Jump to content

Talk:Bangalore/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Telugu blog

Wikipedia is not a Telugu blog / web site to advertise baseless arguements about the origin of the name "bengaluru". The arguements found in the article "telugu history behind name of Bengaluru" does not help foster harmony and peace in India's most cosmopolitian city. I have taken the liberty to delete the article. Some of the arguements betray our inherent disunity and lack of knowledge about our history.

Dinesh Kannambadi

This is not about making this a telugu Blog. This is about trying to get an understanding about the sociological makeup of Bangalore as a district. Most people like Dinesh who settled in Bangalore from other parts of karnataka do not understand Bangalore. The people of Bangalore speak a language that draws both from Telugu and Kannada. Just as Kodava and Tulu draw from Malayalam.

Document with original Bangalore city plan

"The document describing the city as he conceptualised it, written in Telugu the commonly spoken language of this region, is still preserved. This language is still spoken in the villages of Bangalore, Yelahanka, Devanahalli, Doddaballapur, Hoskote, Anekal and Hosur districts."

Can someone prove this with references instead of ambiguous claims??

Dinesh Kannambadi

Theories on origin of name and Conclusions therein

Whats this theory about IT etc? All native Bangaloreans speak a language that draws from Telugu and Kannada. Dinesh, when you settle in Urban Bangalore, you have an expectation that Bangalore was always part of the Mysore kingdom and purely kannada speaking. Moreover, the mere presence of large numbers of Tamil does not mean that Bangalore or Kolar had long periods of Tamil rule. Nor does Tamil rule mean wide use of Tamil as a language. Which part of Karnataka are you from? You must know a lot about the people of that region of Bangalore as I know about Bangalore. I have good material to talk about this. But I am still searching for more detailed material and will prove with data.

I see several hastily put together theories to the origin of the name "Bengaluru". I happened to go thru a blog site linked to this page at the bottom. The blog is called "Telugu origins ...." something. My question is how come nobody ever brought up these issues prior to the government's decision to change the name. To me the answer is simple. Now that the government is giving a "Kannada" identity to the name, people from outside Karnataka but settled in Bangalore are all too eager to link Bangalore's name to their own roots (be it Telugu or Tamil). A few years back many people were all too sure that other cities like Hyderabad would surpass Bangalore in IT (which could still happen). I think this is a natural reaction. One inscription from 17th centuary in front of a temple or one document in Telugu supposedly written during Kempe Gowda's time does not mean anything, just as a 9th century Kannada Inscription in Jabalpur. Madhya Pradesh (dated to the Imperial Rashtrakutas) does not mean that Jabalpur had majority Kannada population. It only indicates that Kannada had spread as far north as Jabalpur. This period in history is called the time of "imperial Kannada". It is very easy to come to hasty conclusions with a knee jerk reactions. Bangalore itself is located at the junction of 3 states (Karnataka/AP and Tamil Nadu). Kolar which is the district right next to Bangalore was the battleground for countless number of wars, especially between competing Kannada and Tamil kingdoms and was called Kolahalapura (city of destruction). Parts of South Karnataka as been keenly fought over by these two great competitors for ages, mainly over Kaveri river. It is not surprising that one can find Hoysala/Chola/Vijayanagar/Nolamba structures/monuments in this part of Karnataka. Even today Bangalore is a mixture of Kannada/Telugu and Tamil people. It makes no sense for Kannada and Telugu people to battle over whether "Bengaluru" is a Kannada or a Telugu name because both languages emerged from "old Kannada" that was the main spoken language across the deccan possibly from 7th century - 12th century during the rule of the mighty Chalukyas of Badami & Kalyana and Rashtrakutas of Manyaketha who ruled from what is today Karnataka, just as it makes no sense for Marathi's of Belgaum to claim it has to be a part of Maharashtra. The earliest Marathi inscriptions dated 981 AD were discovered in Hassan district, just like the earliest Kannada inscriptions from Halmidi dated 425AD -450AD, a village in Hassan. What we call today as Karnataka has given India a lot, a lot of action has always happened here and still continues that tradition. This region we call Karnataka is the origin of carnatic music, udupi cuisine, haridasa movement, Vesera style of architecture (also called the Karnata Dravida or deccan style or chalukya-hoysala style), home to some of India's mightiest empires (Chalukyas/Rashtrakutas/Vijayanagar Empire), Indias oldest silk culture (mysore silk)& our IT revolution. Hence its no wonder that people of different languages and cultures want to share our successes as their success too. What matters most is that the people of Karnataka create an eclectic atmosphere so that talent from other parts of the country can add to our own achivements and embellish the name of Karnataka. This is what the world sees. Lets all be proud of that and call it peace.

Dinesh Kannambadi

ORIGIN OF NAME

Telugu closely resembles 'OLD KANNADA or HalaGannada". The Telugu script itself was derived from the "old Kannada" script over a prolonged period starting from around 13th century AD.The Ganga inscription/vir gal(hero stone) indicating the earliest name of Bangalore is probabaly "old Kannada", NOT Telugu. The Ganga dynasty of Talkad (western Gangas) are a proven Kannada kingdom, as all their inscriptions are in old Kannada. Please refer to history of Kannada and Telugu languages for better understanding of the issue. In Kannada literature, the Rashtrakuta classic "Kavirajamarga" (9th century AD) makes references to earlier Kannada works written by Ganga King Durvinitha around begining of 6th century. Please refer to "History of Karnataka By Arthikaje" at http://www.ourkarnataka.com/history.htm to better understand history of Gangas of Talkad. Lets have a discussion about this. Lets have real proof and references.

Dinesh Kannambadi


Shopping in Bangalore??

I was surprised to see that a shopping section does not exist for Bangalore. With the rise of the Mall culture in India, Bangalore is becoming one of the major shopping hubs in India. If no one has a problem, I don't mind starting a section on this topic.

Nitin.

A section for shopping will not be appropriate here. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities or Mumbai, on the sections needed for Indian cities. Info about shopping can probably go under culture. Right now, there is an urban life section, which needs to be merged with culture. You can expand more on Bangalore's shopping centres at Wikitravel's [Bangalore page].

Pamri • Talk 04:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

House rules for nicknames

I would like everyone to look into some house rules as far as monikers and nicknames go. We've seen many nicknames for Bangalore like City of Lakes, London of Asia, Fashion Capital of India and now Pensioners Paradise, and so on. I think it makes sense to consider just a couple of nicknames, since, even on a national scale no one really equates them to mean Bangalore straight off the bat. Silicon Valley of India is now an "established" nickname and Garden City is what Bangalore was historically called. I can't think of any reason to keep adding nicknames. They contribute little to the overall understanding of the city itself and are often very misleading. Furthermore, they may not necessarilly be accepted by everyone in the region, let alone the nation. Comments welcome. AreJay 02:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • While i agree with the gist of your comment, I disagree that we need to include nicknames that bangalore is known for at the international level and that they don't contribute to the city's overall understanding. For eg, Bangalore was called 'Pensioner's Paradise' because it did have a large no. of people who were working in PSU's,Defence forces,etc., who preferred to settle here and which in turn explains the large educated middle class.

The 'city of lakes' nick isn't far fetched, since Bangalore had atleast a 100 lakes, most of which were taken over by land sharks & the corporation. Heck, my layout in b'lore was an old lake & the tank bed still passes thro my outhouse.(me going into nostalgia :-D ). To summarise, we should not make blanket policies, but rather decide on a case by case basis. pamri 13:47, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

  • Thanks for replying. Just saying "Pensioners Paradise" or whatever dosen't really tell anyone about Bangalore, especially if those people have never been to the city and want to know more about it. I makes more sense to elaborate and say why it was/is a pensioner's paradise (as you have indicated above), etc. If I've never been to the city and I visit this page and I see "Pensioner's paradise", I'd want to know why it is called that. Merely citing nicknames dosen't add to the understanding of the city. AreJay 15:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree I should have added the info or edited the article. Will do that. pamri 13:13, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

Clean up

I will be moving all of "famous people from Bangalore" to another page. This page is huge and looks disorganized. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not meant to be a links repository. It is a free content encylopedia. Please visit the India page to get an idea of how I plan to organize links on this page. The "Related Topics" heading in that entry seems a better organized way to structure Bangalore related articles on this page. AreJay 15:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Englpiesh

Englpiesh -- I think this is a made-up word. Could not find a reference to this on any website except wikipedia and its derived websites. Jay 17:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I live in bangalore and i've never heard the word Englpiesh.

Famous Visitors

Should the section "Famous Visitors to Bangalore" be included? The list given in the article is just too short. Other famous visitors happen to be JK Rowling, Bill Gates, Sylvester Stallone, The Rolling Stones, The Scorpions, Elton John, Bryan Adams, Pink Floyd, Amitabh Bachchan, Hrithik Roshan, Abdul Kalam, Tony Blair and so on... The city is also a home for many well-known faces in the world of IT. And I feel the more information on the relation between outsourcing, BPO offices, call centres and Bangalore should be added. Guest, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't include it please. Bangalore being an important and happening city will recieve plenty of visitors, famous and infamous. I don't think its relevant.

Bangalored

Would the person who deleted the "Don't get Bangalored" paragraph please explain why? RickK 06:09, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Right, please, put it back. Being a european, I learnt about that stuff in this article. So I consider that it should be left, so everybody knows about such a paranoid american reaction and american hate of other peoples. I consider it also as an hommage in disguise for Bangalore's success. Hoping that many Bangalores will emerge on all continents, for the sake of the world economic development, I suggest as a motto for the world "Let us fill the world with Bangalores" --Pgreenfinch 08:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Sigh. RickK 04:27, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, sigh, --Pgreenfinch 07:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll tell you why "Bangalored" should be left out. I was born and partly brought up in Bangalore and I live in the United States. There are lot of things that have made Bangalore prominent -- "Bangalored" is not one of them! "Bangalored" if anything, is a reflection of the paranoia of a bunch of slackers who just couldn't keep up with the competition than anything else. I do not consider it to be hommage (in disguise or otherwise) to Bangalore. I consider it to be hurtful and insensitive. If you want to talk about "Bangalored", take it to the outsourcing article. There are a billion things that can be included under the economy section and "Bangalored" is obscure and trivial and has nothing to do with anything. It does not deserve to be there. AreJay 15:48, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • I feel it should be added as a seperate article and should be linked in 'See also'. I agree while it is interesting does not fit in here.
  • Some major renovations under economic development. Added stuff relating to HAL, NAL and ISRO. Moved "outsourcing" paragraph to appropriate secition under outsourcing. This is an obscure, meaningless topic that does nothing apart from highlight the paranoia of some people. There are more interesting and pertinent topics to add in the economy section than that.

Infrastructural woes

Should temporal Information (final paragraph in "infrastructural woes") be included in a WikiPedia article? Not that "infrastructural woes" is temporal, but the paragraph seems to cover the recent happenings in Bangalore. And opinions such as "These events have apparently been consequences of Karnataka's new Chief Minister's -- N Dharm Singh's -- irreverence to the city's infrastructure." makes it look like a news column rather than an encyclopedia article ;) -- Sanjeeth

Yes, that ought to be either removed or at least reworded. -- Sundar 10:15, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
This section should not be removed as it represents an important chapter in the evolution of this city from a small town to a large city housing big industries. It could be reworded of course but removing it is like erasing away a part of it's reality which made it most famous all over the world. --manik

Have removed temporal POV - "Most of the initial excitement over Bangalore recovering from its infrastructural woes has now died down. It is suspected that Bangalore will lose out to competition from Chennai and Hyderabad. Bangalore may be Bangalored is the phrase invented to described the above" Will the anon who added this please clarify? --Ambar 09:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

According to me No city will be able to overtake Bangalore in any aspect...i have seen almost all important cities and feel Bangalore is far more better than Hyderabad or any other.....in all aspects including intelligent manpower....u cant live without telgu in Hyderabad ....but Bangalore is really Cosmopolitan...lifestyle is really unbeleivable...Bangalore is Awesome...while walking on streets of Bangalore i felt that i was not in India...and ofcourse Bangalore Rocks....Bangalore is really awesome and fantastic indian city..... India Is Really Proud with Bangalore

Population

While not remotely an expert, I first read the entry on Bangalore recently, and was surprised to find it described as India's third largest city. Looking around at several web sources (including Wikipedia itself), it seems pretty clear that Mumbai, Delhi, and Calcutta/Kolkata are each over 15M (the first two close to 20M), while Bangalore is less than half that. The sources I have seen may not be 100% current or accurate, but they are not that far off. Actually, Chennai/Madras appears to be a bit larger, and Hyderabad just about the same as, Bangalore. But the last are within the likely inaccuracies of population estimates. --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The statistic you are quoting from is accurate, but reflect "major urban agglomerations" (what they call "metropolitan areas" in the United States) rather than the actual size of the city. An agglomeration includes the city itself, plus surrounding suburbs and sattelite cities. However, if you check the statistic for the size of the city (the link is provided at the end of the sentence that says "third largest city.."), you'll find that Bangalore is larger than both Chennai and Calcutta. Also, the term "agglomeration" dosen't really hold much meaning for Bangalore, because this is an area where most of its people live within the city itself. I'm not sure what the statistics are on that, but if you check the population of Bangalore city vs. the population of Bangalore urban agglomeration, I think you'll find the city accounts for about 75-80% of the agglomeration population. Hope this helps. AreJay 16:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I put in a parenthetical noting urban areas. The size of a "city proper" is often a somewhat arbitrary political/historical issue that does not reflect real demographic and economic trends. For example, in a USAian context, we pretty universally (and correctly) speak of Minneapolis/St.Paul, even though they are legalistically separate jurisdictions. OTOH, Los Angeles is quite a ways down the list of "largest US cities" according to administrative boundaries, but in a everyday language sense is the "2nd largest US city" (and pushing at 1st largest). --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at with my argument here is that unlike other cities in India which have satellite townships/suburbs, Bangalore dosen't. Therefore, within the context of your argument, the term "city" (and any statictic therein) clearly articulates the "real demographic and economic trends" of Bangalore. You are right when you note that in an American context, urban areas warrant a discussion. A discussion of Chicago, for example, and its suburbs correctly identifies the demographic trends of "Chicagoland" (city and suburbs) because of the number of people that live in the suburbs, but contribute, economically to the city of Chicago. Also consider the wide divergence of the population of Chicago as a city and Chicago as an urban area (2.841 million vs. 9.418 million). You will not find such a divergence from a Bangalore point of view (4.91 million vs. 6.06 million), simply because the people that identify demographically with the city of Bangalore live, and work within the city. The term "urban area" really has no meaning for this city. AreJay 14:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aaggh! What AreJay writes in "disagreement" with my point is actually exactly what I'm trying to include in the entry! Some urban areas (population density clusters) correspond with city limits pretty well, other urban areas do not so correspond. Bangalore City==Bangalore urban area; but Kolkata City!=Kolkata urban area. It's not a difference between US and India, a similar distinction occurs in most every country.

When we vernacularly talk about the size of various cities, more often than not we really mean "urban area." No one in the USA, for example would normally say that "LA is the 10th largest US city" without adding something like "in a technical sense, based on city borders." I dare say that no one in India would describe Kolkata as "India's seventh largest city" without similar caveats about "in a technical/legal sense." I'm not against including the stuff about population within the city borders, but it is deceptive to omit any reference to what most folks mean: urban areas. --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me be concrete here. I first read the Bangalore entry last week, not having much knowledge about Bangalore. In the first paragraph I read it was the "third largest city in India" with some considerable surprise. Sure, I thought, it's a major city, but what about Mumbai, Calcutta, Dheli, which I know are huge?! (some other cities I knew as major, but not clearly larger than Bangalore). After putting it in the back of my brain for a couple days, it just felt like soemthing wasn't right about what I read. Now I understand the technical/legal sense in which the claim was correct, but the overall impression initially given was certainly wrong. What was wrong is that normal people normally think of "metropolitan area" when they discuss the size of cities, whether or not the city borders correspond very well with a metropolitan area. The point need not belabored in the entry, but it should not be omitted entirely. --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I don't know why you or anyone else would be "considerably surprised" to hear that Bangalore is India's third largest city. It was always a major city and is now the fastest growing city in the country and has been for sometime. I doubt you are going to elicit any element of surprise from anyone living in and familiar with India with that statement.
You also go on to say "..but what about Mumbai, Calcutta, Dheli, which I know are huge?!". Well, what about them??? Two out of the three cities you just mentioned are larger than Bangalore in terms of the population of the city and the urban area. There really is no contest between Delhi and Bangalore or Mumbai and Bangalore. Those two cities are many times larger than Bangalore. You also contend that "several" smaller cities have larger metropolitan areas. This is untrue. Out of all the cities in India that are smaller than Bangalore only Calcutta and Chennai have larger metropolitan areas. [1]. That's not exactly "several".
I don't know what all that "technical/legal sense" talk was all about. If I say Calcutta is the 4th largest city in India, I mean it is the 4th largest city in India! If I want to talk to the metropolitian area, I'd say Calcutta is the 3rd largest urban agglomeration in India! I don't see the reason for any rider or caveat there. It is only misleading if you don't understand the difference between a city and urban area.
All that aside, I will incorporate some sense of the variation in city vs. urban area in the edit I'm about to make. AreJay 23:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm perfectly happy with the way you phrased it now (almost the same as my first try, in fact). Remember that not all readers of Wikipedia are demographers, legislators, or urban planners. For 98% of readers, the distinction between "city" and "urban area" is fuzzy, and mostly accidental. If the state of CA USA were to change the boundaries of Los Angeles, or the state of West Bengal were to change the boundaries of Kolkata, each city could triple in size overnight without anyone moving in our out (and such administrative/jurisdicational changes are far from unheard of). The ordinary, predominant, sense of "city" that does not necessarily reflect jurisdicational boundaries is really very sensible. Moreover, the entries for a large majority of the cities listed in Wikipedia (at least from the limited sample I've checked), and certainly in Brittanica or the like, give both city and metro-area numbers for clarification. --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notice also that Wikipedia itself is far from as unambivalent about the meaning of city than AreJay proclaims is self-evident. The definition given in Wikipedia does not say: "A geographic region under common jurisdiction" but rather "A city is an urban area, differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status." In fact, the first part of the definition claims, contra AreJay that a city is an urban area; the second clause lists legal status as just one of several possible differentiating factors. --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Glad we're on some sort of agreement. I'd just like to point out though that you don't have to be a demographer, legislator or urban planner (I certainly don't claim to be any one of them) to know the distinction between a city and an urban area. As you correctly point out, most entries on Wikipedia give both city and metro-area numbers for clarification. You will find that the Bangalore article has always displayed statistics on city and metro-area numbers and clearly distinguished the difference.(see right hand side table on article page). They are updated as and when new numbers are available. AreJay 13:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no way Bangalore is bigger than Chennai or Calcutta, even including all its suburbs. No data official or otherwise would support this claim. Bangalore is a major city, but please do try to portray it bigger than it actually is.

City Planning

I feel that Bangalore's infrastructual problems should also be mentioned under City Planning - Probably just a sentence saying that Bangalore's city planning is poor. (Being a Bangalorean myself, I feel that shoddy planning has been done, and this is the reason why Bangalore is now losing its glitter.) Let's atleast mention a sentence about infra problems under city planning.

Feel free to add facts. I think Bangalore was never planned as a city of this magnitude. It was more or less a place of retreat. That's why, now they're finding it difficult to manage the growth. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) June 29, 2005 04:59 (UTC)

Of late, the external links section has become a cesspool of astroturfing links. To the author of the mgroad blog, I think the pictures are nice, but it is just one of the thousands of personal image galleries around, I see no reason why it should be included in an article about Bangalore. Please discuss it here before you go and add it again. Also it wouldnt hurt to log in. Jbritto

Please stop vandalizing the page with blatant advertising for myaarzoo.com. Do you realize you are only spoiling the credibility of your site? Especially after you removed the entry for glogblog.com? Jbritto

Source of Language Statistics?

What is the source for the percentage of people? To me, it looks like the numbers have been arbitrarily changed by a few people to what suits them. Case in point: The edit 02:39, 5 August 2005 by 212.151.200.37 switched the percentages of people speaking Tamil and Telugu, without any explanation! Can someone cite a correct source and use those numbers here please? Thanks. Jbritto

Push to FA

Comeon Bangloreans, push your city towards Featured status! See Wikipedia:Wikiproject Indian cities. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:43, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think its time Bangalore becomes a FA. With Nichalp involved, it should happen sooner than you can expand FAC. :-D Pamri • Talk 17:14, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the population density number

Dividing the population in the info box by the area stated gives a density of over 16,500 rather than below 3,000 as listed. CalJW 00:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Officially Bengaluru

Someone needs to fix it. It's officialy Bengaluru now. http://www.centralchronicle.com/20051226/2612305.htm

No, it's not! The article says the name will come into effect November 1, 2006. AreJay 02:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

native name

Hi

Please wait till the name of Bangalore is officially changed - later this year. The native_name field in the infobox refers to the name as documented in government gazettes, which is Bangalore as of today both in Karnataka and Indian government gazattes. Once the name is official, the head title can change. Till then, it would be proper to refer to any other names only in the actual text of article.

Pizzadeliveryboy 17:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well,somebody had written that there is a significant population of minorities in bangalore.i beg to differ.please dont think i am communal or something.the number of muslims in bangalore is less compared to other parts of the state like gulbarga,coastal karnataka.i agree there is a population,but it exists in small groups in areas like tilaknagar,yarabnagar,cox town,commercail street,near south end.their areas are very small and relatively peaceful sompared to the muslim areas of mumbai. as far as christians are concerned,most of them are converts from tamil nadu,kerala who came here primarily as labourers and now have settled in slums areas in shivajinagar,hosur road,kengeri. so as i said,it isnt that significant as it is in case of hyderabad or mumbai.--Jayanthv86 19:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was comparing the proportion of minorities in Bangalore to those of Hyderabad or Mumbai. All that statement did was to assert that the city did have a significant proportion of minorities, which should come as no surprise anyway, given the population of the city. AreJay 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
well are jay,i have vsisted many cities and in a cosmopolitan city like bangalore,the evidence of large populace of minorites is not visible and atleast not evident in the culture and potrayal of the city.the areas i have listed are the only significant areas where minorities live,and those areas are very small and underdeveloped.and i am sorry you are misunderstood,my statement never asserts or is trying to assert that minority population is large in Bangalore.--Jayanthv86 19:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

veracity of edits

Can anyone please verify jayanthv's edits?

Pizzadeliveryboy 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Language spoken

On second thoughts, jayanthv86's addition of a Language Spoken clause in the infobox is a good idea. Any idea how this is done?

Pizzadeliveryboy 19:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Language was one of the items in the old infobox that existed over a year ago. That was ultimately removed because of the vagueries associated with the term, especially given Bangalore's cosmopolitan character and the cosmopolitan character of some of the other Indian cities. Not to mention the fact that in India, states are divided linguistically, not cities, so the term "Language of Bangalore" would really have no meaning.
AreJay 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

edit reverses

re. the edit reverses in Bangalore:

'Bangalore has significant proportions of groups that would otherwise be considered minorities in India, including Muslims, Christians and Anglo-Indians.'

The section in bold should go since it kind of sounds parochial and abrasive. I think it kind of suggests that minorities need to continuously reminded that they are indeed minorities. just mentioning that specific communities also live in BLR should be enough.

The rest can remain. Please enlighten.

Pizzadeliveryboy 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

List getting longer

Adding every college/school in BLR will only make the section unreadable and unweildly after some time.

It would be a better idea to stick to some really well known (internationally, if possible) institutes like IISc in the article, and give a link to a seperate article on a list of colleges.

Any thoughts???!!!

Pizzadeliveryboy 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This also holds true for the list of companies and (until recently) the list of religious festivals...we need to stick with just 3 or 4 entries in each list. There's a difference between trying to accentuate a point and just overloading an idea with bajillion entries in each list. AreJay 16:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Who decides which of the names to top the list and which ones to be ommitted and referred in the specific article?????

Pizzadeliveryboy 17:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know? Perhaps someone who knows enough about the topic can provide the names of two or three of the most common/popular entries associated with that list. I'm kinda against "lists" per se given the nature of Wikipedia — people are going to keep coming and adding entries to the list and it just becomes hard to manage. AreJay 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
well are jay,i have vsisted many cities and in a cosmopolitan city like bangalore,the evidence of large populace of minorites is not visible and atleast not evident in the culture and potrayal of the city.the areas i have listed are the only significant areas where minorities live,and those areas are very small and underdeveloped.and i am sorry you are misunderstood,my statement never asserts or is trying to assert that minority population is large in Bangalore.--Jayanthv86 19:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jayanthv86 — according to Wikipedia, the definition of "cosmopolitan" is "cosmopolitan describes something influenced by many cultures from around the world". By definition therefore, does it not imply, if we are to refer to Bangalore as a cosmopolitan city, that the culture of the city is characterized by various strains of cultures including that of the majority culture? If the presence of other cultures in Bangalore is not evident, as you say, is the city cosmopolitan at all? Any thoughts? AreJay 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities are a good place to follow, if you have any doubts about style/content. --Pamri • Talk 05:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes,i agree with AreJay that the lists have gotten longer,and moreover the school's name was added by anon ip's.So,i have deleted it.Moreover i am a user against advertisements(see my user page).Mention of technical colleges is good.But mention of secondary schools and PU colleges will make this a mess.Hence,i have removed all school names.i repeat:No advertisements in Wikipedia.--Jayanthv86 18:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

City History

...silver coins of Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius have been excavated in and around present-day Bangalore, but have not revealed much about its contemporaneous inhabitants.

Can the person who added this clarify its validity and / or cite the source? I am not a historian, but for some reason doubt the validity of the statement. Are we saying there was contact between Ancient Rome and India? AreJay 17:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Yes please cite the source,or else you can find me with a spade digging the aldready battered Bangalore roads searching for rare ancient coins.--Jayanthv86 18:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That's hilarious! :-) AreJay 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghettoization

A recent trend in the urban development of Bangalore is the ghettoization of the city's IT and knowledge economy workforce into self-contained gated communities. Moreover, a bulk of the IT and knowledge economy workers are not domiciled within the state of Karnataka. This has led to a general perception in state level political circles (who derive a bulk of their political power from rural Karnataka) that Bangalore is not a potential vote block during elections, and hence infrastructure development activities within the city do not carry high political weight.

Can someone who understand what this paragraph was intended to convey reword it so that it makes sense? I can't seem to understand what the idea behind the paragraph is. What is a "self-contained gated community"?? AreJay 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

City Taxi numbers

Would it amount to advertising if we gave the citi taxi phone numbers ? With so many unconnected citi taxi operators, (each mostly operating in one area of Bangalore) it may be worthwhile to give some numbers but then, the list may grow too long. Hmm... Wikicheng 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Economy

  • Ideological clashes between the city's IT moguls, who demand an addressal of the infrastructural problems of the city, and the traditionally bureaucratic state governments, whose electoral base is primarily rural Karnataka's agricultural workers, are aplenty. In July 2004 Wipro CEO Azim Premji threatened to pull his company out of the city, stating, "We do not see the situation (state of Bangalore's infrastructure) improving in the near future." [29]. The Hosur Road, which connects Bangalore to the Electronics City, is a heavily congested road in the city. The road is also part of the National Highway (NH7) and therefore witnesses heavy truck traffic as well.'
the above lines have nothing to do with Economy. also, this issue has been written about ad nauseum in the 'Infrastructure in Bangalore' fork. deleting it.
Of course this has to do with Economy. The fact that similar information may appear in another article does not make it inappropriate for this article. Restoring. --BostonMA 17:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

Communal tensions between the city's two largest ethnic groups, the Kannadigas and the Tamils, have led to numerous altercations. In early 1991, tensions between the two groups ..........snipped..........[39]. In 1997 the demolition of a stone structure in a mosque in Jayanagar led to violence in sensitive areas in the city that left four dead.

what on earth do the above lines have to do with demographics? the above lines only appear as unabashed POV pushing, by stating half truths and only one side of the story while very conveniently leaving the other side of the story untold. 209.180.28.6 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
if we were to add both sides of the story to the article, it would end up becoming unnecessarily long and unencyclopaediac. 209.180.28.6 19:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the "other side of the story"? Our job is not to opine as to why there was/is communal tension, but to indicate that there exists some semblence of tension between those communities. Without that, a discussion of the demographical environment in the city cannot be considered complete. AreJay 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
demographics is - "there are 100 people living in my street. 50 are male and 50 female. 60 adults and 40 children. 20 houses in the street. average size of a household is 5. 40% belong to faith X,30% to Y. 30% to Z. 60% speak lang A. rest speak lang B......etc. 209.180.28.6 22:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
demographics is NOT - there are 20 households in my street. the guys living to my right and the guys living to my left had a fight 15 years ago. the cause of the fight, many believe is, because one of my 'right' neighbours chicken ate some of the chicken feed my 'left' neighbour had bought for his own chicken. some actually believe it is the other way round. 209.180.28.6 22:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
in any case, i still believe that there is a 'semblance' of tension between the two families. it is besides the point that their kids fell in love and married each other. it is also besides the point that the inlaws now are great friends now and go pubbing together on the weekends. 209.180.28.6 22:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
i still and 'however' believe that there is a semblance of tension between the two and suspect that they may have a fight again 25 years from now. 209.180.28.6 22:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bangalore and Wikipedia:Peer review/Bangalore/archive1 to understand why these elements were incorporated into the article. AreJay 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed it and there is nothing there that answers the above users concerns. and when someone raises a concern, either answer to the point or dont answer. just giving a link which has 50000 words in it and asking the user to figure out is rude. anyway, i am waiting for an answer. and stop trying to bluff with bullshit links - links which either have nothing of relevance or which are just too huge for someone to read and fish out answers to their questions.

IT contribution

Can some please find out up-to-date info on Bangalores IT contribution in $$ and percentages and add it in. I know its somewhere in the 33% range but not sure what that amounts to.

Dinesh K


Prakash's Suggestions to improve the current Bangalore site

Hi! I have the following suggestions. Please take them as constructive criticism from someone who loves Bangalore.

I have compared the current Bangalore site to the Wikipedia site about London so that we can take the better points from the latter and incorporate it into our cities site.

a) The formatting of the Bangalore page is terrible. Everything is lumped together and is incoherent. We need to re-aarange the contentso that it falls into proper place. If you see the London site, you will notice that after every 4 - 5 lines the para ends and a new one begins. In our case it is just the opposite.

b) I tried to rearrange the content recently. I did not delete anything but tried to add headlines. Some zealous administrator reversed what I had done and told me that the format that I had used went against Wikipedia's policy. This is why I am comparing the Bangalore layout to that of London. I ask everyone.............let's have an open mind so that we get a great format in for our great city.

c) There is a lot that is missing. For example, I was astounded to find that Daly Memorial Hall was not featured at all! It is a landmark building with a great history. Luckily I had taken a recent pic which had come out well, and a bit of research led to the creation of the page. Can we create a list of landmark buildings and incorporate them into the site?

d) I would like to devote some time every day to the upgrading of this site. Maybe we can start with a list of things that need to be added. My forte is phtographs and I shall be happy to contribute whatever imagery is needed.

My email ID is prksh1@gmail.com. I'd love to hear from like minded people and set about rearranging the website.

Regards,

Prakash

The formatting is per Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities and the guidelines linked to from WP:MoS, which the London article doesn't follow. And Bangalore is a Featured article, while the London article is not even close. Also, much of the discussion happens on the talk page. But of course, feel free to add/edit in areas, you feel this article is missing. --Pamri • Talk 00:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve Bangalore Web site

1.Helps to move Tourism in and around Bangalore to a more prominant location then at the very bottom. 2.Picture says a thousand words. 

 a)Lets get a ISCKON temple photo in. The current one is also
   good (colorfull) but lacks the impact.
 b) In the "Karnataka" page, I have given relevant details and organised Kannada Empires. 
    we can do with One picture from each empire. Ie; Pattadakal for Badami chalukya, 
    Ellora from Rashtrakuta etc. a photo of Keladi Nayaka
    and Rani Chennamma should not be hard to find.(links help but people dont always have time for it)

3.Every place of tourist interest in and arounf Bangalore should have a photo attached to it. I saw some great pictures on this web site http://www.virtualbangalore.com/Tou/InBlr.php#. Not sure if we can use them.

4.Need to find out what percentage of Bangaloreans can speak Kannada. I know for sure that a large population of Immigrants from South India can speak Kannada while very few Locals can speak the languages brought in by Immigrants fluently(telugu/Tamil). We need to establish that though Bangalore is a very cosmopolitian city, Kannada is the most dominant language in usage there.

5. Lets move away from Pot holes/policemen and so on. This problem exists in every city in India not just in Bengaluru. People take pleasure is trashing Bangalore because majority of them there are not "Ethnic Kannadigas".

6. Can someone find out the exact kannada speaking population worldwide instead of quoting a 1998 number and put it into the WIKI page for "Kannada". 7. I created a page for "Karnataka Literature" and have worked hard to put together names, works of famous Kannada/Sanskrit scholars from 4th century AD. Feel free to add to this. 8. The WIKI page "travel guide to Bangalore" looks like a big dump site. We need to organise this page. we need to seperate out temples, hotels, pubs etc. They should be seperate pages.

Dinesh Kannambadi.

Places of interest near Bangalore

It is shamefull to see such little put up on the Bangalore web page. There is no shortage of beautiful places to visit around Bangalore. Instead of "trashing" Bangalore and showing mud puddles, autorikshaws and pot bellied policemen, please take time to put some nice photographs and add to the section I have created. Look at the web pages for Hyderabad and Chennai. None of their residents talk of the filth in Hyderabad or the open drainages in Chennai. I am not suggesting that the local problems in Banglaore should go unresolved, but all I am saying is that we need to learn to market ourselves better and solve internal problems internally.

Dinesh Kannambadi

To-do list

The following is a list of items that need to be done to improve the quality of the article, per the standards set by Wikiproject Indian cities

  • Consolidate the History section into 4 or 5 paragraphs. Most of this section has already been copied over to the History of Bangalore article.
  • Consolidate the Economy section into 4-5 paragraphs. The information currently contained in the article needs to be moved to a new "Economy of Bangalore" article
  • Consolidate the Current Concerns section into 4-5 paragraphs. The information currently contained in this section needs to be moved to a new "Infrastructural Issues in Bangalore" article (or one with a similar title).
  • Spellcheck, and include standardized units of measurements (lakh, kilometer), etc
  • Consolidate the never ending entries for lists. Perhaps restrict the list to those entries that actually have links to Wikipedia articles. If an entry is important enough to make a list, it probably has a Wikipedia article about it.
  • Add a section on the demographics of the city including literacy rates, population by religion, population by language, population by occupation, income levels, etc.
  • Update citations and references
Updated 2/9/2005

Once we have effectively addressed the above items, we should be in pretty good shape to push the Bangalore article to featured status. I urge regular contributors to help improve the quality of this article and add any suggestions, as necessary. Other suggestions, to-do lists welcome within this discussion. AreJay 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Review before FAC

Hi, I'll be listing my suggestions/questions here below. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Bangalore’s cosmopolitan character is also attributed to the city’s temperate climate, which is milder than the those of other cities in the country.

    If there's a connection between the climate and the cosmopolitan character, please state the connection explicitly. Is it that because of the climate, people from different places settled here? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The establishment of multinational companies such as ANZ Bank and Citibank as well as international fast food chains such as Pizza Hut and Kentucky Fried Chicken in the 1990s continuted to contribute to the growth of Bangalore.

    I do not understand how the establishment of Pizza Hut contributed to the city's growth? Can we reword it to say that they were indicators of foreign investors coming to Bangalore? Even that without a reference might become original research. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How far is Nandi hills from Bangalore? The geography section says 30 km and the image caption says 60 km. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Do we have to talk this much about ISRO in the economy section? I'm asking because, it's proposed plan to go to moon etc., might involve ISRO centres in other cities as well, right? Also, we need to use use summary style. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've completed my round of copyediting. You have my vote. All the best. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the points put forth by Sundar. In addition, there are some minor nitpicks:
  • As far as possible, avoid using See also inside sections. Use either the main article/the see also template.
  • The Main article/See articles should point to articles, which are directly related to Bangalore. For instance, under Media,the main article points to "Mass media in India", which is misleading.
  • The 2nd para in the lead could be arranged chronologically.

Once this is done, you have my vote as well. --Pamri • Talk 08:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sundar, Pamri, thanks for your edits. Now that you mention those points, they seem rather glaringly obvious and I'm not sure how I missed them while I was reading over them myself! Thanks! I will incorporate the remainder of Sundar's, Pamri's and Nichalp's recommendations and pushing it forward to FAC. Thanks! AreJay 14:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I want to know the source of the $59.1 billion GDP figure for Bangalore. Is it PPP-based or nominal GDP? The figure seems too high to be true. India's nominal GDP is $735.6 billion (CIA figures) and it seems impossible that Bangalore's GDP is 59.1 billion.

This statistic is from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics from the Govt. of Karnataka. I have used this as a reference document for some of the other facts stated in the article but I should probably directly reference that quote...one more item to my to-do list today. I am sure that is a purchasing power parity (PPP) based value and not nominal GDP. I will reference that in my edits. India's GDP PPP is over US$ 3 trillion, so US$ 59.1 billion appears plausible. Thanks. AreJay 15:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Proper nouns

Proper nouns should be wikified. Since it creates unaesthetic red links, I usually stub those links, thereby adding more content to wikipedia. It usually does not take more than 3-4 hrs to accomplish this. See Sikkim, Flag of India and geography of India. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

FA

Wow..great to see an article on my hometown as a FA. All credit to Arejay for his effort. --Pamri • Talk 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Languages

According to this web page which cites official census, there are 6.1 lakhs Urdu speakers in Bangalore. I will add Urdu to the list of languages spoken. --BostonMA 01:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Real Estate rv

I just rv'ed 61.95.205.198's edits on real estate (for now). I agree, a summary of these contributions needs to be incorporated into the article. However, the recent edits should be presented in Wikipedia:Summary style, remove POV sentences and opinions, cite appropriate references and be added within one of the existing sections of the article. Thanks AreJay 14:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

edits

  • Bangalore's rapid growth has created several problems relating to traffic congestion and infrastructural obsolescence that the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has found challenging to address.
AGAIN and again and again and again....ROADS ARE NOT INFRASTRUCTURE!!...infrastructure includes everything, power, sanitation, telecom, roads and dozen other things. all your sources speak nothing about anything but roads and you call it infrastructure.
  • A 2003 Battelle Environmental Evaluation System (BEES) evaluation of Bangalore's physical, biological and socioeconomic parameters indicated that Bangalore's water quality, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem were close to ideal, while the city's socioeconomic parameters (traffic, quality of life) scored poorly.
Battelle who? can we see a copy of this 'evaluation'and just to put things in perspective what was this BEES' evaluation of other indian cities? - CITE YOUR SOURCES!
references added.
stop bluffing! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarvagnya (talk • contribs).
  • The BMP has been criticised by the Karnataka High Court, citizens and corporations for failing to effectively address the crumbling road and traffic infrastructure of Bangalore.
SOURCES! SOURCES!
reference added.
  • The unplanned nature of growth in the city---->ORIGINAL RESEARCH/POV
No, it is not. Most cities in developing countries experience unplanned growth patterns. This is not original "research".


  • ....resulted in massive traffic gridlocks that the municipality attempted to ease by constructing a flyover system and by imposing one-way traffic systems. Some of the flyovers and one-ways mitigated the traffic situation moderately but were unable to adequately address the disproportionate growth of city traffic.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH/SOURCES NOT CITED/POV
This is a summary of the Infrastructure article. Appropriate references are available there.
  • In 2005 both the Central Government and State Government allocated considerable portions of their annual budgets to address Bangalore's infrastructural woes
can we see a source where the govt has allocated money to address 'infrastructural woes' and not just 'infrastructure'. keep your linguistic flourish to yourself.

Bengalore to Bengaluru

In the 60th year of Indian independence another moment to cherish and remember for. Even though it has taken sixty years to rename the city, the IT capital has got its original name Bengaluru[2]. News channels has started to make the changes.[3] Chanakyathegreat 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

The area mentioned here is definitely wrong, the Infobox template (called Indian jurisdiction) seems a pretty complex one. Here is a link for sample city infobox template [4] can we switch over to some simple format like this? Sasinfo 18:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

I will try to fix it. --Blacksun 14:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)

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 Jurisdiction}} 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)

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)

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

Discrepancy in Population of Bangalore.

The intro to the article gives Bangalore's population as 61 lakh or 6.1 million but in the side bar of facts its list population as being 6.5 million?? If no one has any objection I will rectify the issue. NitnagaNitnaga 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Bangalore meetup

Bangalore Meetup
Meetup in planning
Next meetup       (view/edit)

Bengaluru

Let's move on with the official changes. It's Bengaluru in English as well. Please read the link [6]. 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)

Its not official yet. Still 45 days to go. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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 [7] [8]. So does the Times of India [9]. Same with Business Standard [10]. As for the foreign media, Forbes [11] and Reuters [12]. Meanwhile, let's all keep in mind that the name change hasn't even been implemented yet [13]. --Xiaopo (Talk) 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  • it seems it is Bengalooru, not Bengaluru: [14]. 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)
  • Like Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata, whenever Bengaluru becomes official, it should be quite proper to reflect the change in the main article and elsewhere in Wikipedia.Kanchanamala 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks.Kanchanamala 22:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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 [[15]], 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)

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)

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)

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

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)


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)

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)

It looks like we will have to settle for Bengaluru, according to The times of India dated 27 may 2007 . But as per the newspaper, the process, however, is still expected to take some time as the reactions from various government departments are awaited, before the Union home ministry finalises it. -- WikiCheng | Talk 10:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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

I support the proposal to rename Bangalore and move the page to Bengaluru.Kanchanamala 04:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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


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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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


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)


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)

  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

....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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I noticed Uttaranchal was renamed with no problem. After all, this will also be the new official English term as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)


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


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)

OK. I will. I don't think DH has anything newer than what I mentioned earlier -- WikiCheng | Talk 03:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The name change is not yet official as on 18th April 07, according to http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/apr182007/state234902007417.asp -- WikiCheng | Talk 14:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiCheng, any confirmation yet? Can you possibly check with the local post office? Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. See my comments under Isn't it Bengalooru? above -- WikiCheng | Talk 10:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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).

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)

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)


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)

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)

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.)

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)
  2. Support Lets move on with the official changes. Its Bengaluru in English as well. Please read the link [16]. 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)
  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)
  4. Support - its official.Bakaman 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support The new name Bengaluru should be reflected in the article and elsewhere in Wikipedia.Kanchanamala 09:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  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)
  9. Support offical name Naveenpf 05:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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)
  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)
  3. Oppose Use English.--Húsönd 03:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  6. Oppose - as the name is Bengalooru according to [17]; (see section above). Is there one single authoritative source for the name? Government of Bangalore/Bengalooru/Bengaluru? atanamir 09:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)

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)

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)

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

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.
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Help needed to districtify

Hello Bangalorians. I need one of you to do me favor. I work on wikitravel [18] 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)

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?

Yes. Private blogs are inappropriate on wikipedia. Sarvagnya 18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou, this link is purely for information and reference and for want of good interactive visualization. There are many notes / references linking to many sources outside, they are considered legitimate, why not this? (Sasinfo 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC))
Because personal blogs are not reliable sources. Otherwise, we both could open our own blogs, write whatever we want and cite it on wikipedia. Or if we had our own blogs, we could piggyback on wikipedia's popularity and get some free publicity for our blog. Also see wikipedia's policy on external links. Sarvagnya 19:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what is the disdain over blogs. Should we reject just because the reference is a blog? The same information written in a non-blog website is acceptable? Should we not check the data if its reliable and make that's only criteria. What about the wrong Bangalore Area displayed in infobox, is that not a unreliable information? Sasinfo 16:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Its not disdain over blogs. Even 'unreliable' websites are a strict no-no. And to decide which source is reliable and which is not, we follow the guidelines set down in WP:RS. Please read it in its entirety atleast once. And then, for external links, we have WP:EL. Read that one also. If you think that any of these rules/policy/guidelines are flawed, bring it up at the village pump. If people agree with you, you can get the policy changed. Sarvagnya 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Is this external link in the main page[22] not a self promotion..why is this link not edited? Sasinfo 20:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is unreliable source for information ?according to patent office Sasinfo 19:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, you are welcome to argue all you want, but unfortunately, this is Wikipedia policy and all Sarvagnya has done is to ensure that it is properly applied on this page. He has also provided various links to Wikipedia's policies in his reply above; please take the time to read them carefully. Despite this, if you believe the policy/policies to be unfair, please contribute by debating on WP:PUMP. Arguing on this talk page will help very little. Thanks AreJay 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not argue here, wikians were helpful to clarify certain things for which i am grateful. I did read all the links quoted in this regard. My understanding in this regard where necessary, the info if it's reliable it can be quoted. Nobody proved the links i posted are unreliable. Instead the links i posted were giving a synoptic view of the City's demography. By not doing anything to check the wrong Bangalore 'area' quoted in info box, we seems to be validating the 'unreliable' news. Also i don't understand why this external link[23] is not self promotion. Sasinfo 19:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Size of Bangalore city

The area of Bangalore in the article seems to be incorrect. 2190 sq km is the area of entire Bangalore district [24]. The article should include the area of the city only. --(Sumanth|Talk) 09:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This page is very messy when it comes to pictures. The india portal (or Indian cities or something like that) rules state that most/ all of the pics should be on the right. And there should be at most 3 per section. This is a featured article and should not remain in this state. Also, the relevance of images is essential. The Public Utility Building does not relate to the economy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Please give correct reference for the picture guidelines, Please don't remove the pictures arbitrarly. Sasinfo 22:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks far better than messy New Delhi Page photo placements [25]. Sasinfo 22:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a featured article. New Delhi is far far away from being one. Please read all the rules in Wikiproject Indian cities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cities

and Wikiproject India http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_India

Please become familiar with established procedures. Nikkul 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the following issues need to be addressed:

  • Culture
    • Shouldn't Garden city of India and Pub city of India be "Garden city of India" and "Pub city of India" respectively?
    • Chinese and Western fast food are all very popular in the city. Here, "western" directs to "western world", while "Chinese" to "Chinese food". I think the link for "western" needs to be changed.
    • Bangalore is home to the Kannada film industry..., Bangalore is also a popular venue for Western rock concerts, and Bangalore has a number of elite clubs, like the Bangalore Golf Club, Bowring Institute... These should have separate paragraphs for themselves as they have little relation with rest of their respective paragraphs.
    • No mention of the recent explosion in the no of shopping malls.
    • There is not one reference in the entire paragraph! I find its especially needed for the bits about Winston Churchill and "Bangalore Kannada".

More later Tommy Stardust 18:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

This past week, there's been a pointless tug-of-war over images being added to this article. While quality images undoubtedly enhance the overall reading experience of the article, this purile and repeated inserting and reverting of images has turned out to be an utterly pointless excercise and has drawn everyone away from what needs to be the real focus — i.e., improving the article's content, where necessary. I completely agree with Sarvagnya. This little battle is just a little too excessive. Nikkul, how does an image showing only a part of what appears to be the building of a school that isn't even very prominent in Bangalore gain prominence in your opinion over a statue of JN Tata on the campus of perhaps one of the country's finest academic institutions?? Also, if staying in the US leads you to not "care about any school in Bangalore", then I'd question why you're editing this article in the first place. If you don't care, that's fine; other editors who do care about the article have continued to pitch in and improve it with additional content on an as-needed basis. Secondly, how is a photograph of a random shoe shop in Bangalore indicative of the city's culture, as you claim in your edit summary when you reversed the other editor's edits [26]? Can we explore that logic a little bit more?? These are just some of the questions I had when these edits were being made ad nauseum, but I refrained from commenting on it, but since the edits and reverse edits have continued like there's no tomorrow, I was compelled to comment. Let's leave the article the way it is as of now. I certainly don't think the article is lacking in quality in the image department and if anyone wants to add or change any of the images, let's discuss it hear first before taking unilateral decisions and starting another pointless edit war all over again. Thanks AreJay 02:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The images can do with with a little improvement but you cant just dump some random image just because you dont like the existing ones. My suggestions for any change of images would be - if you want to take the statue image away from education, then the correct and more appropriate image would have to be that of either National High School or of H Narasimhiah. NHS shares a glorious history with Bengaluru and it is alma mater for hundreds and hundreds of notable people of Bengaluru. H Narasimhiah is one of the foremost educationists, freedom fighters and Gandhians of Karnataka and was Principal of the school for a looooong time. His pic also would be ideal for the education section. And if you're going to have some random shoe shop from some mall, I'd rather you have a pic of either MTR or Vidyarthi Bhavan or something. These are businesses which have been part and parcel of Bengaluru's ethos and culture since decades. Basically, use some logic when you replace images. You cant just dump your favourite school(and a horrible pic at that) into the article. Sarvagnya 05:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I fully agree with my fellow editors AreJay and Sarvagnya. Thanks.Kanchanamala 08:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

AreJay, first of all let me say that my statement of not caring about schools in bangalore is a direct reponse to Sravagnya's accusation that I was adding images of MY favorite schools. To be honest, I have no feelings towards any school in Bangalore. But i very much care about Bangalore, and its page on Wikipedia. As i was looking for another picture, the Xavier Institute one was the only decent available picture for a college in Bangalore. So tell me, do you think a statue or a picture of an actual school is more relavnt to the Education section?? Sarvagnya, if you would like to add an image of the National Highschool, please go ahead. I dont have any oppositions, as long as the image is clear. But I do oppose the picture of a statue where the picture of a school should be. Perhaps, you should consult other city articles and see that under the education section, pictures of schools, not statues are shown. I dont think any one person can be representative of all the colleges in Bangalore. Oh, and once again, Saragnya has directly accused me of "dumping my favorite school." Let me just state this, I am going to a world class school in Los Angeles, i really dont have any favorite schools located in Bangalore. If Sarvagnya would like to add an image of MTR of Vidyarthi Bhavan, go ahead and try finding some, but dont stop my efforts instead because atleast I am finding new images instead of reverting other peoples and saying, "oh MTR would be nice." And shopping has become a prominent part of culture in bangalore. if you didnt notice that, then go there and see. :) Nikkul 15:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please. I didnt ask for NHS or MTR to be added because you were adding XIME. I suggested them because they mean something to Bengaluru. XIME on the other hand, let me tell you, means almost nothing to Bengaluru. It is one of the million 'startup' schools that has mushroomed in Bengaluru in the last decade or so. It has no history with Bengaluru nor any stature of the IISc kind. Except the student population in Bengaluru, the rest of the population hardly even knows that such a thing as XIME even exists. Same with your shoe shop. It is just another nameless, faceless glass facade and can even be from anywhere in the world. Nothing in that pic even remotely connects with Bengaluru. In short, your pics are way out of place in this article. Nearly nonsense.
On the other hand, MTR or Vidyarthi Bhavan(talking just of eateries) have a history, popularity and prominence that goes back generations. As far as the education pic goes, my only complaint with the statue pic is that it is not very clear, a close up would do. And in my opinion, a pic of H Narasimhiah is the ideal one for the section(and I will make a case for it when I can find a free-to-use pic of him. I will hold my peace till then) And if you want a shopping area, get me a pic of, say, Gandhi Bazaar, the numero uno 'bazaar' in Bengaluru. Or of K.R.Market. Or maybe a pic of any prominent Darshini(a fast food restaurant genre that is part and parcel of every man, woman and child in Bengaluru). Or maybe a pic of the Kadlekai parishe. I could go on... but your pic of XIME and shoe shop figure nowhere.
if you didnt notice that, then go there and see. :)
Ok. Sarvagnya 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I was just thinking, how about using this image of Sir M.Visweswarrayya? Sir MV was instrumental in starting so many schools and colleges in Bangalore as stated in the article itself. Govt of Karnataka has started a new university in his name. Nothing more appropriate than Sir MV's image for education section until we get an image of Dr.H Narasimmaih IMHO. Gnanapiti 17:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
A nice pic of Sir MV would certainly make a strong case(for Karnataka than Bengaluru imo), the pic you've mentioned is sadly, 'fair-use'. I dont think(per WP policy) that the pic would be 'fair-use' for this article. Sarvagnya 17:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. Mavalli Tiffin Room article has some good pictures for Culture or Demographics section. MTR has a great heritage associated with Bangalore. Gnanapiti 17:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME, sarvagnya, I'm not getting you anything!!! Who are you to tell me to get you images??? If you want an image, go get it yourself. Perhaps you should look at yourself in the mirror and notice that you are equal to every other user on Wiki. Don't think you are any better than anyone else. Please. Just so you know, I was the one who brought the Vadhana Soudha and the Lalbagh pictures after searching for hours on flickr. all you have done is criticize others, blame others, and tell others to bring you images. Nikkul 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Searching for hours to get pictures of Vidhana Soudha? May be you missed a box called "search" in flickr. :) Gnanapiti 18:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul, I dont need to look in the mirror to know that I am a mere mortal. I know it. And since you say that it took you 'hours' to find a 'Vidhana Soudha' pic, I thought you might find this site useful. Just search for anything there and it will return pics that can mostly be used on wikipedia. Thanks. Sarvagnya 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul, to respond to your questions earlier, you have to put that statue in context to really understand its implications. That statue, is the statue of the founder of the IISc, perhaps the most prestigeous academic institution dedicated to science in the entire country, and is located in the IISc campus. Surely, this is a natural candidate to represent Bangalore's education environment (I would certainly rank it above any image of XIME). And just to be clear, I have no affiliation to either the IISc or XIME, having never studied in India, but clearly this is not just a statue. It is a statue of the founder of the IISc and is located on its campus. Also, your response has still not addressed my question on the photo of the shoe shop. What exactly did you mean by saying "And shopping has become a prominent part of culture in bangalore."? People in cities everywhere shop. How is this part of the city's culture? Aquisition of products and services for domestic consumption has been part of peoples' daily routine for centuries. How is this even relavent to a city's culture? And how has this become part of the culture of Bangalore? Are you suggesting that people in Bangalore didn't shop at some point in the past? I'm sorry, but this seems to defy logic.
However, and in closing, let us agree to first discuss any changes to the images in the article here on the talk page and avoid taking unilateral decisions. Keep in mind that Bangalore is a featured article and it is important that we maintain the high quality that the article currently adheres to. By discussing any changes to the images, we can insure that the proposed changes conform to the general standards of the article and are relevent to the context of the article or section. Can we agree on this? AreJay 22:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Arejay, is not culture what people routinely do? Shopping for high-class shoes reflects how people have started buying things that are more luxurious than ever before. It is a fact that most people now have more money in Bangalore than they ever had before as a result of Bangalores econmy. And instead of going to the Bata store, they now head to stores like that. But I do see your point and i do appreciate that you did not just BLAME me for putting the picture of my favorite womens shoe store on there like someone else would have. So thank you for being more civil. And as long as you agree that a picture of isc would be more relavant than a picture of tata, i dont really have any opposition. Think of it like this: an average person who comes on the bangalore page is not from bangalore, but from some other part of the world (most probably). He does not know the importance of Tata. All they see is a statue and a statue does not show education in bangalore. Sarvagnya, I am very pleased that you have realized that you are a mere mortal. I think we're finally getting somewhere. And, just so you know, Wiki commons does not have high quality pics like flickr does. There is only one picture of the Vidhana Soudha and it does not meet my quality requirements. That is why i spent hours trying to get a new image on instead of ordering people to get you images. And perhaps you should learn to not assume that people tend to DUMP their favorite images onto YOUR page, as if this page is compeletly yours. Nikkul 02:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an average reader doesn't know the importance of Tata but he knows some Xavier school whose only achievement includes constructing a two story building and maintaining a two tree garden. :) Well said Nikkul. Gnanapiti 05:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you live in a bubble, but in the real world, the average reader definately does not know who tata is. perhaps a majority of people in india know who he is, but this is not an indian only used encyclopedia. So to the rest of us who dont live in india (which makes the majority of wikipedia readers) all they see is a statue. And i am for any image that shows a school in bangalore rather than a black statue. Do you think people who read Wiki articles in America, Austrailia, France, England, Singapore etc. all know who Tata is?? No way. Nikkul 11:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate Nikkul's keenness for a clean looking image, but he has been arbitrarily removing and adding pictures. The IISc statue pic clearly has the byline hyperlinked to page what is IISc and who is JN Tata. Similarly Nikkul removed KR Market pic repeatedly (what reason?) and didn't hesitate to add some shoe shop, saying it shows culture. I have uploaded this IISc pic [27] and this [28], can we add one of them to the main page instead of Tata statue? I prefer the first pic Sasinfo 17:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The first image is tagged "fair use" and there seems to be no explanation as to how this qualifies as fair use. The licensing for the second image hasn't been clarified either. Generally, we prefer using public domain images or images with cc-attrib, or cc-attrib cc-sa licensing. You might be better off looking for suitable IISc images on creativecommons.org or other websites. AreJay 18:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Nikkul, from the Wikipedia article on culture...
If culture is what people routinely do, then why haven't we written about the fact that people in Bangalore eat food routinely, or work for a living routinely? The same with shopping. People in Bangalore shop, as do the people in Mumbai, Moscow or Minneapolis. This isn't part of their "culture". I think however, that you're probably trying to say that people in Bangalore are increasingly frequenting shopping malls. I am, however, hesitant to say "most" people in Bangalore have that kind of buying power. I know having frequently visited the city that even Bangalore's middle class citizens are more likely to make their purchases in local bazaars (like the KR Market or Gandhi Bazaar that Sarvagnya was talking about) than at exclusive stores in shopping malls. All this is moot point though, since clearly shopping has little to do with a city's culture. AreJay 18:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

AreJay, I understand what you are saying, and i thank you for being civil about it. By the way, we do write about the fact that people in Bangalore work routinely...its in the economy section. The fact that people eat food in Bangalore (the types of food) is in the culture section. And i do see the fact that the store image could have been taken anywehre else in the world and thats why i have not added that in. And i definatley prefer Sasinfo's images to the black statue.Nikkul 01:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Introductory ["skyline"] Image

Bangalore needs an introductory image of either a famous landmark or a skyline. Most other cities have these in their infoboxes. A snapshot of UB city would be great.Nikkul 14:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems

The culture, media and education sections have 1 citation between them.

Also I do not think Bangalore Institute of Technology, Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering, and Sir M. Visvesvaraya Institute of Technology have a good enough reputation to be mentioned in the article (after all, this is an article on Bangalore, not technical education in Bangalore).

In 1991 plans for a large-scale Bangalore International Airport were conceived; however, the project was repeatedly delayed due to red tape and friction between the private companies involved and the state government. How on earth did unreferenced random statements like that make it to a featured article? Red tape and friction... Seriously?

I honestly think this article needs to be reviewed for its FA status Tommy Stardust 18:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

List of colleges

IMHO, no college should be mentioned in the article except the top three: IIM, IISc and NLSIU. Any other addition will lead to a deluge of alumni trying to push in their colleges into the list. Please provide opinions on this issues, else I am removing the list of colleges one week from now -- Amarrg 08:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If you start adding names, then there would be no end, and we'd end up having each and every "Galli" college on this list. The most well known are IIM, IISc, NLSIU, BMC (2nd best in India), IIIT-B and some other older, more renowned (or at least a deeply ingrained part of the cityscape) colleges. Sniperz11 13:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes made to the article

  1. Removed one line which was tagged citation needed from lead-in. There was no citation I found to validate that moreover the Finance Ministry of India in its presentation of Outcome budget of 2007-08 has specifically mentioned the name as 'Bengaluru' as can be seen here thereby indicating that the name is prevalent in the Indian Government as well.
  2. Removed first line from History section since the same has been explained in detail in the Etymology section
  3. Trimmed the history section by removing irrelevant references like that to Miss World and KFC - -- Amarrg 14:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bengaluru

Per this article from The Hindu, it should officially be "Bengaluru" by now. Also Amar's link above clearly shows Bengaluru being used "officially". Also the media and several businesses also have started using "Bengaluru". Some examples - [29] [30] [31] [32] com/bangalore/Bengaluru-properties.html [33] [34]

And it has always been "bengaluru" in Kannada - not just 'unofficially' but also 'officially'. Kannada is the only "official" language of the state and every single official letter, gazette, form and any other document printed by the Govt of Karnataka in Kannada has always used "Bengaluru". So, I think it is time to move the article. Sarvagnya 21:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Except, er, that this article isn't written in Kannada. It's written in English. It should use the accepted English form of the name, which is "Bangalore", until such time as 'Bengaluru' becomes widely accepted amongst English-speakers, which will probably be a while, if it ever happens at all. We say Germany, not Deutschland, Venice, not Venezia, India not Bharat or Hindustan. What's the use though. Arguing with linguistic chauvinists trying to colonise English-language wikipedia is like banging your head against a brick wall..... Sikandarji 10:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
While I don't want to be as blunt as Sikandarji, I would like to draw your (User:Sarvagnya's) attention to the fact that the official website of the Bangalore City Corporation and the official site of the Karnataka government both continue to mention "Bangalore" as the name of the city. Furthermore, the very sources that you cite like The Hindu and Deccan Herald continue to use the name "Bangalore" in their papers in reports that are filed from the city. Just visit their websites and you'll know what I'm talking about.
So let's not jump the gun and move the article until we get official confirmation and acceptance of the new name in a reasonable number of reputed sources. With all due respect, a couple of websites here and there have mentioned the new name don't make for a strong case to do a find/replace of "Bangalore" with "Bengaluru", or for moving the article.
Coming to the infobox, I'm perplexed as to why you would want to tuck the Kannada name under the other_name field when you yourself try to make the case that it is the only official name of the city. If it is the official name according to you, isn't it wrong to put the official name under other_name? Given the fact that there is no "official_name" field, the native_name field fits the bill perfectly, because the Kannada name is the native name and should stand out as so. I don't think you'll disagree with me about this fact, so unless there's a very good reason to do otherwise, we should put the names in the infobox in their correct fields (this is an featured article after all, and should tend to perfection). Thank you, Max - You were saying? 15:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Bengaluru is the official spelling in the English language, period. Thanks.Kanchanamala 06:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I move "Bangalore" to "Bengaluru." Since official, it should be the legitimate version of the name in whichever context its used. I hope its acceptable. In case of Deutschland, Helvetia etc. the primary language in use is non-English. When its English, the official name becomes the accepted name, even in English. Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 08:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. What is 'Official' is neither here nor there: what matters is usage, and which version is more familiar, more widely used, and more likely to be recognised. The Wikipedia naming convention reads thus: "If a native spelling uses different letters than the most common English spelling (eg, Wien vs. Vienna), only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form."[35] This is clearly not the case with "Bengaluru", and until it does become as widely used as, say, 'Mumbai', the article should remain at 'Bangalore'. Sikandarji 08:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Sikandar.. for heaven's sake.. is this the only page on your watchlist? Get a life! Sarvagnya 09:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

SEI CMM Level 5

"As headquarters to 38% of global SEI-CMM Level 5 Companies, Bangalore's place in the global IT map is prominent.[40]"

Very old statistics ..now there are much more than 52 SEI CMM Level 5 companies. Either count all the companies and figure out how many % are based in Bangalore or just include "many of" instead of exact figure. so it becomes

As headquarters to many of the global SEI-CMM Level 5 Companies, Bangalore's place in the global IT map is prominent.[40]

rock city of india

removing status as rock city of india - didnt find any proof on google. what makes you say its the rock city of india ? ~Ninad

It's not. And anyway, what does that term even mean? There's no value to random marketing slogans in an encyclopedia. AreJay 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The characterization of Bengaluru as a [or the] rock city of India seems very odd to me. Thanks.Kanchanamala 09:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks, i have edited and changed "rock city of india" to hosts many rock concerts ~Ninad

2001 Census

Notice that many numbers are based on 2001 census. We are in year 2007 and Bangalore itself with other cities in India have grown enormously. Shouldnt this data be removed ....i mean though we might not have new data available ...this 2001 data is clearly incorrect.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.185.137 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangalore/Archive_1&oldid=1085445501"