bengaluru' since 2004 (see this and this), way before there was even talk about changing names. They aren't the English WP, so they are justified in using the native name. Lotlil 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing that the name change has not caught up in popularity is a loosing arguement. No point in trying to delay the inevitable.Dineshkannambadi 15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A dozen others above seem to think it's a winning argument! Lotlil 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When did we start using sources to gauge popular opinion? We glean "facts" from RSes, not 'public sentiment'. Whats next? We start citing SMS polls from NDTV and ibnlive? Sarvagnya 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing like 'more common' and 'less common'. Did you conduct a referendum or something? There is just no valid metric to measure that. "Since this is a recent change" doesnt fly either. What if it is a 'recent change'? It is a "change" all the same. 'More common', 'recent change', 'even govt., websites...', etc., are classic cases of special pleading and there's no reason we should entertain it. Sarvagnya 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing like 'more common' or 'less common' . What about 'common sense'? Or is that too much to ask, around here? Oh well. Lotlil 23:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'oh.. well', the sky is blue and the veerattamizhkkudimagan's loin cloth(ca. 200 BC) was blue too. Maybe because they were 'sky-clad'. huh. Flows beautifully from common sense. Doesnt it? Sarvagnya 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flows beautifully indeed, smooth as the 'music' from neolithic rocks, or should we say empty skulls? Lotlil 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the nom -

  • #1 Indian govt., websites are notoriously laggard in updating info. Many days after a new governer was sworn in, GoK site still would still have us believe that T. N. Chaturvedi's is Ktaka's governor. Sites are RSes for what they say, not what they dont say. This link from Rediff clearly says - "It is official now. The silicon city Bangalore will no longer be called Bangalore. Instead, it will officially be called Bengaluru."
  • #2 is plain dishonest presentation of the facts. The link being provided is from almost a year ago and is irrelevant to the discussion now. And in any case, we dont need [[Gazette notifications |primary sources]] to write an encyclopedia. Also, no gazette notifications were asked for or produced when other cities were moved. No reason Bengaluru has to be an exception.
  • #3 "EB and Encarta havent changed it.. so we shouldnt change it" is bogus argumentation. I'm almost certain that we beat them to updating Pluto's status and several other things. We arent a paper encyclopedia and they arent an online encyclopedia. eod.
  • #4 The only 'argument' there was that we should wait till it becomes "official". Everything else was special pleading or just bigotry. Sarvagnya 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • #5a No. WP:NAME doesnt say that. - Maximvs is once again trying to push through a dishonest representation. He is citing from WP:NAME's "nutshell". A closer look at WP:NAME reveals this - ".... In general, there are no special naming conventions for cities, unless multiple cities with the same name exist. Digging further, the policy which says nothing like Maximvs is claiming also adds this disclaimer "..This is a proposed addition to the naming convention, for which there has not been any clear consensus established...". So 'fella', come back when your whims are policy. Or better still, go look in the mirror. huh. Sarvagnya 18:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • #5b "...and "Bangalore" wins that game by a long shot...." - do you have anything else other than your own assertion for that? Though, it really doesnt matter, because like I've pointed out above, the policy you cite doesnt sanction the kind of 'games' you're indulging in. Sarvagnya 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, you've really got me this time, haven't you? But wait, did you look closer?
Bangalore does win by a long shot, but unfortunately, the obtuse-minded may not have read that WP:GOOGLE is not so useless after all. Oh by the way, you've always wanted to know how people arrive at "common usage", didn't you? Try these fun games and see what "long shot" means. Then couple it with the stuff written in the earlier link and see if you can put two and two together. - Max - You were saying? 19:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • #5c ugh.. really. Now you dumb down a supposed 'Policy violation' to a 'convention 'not set in stone' violation'. Good. You're making progress. For starters, that 'convention' you're pointing to rambles away in ambiguous terms and many parts of it are at odds with WP:NAME (which is a policy). WP:NAME deals "directly" with the question of naming city articles(and Indian city articles) and it tells us in no uncertain terms that "most common english names" pitch is bogus. That tenuous 'convention' you point to rambles on without making any sense. No wonder it never became policy. It lists Istanbul/Constantinople and Bombay/Mumbai as if they were analogous. Whoever wrote it, clearly doesnt know what they were writing. Also "Geographic names" has more to do with "Geographic 'region' names" and is largely irrelevant to this page and discussion. You should be drawing attention to this policy.. er.. 'convention' on talk pages where people fight endlessly whether "India" refers to India or Pakistan or the sub continent or British India or Mughal India or Akhand Bharat etc etc., etc. And clearly, we have precedents like the Republic of China, Puducherry etc.,... and er.. not sure how many here knew Stalingrad was actually Volgograd. So much for "most common English name". huh. And about Ganeshbot... well thankfully, wikipedia is constantly updated based on reliable secondary sources and we dont have to wait till 2011 for anything. And your rationale for using ghits is flawed for various reasons, but we dont even need to go that far just yet as personal whims are not policy on wikipedia. So 'fella', come back when your whims become policy. Also, what precisely is your objection to the move? at the moment, it vacillates incoherently between "its a vio of policy" to "I wont let 'regional fanboys'(sic) have their way". Like I've shown, it doesnt violate any policy and regards the latter, I urge you to read up on WP:POINT. And also WP:IAR and WP:BOLD and WP:Wl and WP:BURO. So long. Sarvagnya 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, so now you're trashing something that's "generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow". It doesn't suit my interest, so it "rambles on without making sense". Oh and I'll just discredit the people who took the pains to document these generally accepted principles. Is this how you work? If there aren't any clear directions for city names according to policy, the next best thing to turn to is how people have been doing it in practice i.e. the guidelines. Oh, and a city is a geographical area and the reason why the Constantinople and Mumbai examples were given were to illustrate the different kinds of questions faced when naming an article about a city. Don't just make stuff up. If you have a grouse against guidelines, you should note that the WP:BOLD and WP:POINT links you're throwing around are guidelines too. So why not apply your brand of logic to them and say that since they never became policy, they're all "incoherent" too, eh?
Somewhere at the end of the page, you had also called WP:NAME "broken" and now you use the same policy to defend your stance. Typical. You want to be bold and ignore the rules quite conveniently, when you find that you can't have your way with reason. And maybe you forgot to read this (which by the way is policy) before you unilaterally moved this important FA. So tell us, why do you want us to make the occasional exception, be bold and ignore all rules for just this particular article? Is there any solid, justifiable reason for doing so, or do just you want us to ignore them because you can't have it your way? Please do read this and see what IAR means and doesn't mean before you start waving it in people's faces.
My objections are as noted in the nomination, and in the umpteen replies I have had to give you. Kindly read them because I don't want to waste more time or WP server space repeating myself. - Max - You were saying? 04:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comments: First of all, let me clarify to everyone that I'm sure the article will be moved sooner or later. I just think it's not the right time to move it yet. Now on to the replies.

1. Is User:Sarvagnya implying that there is not a single government source out there which would affirm the fact that Bengaluru has been adopted as the official name? I find that hard to believe. If you want to go by news sources, The Times of India had us believing one year ago that "It's official: Bangalore is now Bengalooru". Newspapers will print whatever they want and will probably do so in loose words. It was due to articles like these that certain regional fanboys had supported an overzealous campaign to move the article a year ago (with someone making utterly rotten arguments like by changing the name, we are sending out signals that we're asserting our identity - what the #*%$!), a demand that was fortunately turned down by other level-headed editors.
So why should this Rediff article be different, I wonder? Isn't it better if we have absolute, non-refutable confirmation from a government source? (I emphasize government because User:Sarvagnya seems to think that a city shall be called what a government deems it should be called)
2. Again, I have to repeat myself for people too obtuse or deliberately unwilling to understand the purpose of the link. There's no dishonest representation of facts here. The link provides information on the procedure that is followed to change a name, and I gave the link so that people know what it is. Period. Dishonesty is when one moves an important FA by choosing to act upon parochial instincts, without asking for consensus or without giving any sort of warning.
3. User:Sarvagnya needs to read things carefully before shooting his mouth off. I said "online versions", not the paper versions. By the way, EB has already mentioned the new name, but they've still kept the article under the title "Bangalore". So they're not as snail-paced as you'd like to think they are. Go figure.
4. "Special pleading and bigotry?" Sorry. I refuse to dignify this textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black. - Max - You were saying? 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Parting note: Another point being bandied around is about the precedence set by articles on Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai, These cities were renamed way before Wikipedia was even formed. Their names entered general English usage officially and commonly before their articles were written, so it was natural that the first articles about these cities were written with their new names. Unfortunately, no one seems to be taking this into account. As for the Pondicherry -> Puducherry move, just take a look at their website, the home page of which says, "Government of Puducherry" and even more convincingly, they have an official circular. So that move can atleast be justified using this proof. Do we have any of this for Bangalore? No sirree bob. - Max - You were saying? 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonesty unlimited; dishonesty unabated - Maximvs once again misrepresents and misquotes a source. He says ".. the TOI was having us believe that Bengalooru was official one year ago.."! However, on a closer look, this is what that TOI report says - " Bengalooru: Using the platform, nearly a year after his predecessor N Dharam Singh said Bangalore would be renamed as Bengalooru, he said: "I am formally stating that 10 cities including Bangalore will use their Kannada names in English also. The process to make this official is on." Since when did we start citing newspapers 'headlines'?! Or is that the way Mr. Max works?

It was on then and now it is "official" (see rediff) now. And the Puducherry circular is besides the point. Point is, no 'govt., source' was asked for or provided (rightly, understandably and justifiably so) when the move was made. Come back in a year and I'll get a pdf of the GoK circular for you, if need be from RTI. Several govt., websites still call it Pondicherry. Same with Trivandrum and other cities. (Try an imaginative "<search string> site:nic.in" to see what I mean) So let us leave the fact checking from primary sources to reliable secondary sources and get on with it.

And like I've pointed out below, almost all(nearly every single one of them) Indian cities and towns were created by Ganeshbot. And I am positive that Ganeshbot used a database with "official" names in it. There is no reason why B'luru has to be an exception. Sarvagnya 21:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And oh btw, thanks for pointing out that EB also acknowledges that it is "officially" Bengaluru. Thats good enough for us. As for why they havent moved their article yet, feel free to write to its editor and ask for an explanation. But please keep that off-wiki. We dont control their editorial practices and we're not interested either. Sarvagnya 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, but didn't you try to move the article back then too? What was that based on? The same sources such as ToI, right? The exact reason why I quoted the ToI article was to highlight the kind of news reports, based on which the regional fanboys, eager to show off how superior their "culture" is, tried to move the page a year ago. Precisely because of such antics (and this is just the tip of the iceberg), it is quite hard to AGF. All I'm asking is how the situation now is any different. You're waving that small article in Rediff in our faces as if it's the decisive be-all and end-all of the renaming process. "Dishonesty unlimited; dishonesty unabated"? Yeah, look into the mirror, fella.
I fail to see the relevance of Ganeshbot in this discussion. When has Ganeshbot referred to the new name? Elaborate, please.
If no official source was asked for Pondicherry, it should've been. Quit quoting the Pondicherry move as if it's a golden precendent that we're all bound to follow. Also, if you had cared to notice, the Pondicherry article had also been renamed prematurely, but that move was reverted. It is only very recently that the article was moved again to Puducherry, although the renaming was effective in late 2006. You ask me to wait for a year until you can get a hold of sources. Why don't you practice what you preach, and do likewise and move the article after a year? - Max - You were saying? 04:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reasons for voting to move the article back then are in the archives. Feel free to go and dig.
  • Ganeshbot created almost all Indian town and city articles and every single one of them is at their official names and nobody (has) complained in all these years.
  • As for the supposed vio of the WP:NAME clause, nobody here has cared to explain how they 'arrived at'/'calculated' the "most common English name". I only hope they didnt take this route or that they're not asking me to take their word for it.
  • I'm not asking you for a year to provide sources. Unless you're blind, I've already shown you rediff and you yourself have given us EB. If it is a official govt., notification that you want(which incidentally is NOT mandatory on wikipedia), feel free to go to Vidhan Soudha and get your copy. Just stop bothering us about it. Sarvagnya 23:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've read your reasons, and they don't cut it - then or now. Nothing to note in them. No proof of official government notifications, and ignorance of a WP policy (willful or not, I don't know). Just an overwhelming urge to jump the gun even though, by your own admission a few paragraphs above, the renaming process was only just beginning.
  • FYI, Ganeshbot takes its data from Census India 2001. While you're busy trying to ascertain whether others are blind or not, you've failed to notice that the database still says Bangalore and will do so for some time to come. If you want to base your arguments on Ganeshbot's source, you should rename the article in 2011 after the next census when "Bengaluru" might be in it.
  • Don't worry, people here have enough common sense to know which name is more widely known across the English-speaking world. Oh by the way, WP:GOOGLE isn't as useless as you think if you choose to interpret the results properly. When "Bengaluru" produces some 141000 results and "Bangalore" produces 17.8 million, a person with reasonable mathematical faculty will see that that's about 126 times the former. Not exactly neck-and-neck, is it? I hope you realize the same too.
  • Given the kind of arguments put forth in last time's move request, official notification is the least one could ask for, not to mention the violation of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) that this unilateral renaming has brought about (and please, if you have a modicum of sense, don't try to pretend that you don't know why "Bangalore" is more widely known in the English-speaking world than the new name).
  • "Stop bothering us"? Who is "us", if I may ask? Surely not the WP community at large, because I don't remember them electing you as spokesperson. Or does "us" refer to regionalists that sneakily tried to move an important FA without discussion or any attempt to form consensus? - Max - You were saying? 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reply to Gizza - The common name is used and not the official name? Can you show me few examples from among Indian city articles on wikipedia? Almost all Indian city and town articles were created by Ganeshbot(right?) using a database that had "official" names in it. Right? Or did Ganeshbot conduct an sms poll to gauge what the 'most common english name' was?

Also, comparing city/country articles and people articles is futile. Wikipedia treats both very differently. For starters, we dont have a WP:BLP equivalent for places and countries. Or we'd be deleting "Allegations of...." articles on sight. Your analogy is not valid. 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My argument stems from the first sentence of the second paragraph of WP:NAME, Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. I still believe, judging from the evidence provided above, that despite the official change, most Engilsh speakers would still recognise Bangalore much easier than Bengaluru. WP:NAME is an official policy but of course, policies can be refined if consensus chooses to refine it. WT:NC would be an appropriate place to argue that official usage should override common usage. Thank you GizzaDiscuss © 04:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAME is obviously broken and somebody needs to let them know. That, however, shouldnt hold us back from building an encyclopdia. See WP:BURO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvagnya (talk • contribs) 18:34, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Most users would also recognise Puducherry, Kolkata, Mumbai, the Republic of China, etc.. I think that Wikipedia should be consistent with the aforementioned articles.
Reginmund 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The Deccan Herald even today seem to think it's still Bangalore. so does the Karnataka Tourism website as well as numerous other 'official' websites of Karnataka. What is the haste in changing the name in Wikipedia? - Parthi talk/contribs 03:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The change has to happen, so why not now. Why the delay? Web sites will take their own sweet time. Why wait?Dineshkannambadi 10:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. Indian government websites are slow to update (given the fact how lazy govt officials generally are). --Grubb 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like The Deccan Herald has caught up to the new name.[5] Reginmund 00:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs proper referenced sources to prove that the name "Bengaluru" actually exists or not. Wiki Raja 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Am I missing something?

Why in the name of Darwin was this article moved? There is one more vote for keeping it! Reginmund 17:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The archives for this talk page are a bit of a mess right now, so you have to look at Talk:Bengaluru/Archive2 to see why. There was a "requested move" to move the article from "Bangalore" to "Bengaluru", which failed (no consensus). However, someone moved it anyway. Now that erroneous move has been corrected. --Yath 06:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it appears now that there is more consensus to move it to Bengaluru. Reginmund 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Reginmund,
One vote more does not imply that consensus has been reached. Though straw polls are used to gauge the overall opinion of editors, since WP is not a democracy, "its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting". As mentioned here,
In the case of this article, there was already a failed "requested move" from Bangalore to Bengaluru, as noted by Yath above. Still, someone moved this article without seeking consensus or without discussion. Hence the article's status quo was restored (please see the comments by the closing administrator Dekimasu). Even if opinions had been sought on moving the article (to Bengaluru), they would probably have ended up being split evenly, as the discussion above shows (but in the reverse way, of course). I hope this is clearer. Regards, Max - You were saying? 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would seem quite pointless to have a poll to move the article back if it was going to be moved anyway. Reginmund 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there was a technical problem. As mentioned by the closing admin Dekimasu above, "Further, the redirect from the original title was altered upon the initiation of this discussion. This prevented any users from moving the page back themselves." i. e. the "Bangalore" page, which was converted to a redirect page after the unilateral move to "Bengaluru", was further edited so that now it had an edit history. The WP software apparently doesn't allow users to move a page if it has edit history other than moving. Hence, there needed to be a formal move request and discussion, the result of which you see before you. Regards, Max - You were saying? 19:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can now safely ignore the first requested move thread. Consensus can change, and that discussion is over 6 months old. I think the question is whether the consensus of the above poll is to name the article as "Bangalore" or "Bengaluru". I suggested Bengaluru, so I'm not the best to judge consensus here, but from what I can see the only arguments to keep it as Bangalore was that the name Bengaluru wasn't official yet and that we should use the more common/popular name. The first argument is no loger true, as established by this article, while I think the second one is debunked by the fact that consensus is, as in the case of related articles like Puducherry, Kolkata etc, the official name should used for articles, not the incorrect, former names. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 20:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section was focused on the question of whether there was consensus to move the article to "Bengaluru", which is a procedural question. To discuss the merits of choosing one name over another, I recommend starting a different section, rather than introducing a different subject into this one. --Yath 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos of Snowolf - Exactly. The archived discussion is several months old. Pointing to an older discussion to literally invalidate the present one smacks of red tape and is clearly just a technicality that is being pointed out. Snowolf summarises the present poll lucidly and I request the closing admin to explain his actions in greater detail. Pointing out technicalities and wiki-legal anamolies isnt enough. The fact remains that there is consensus at the moment that the article should be at "Bengaluru". It appears that the closing admin hasnt bothered to read the discussions at all and has simply gone by bureaucratic and procedural detail.
Any which way we see it, there is consensus now to move it to Bengaluru. There were 14 votes for Bengaluru against 13 for Bangalore. However, taking a closer look at the 'reasons'/'arguments' of the voters who voted in support of "Bangalore", it is clear that many, if not all of those votes will have to be discounted. Here's the breakdown -
  1. Nom/per nom - MaximvsDecimvs, Wikiality
  2. Dont move till it becomes official - AjaxSmack, DaGizza, WikiRaja
  3. Move to Bangalore because Bangalore is/reflects English usage - Lonewolf BC, Yath, Septentrionalis
  4. Popular/common name - Lotlil, Parthi, Ganryuu, JohnK, Hornplease.
...and here's why the above votes have to be invalidated -
#1 - The nomination was full of lies and backpedalling which I pointed out in the discussion. Dishonest attempts were made to mislead voters by linking to an article that was almost an year old. It was also claimed that it was a vio of WP:NAME, when it most emphatically is not (read the discussion).
#2 - "Bengaluru" is official. (cf. Rediff, Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia(!!))
#3 "Bengaluru" is official and also English. Bengaluru is the English name of what was Bangalore. afa Kannada usage is concerned, it was always Bengaluru and this name change hasnt meddled with that in the least. What changed was infact, the English usage!
#4 Popular/common name is a classic case of special pleading and has no precedent among Indian city/town articles. All Indian city/town articles are at their official names and there is no reason Bengaluru has to be an exception.
I request the closing admin to make amendments to his closing notes and move the article back to Bengaluru. Or are we expected to follow procedure - challenge this close first and then once again open another poll, this time requesting that the article be moved to Bengaluru?! Sarvagnya 21:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, it sounds like you're arguing that a 14-13 vote represents a consensus, which is absurd. --Yath 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it appears like you cant read. Where am I arguing that a 14-13 vote represents a consensus? Did you even read what I've written? Sarvagnya 21:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any which way we see it, there is consensus now to move it to Bengaluru. There were 14 votes for Bengaluru against 13 for Bangalore. - Sarvagnya
The fact remains that there is consensus at the moment that the article should be at "Bengaluru". - Sarvagnya
If I've misunderstood the above statements or taken them out of context, please clarify it for me. --Yath 22:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangalore&oldid=155716069"