This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
I think s merger is perfectly justified!!!18.104.22.168 02:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)HShenoy
yes to merger. I speculate that the articles Kamat and Kamath might have become separate due to caste references in their definitions, which must have been annoying to some, and embarrassing to others. The entries Kamat/Kamath must be made caste-neutral and caste referencing prejudices removed, or for record-sake be put into a sub sectional note. Unless there is definitive reference that makes a counterclaim (which I think is very unlikely), both surnames are the same with variant spellings. There are bound to be individuals in various communities having either spelling, and both articles could be incorrect in the context of such individuals. Maybe, in a few number of years, the entries will eventually have to say that they are Konkani surname from a historical perspective, why? -because even now there could be individuals with Kamath/Kamat as a surname, but not necessarily speaking Konkani as the mother tongue. Further down the road, its not going to be only a Hindu surname. Hoping that viewpoints will mature as will Indian society. Hgkamath 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)