Talk:Bangalore/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Can I add the Bangalore Portal Link?

Can I add the Bangalore Portal Link? A Portal has been created, I added the link and someone removed it. Please let me know if we can put it. If not, please let me know the reasons. Thanks, Amol. —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC).

Yes, please add it to the bottom of the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ammendment

Under the section Sports, it is indicated that Anil Kumble is the Current Captain of the Indian Test team. He has infact announced his retirement from test cricket on 02 Nov 2008. The following website has more information on this, http://cricket.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3665133.cms —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.169.182 (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done The section has been updated to the latest status for cricket. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Festivals of Bangalore

I need to add at least one festival that is celebrated inside heart of Bangalore i.e Bangalore_Karaga which is most important festival which dates back atleast 500 years back in time..Perhaps you can also copy some contents too. Shri 05:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thigala4u (talk • contribs)

BMTC busses

The picture of a BMTC Volvo bus is accompanied with a caption "BMTC's Volvo buses are a popular mode of commuting within Bangalore." This is a highly misleading and apolitical sentence. A very small number of bus travellers in the city use Volvo as it is very expensive. A one way end to end ticket costs almost the same as the average wage of a daily wage a labourer. The transport minister Mr Ashok has publically anounced that the transport coorporation incurs a loss of Rs.5 Lakhs every day because of these expensive buses. Given the fact that the corporation earns a profit of Rs.300 crore per annum, it is the users of other buses who are subsidising Volvo buses and their users. Please change the caption based on a more realistic evaluation of the imapact on Volvo buses on the transport corporation, bus users, it affordability and appropriateness.

I will gladly make the necessary changes. Can you provide a reference that supports your post? Thanks AreJay (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The above anon post seems to confuse popularity with profitability. Bangalore's Volvos are popular because they provide air-conditioned comfort at subsidised rates - which does not necessarily imply that they ought to be profitable. Hence, the comment of "impaact" (sic) is not valid. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"The above anon post seems to confuse popularity with profitability" - I don't think that's necessarily true, your criticism seems a bit harsh. There was a valid defense of the inappropriateness of "popularity" with the claim that only a small percentage of travellers use it. The rest of the statement, however, is an unrelated opinion that ought to be sourced to be included. Cribananda (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Important places in Bangalore

This article about Bangalore does not contain information about the beautiful parks, lakes and restaurants that are available in the city and are one of the most important attractions of modern Bangalore. You can refer to [1] if you decide to update the page. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobbin (talk • contribs) 05:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

BBMP Commissioner

I'd like to notify the change of the city's municipal commissioner from Mr.S. Subramanya to Mr. Bharat Lal Meena. This change was effected a few weeks back, but is not reflected in the page. Swaroop 11:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The change has since been reflected. Hey Swaroop, one strike, one hit, not bad. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Tall claim in the opening

"because of its preeminent position as the nation's leading IT employer and exporter" - is this really true? I'm not denying it, but the reference cited doesn't support this claim. Cribananda (talk) 08:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The referenced source refers to Bengaluru as "India's tech homeland". But a suitable citation is needed for the statement quoted by Cribananda. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Military establishments - discuss here

This section has been reverted by User:Kensplanet. Please do not revert my restoration. The issue is now placed here for discussion. A military association resulted in Bangalore becoming what it is. The edit is not 'trivial' in size, relevance or scope. This is not a trivial edit by anon but by an established editor. Discuss the exact objections here.

AshLin (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. Since you are not an annon, but an established editor; it's your duty to discuss on the Talk Page before making such monumental edits. Secondly, The statements were not sourced. Since, this is a Featured article, unsourced statements can't be tolerated. As per WP:BURDEN, an editor is free to revert such edits. Kensplanet^T_C11:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll revert it myself and get back later with references. Preserve the FA so to say. AshLin (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So, it's better, if you yourself revert your edit. Let's have a discussion on that Kensplanet^T_C 11:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding material is not a major breach of wiki manners, that's what editors do! I discussed briefly with you and agreed to 'unreferenced' edits to an FA! Responding to civilised argument is correct wikiettiquette too. Discussing the scope of proposed edits is also good.

The use of the word 'trivial'. That's what gets my goat. Unreferenced? Poorly phrased? I can live with those criticisms. A major surgical operation on my prose is expected too. But why 'trivial'. Whether any Bangalorean likes it or night, the Army has played a major role in the city. It is probably the largest single central govt land holder. It made parts of Bangalore. Large and important defence establishments are present. Some like MEG have been there for last five generations. This stuff is relevant material for an encyclopaedia. Aside from the references and English why should you object on the grounds that it is 'trivial'. In a real sense, the Army has done much more over the ages than Infosys has for the city. This attitude of the Indian public towards the defence services rankles deeply to someone who risks his life for his country. AshLin (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of this can (and should) be included in some form in the history section of the article. You are right - Bangalore's association with military goes back ages...and not just post Independence association, but also during British India. It's no wonder that Bangalore's roads are named Brigade Road, Infantry Road, etc. Apart from MEG, Bangalore is also the Training Command of the IAF and many of IAF's fighters that are manufactured under TTA are built in Bangalore at HAL. If you can work on a draft on should be included, I'll figure out the best way to add it to the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can add that in the History section if it is properly sourced. I don't think dedicating an entire section for that is a good idea. The details are definitely not trivial - I apologize for it :). Kensplanet^T_C 16:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did lose my shirt & need to be more civil. I almost bit off another user's head but (his) cooler sense prevailed. Will do with references. AshLin (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Winston Churchill was also posted in Bangalore (and still owes 13 rupees to some club) [2], but this is really trivia :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

A "third rate watering hole" ! http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2003/12/21/stories/2003122100040300.htm Shyamal (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember that when I first started on Wikipedia, both these pieces of "trivia" were included in this article during its pre-FA days! I'm sure if you go through some of the archives, they will show up :) Thanks AreJay (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

AreJay is right. In any case, the trivia about Churchill belongs in the article. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

BATF no more

"The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike works with the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and the Bangalore Agenda Task Force (BATF) to design and implement civic projects." This still has old information about BMP(formerly) and BATF. BATF has indeed been dissolved and in its place, is a similar organisation 'AbiDe'.[3] I am changing the text over there. Thanks. Swaroop (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bangalore or Bengaluru?

I'd like prople to note that the Central Government of India does not yet validate the name change from Bangalore to Bengaluru. Wikipedia should respect the official name and the opinion of the owner of the page, nor the NHAI, or any other governmental/non-governmental organisation should matter. Till the Central Government says so, Bangalore doesn't become Bengaluru just based on a proposal. Swaroop 11:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bengaluru is used by the Government of India. For instance, the Interim General Budget - 2009-10 presented in the Lok Sabha on February 16, 2009, by the Union Finance Minister reads, inter alia, "...extension of the Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) in major cities like Bengaluru, ..." FYI. ThanksKanchanamala (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, there were articles in the newspapers about that mistake by the FM. It still remains a proposal. The lone opinion of the FM (if he has any) should not matter until there's a consensus in parliament. Swaroop (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you please quote at least one article in a newspaper you are talking about. Also what proof is there that the Union Government or the Parliament has withheld or denied approval or recognition of the new name? Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Absence of proof isn't proof of absence :) Let's just wait for the official word on the matter. Personally, I don't think the lack of progress on the matter is alarming, given how long some issues take to get resolved and given the acrimony b/w Centre and Karnataka. Thanks AreJay (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I found this, I think this was in the article already, Swaroop (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, Swaroop, but you found what? Where is any adverse comment on the use of Bengaluru by the Union Finance Minister in the Interim General Budget presented in the Lok Sabha on February 16, 2009? Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no I just found this piece somewhere. It has nothing to do with the FM's speech. Swaroop (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Whew, Finally found it. Here's the link, this is from the Times of India, 7th July 2009 [4]. Swaroop (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Pranab uses Bengaluru or the name is mentioned in the Budget. The name of the article cannot be changed, unless and until the word has been well assimilated in English. Kensplanet^T_C 11:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Swaroop, thanks for TOI article. You are absolutely correct. The new name 'Bengaluru' is pending approval by the GOI. The article also informs us that one town included in the list of new proposed names is a disputed territory, and is holding up the approval for the remaining names. Why Karnataka government has not yet taken steps to address this situation is baffling. But it is clear that the GOI has nothing against 'Bengaluru'. You have hit a home run. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Governement of India [5] website still uses Bangalore. Though this site may be updated, G. of India shows copyright 2005. Google maps now shows Bengaluru, when you search for Bangalore and Bangalore airport site, Government of Karnataka and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (the Municipal corporation) use Bengaluru. Rediff news refers to the name change.TOI [6][7] uses Bangalore as well s Bengaluru. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with Kensplanet, that the article's name cannot be changed unless the name is well assimilated in the English language. Wikipedia is an important source of information to many, and the article should be renamed to Bengaluru once all the approvals are given. The word Bangalore should also redirect to Bengaluru and the description should say Bengaluru, formerly Bangalore. Ninadhardikar (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than saying "also known as Bengaluru", maybe the article should say "officially known as Bengaluru"? That, I feel, would be an effective change. Abeer.ag (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire discussion preceding this one has largely been on the aspect of whether the name change has received official recognition - given that the official notification is not out yet and media reports seem to suggest that it is likely to be delayed, the current version has been arrived at as a consensus. See also this archived discussion. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Two things: 1) 'Bengaluru' is not official yet. 2) The airport, namely 'Bengaluru International Airport', is not controlled by the governments of India or Karnataka. It is a private entity, and the name of the airport does not reflect the city's name. Its as simple as that! Swaroop (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Bangalore City Railway station

There is no link to the article:Bangalore City Railway station on this page.So, I recommend for a link to Bangalore City Railway station page in the section:Transport of the article.--Sharadbob (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

plz add

Bangalore torpedo must be added in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.129.140 (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A mention in history would be quite proper and very interesting. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups in Infobox

It seems to me that the ethnic groups section of the infobox is talking about two quite different things: firstly the religions and secondly the proportion of Anglo-Indians. Surely there is a better way of showing this? The religions could easily be put on their own in a 'Religions' section but what to do with the Anglo-Indians on their own? The template has '''''[[Religion|Religious:]]''''' and '''''[[Linguistics|Linguistic:]]''''' as options but does Anglo-Indian really fit under the latter? I certainly doubt it comes under the former. Munci (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bengaluru

Will someone let us know if Bengaluru has since become the official name of Bangalore? Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What about Koln, Wien? In the case of Madras/Chennai one could argue that the new name is sufficiently different as to merit a full change, but Bengaluru/Bangalore seems like a simple un-Anglicization. What is the consensus on Koln and Wien? Sanyasi (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC) OK, having read [[8]], it seems as if when there exists a "widely accepted English name", it is to be preferred over a local version. Sanyasi (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. National varieties of English come into play in this case, so we need to know what the common use in Indian English is. If it can be shown that use in recent web publications, books or news articles has changed to the new spelling, then it will have been demonstrated that usage has changed, and the article can be moved. On an advanced Google search, it is possible to confine results to those in English from India within the last year. Wikipedia should be excluded from the results. Such a search for Bengaluru excluding Bangalore gives 1,360,000 hits. A search for Bangalore excluding Bengaluru gives 55,000,000 hits. That would suggest that usage in Indian English has not yet shifted to the new name, and that we should retain the title at Bangalore.

On Google News, an advanced archive search of English language sources for Bangalore since 1 August 2009 excluding Wikipedia and Bengaluru gives 101,000 hits; whereas a search for Bengaluru excluding Wikipedia and Bangalore gives 2,030 hits, confirming that the new name has not yet been accepted.

A search of Google Books for the period 2008 to 2010, again in English, gives for Bangalore excluding Bengaluru and Wikipedia 34,600 hits; whereas a search for Bengaluru excluding Bangalore and Wikipedia gives 699 hits.

Clearly, the new spelling has not been widely adopted, even in India, and until such time as that happens, our article should stay at Bangalore. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bangalore consisted of Twin Cities is not a fair discription. Bangalore District 2000 Sq KM - Mainly Kannada. Cantonment 25 sqkm Tamil/Telugu/Urdu/kannada

To put into perspective: Bangalore district was about 2000 sq kms speaking mainly kannada. The next highest spoken Language is Telugu. Cantonment was about 25 sqkms and had mostly Tamil, Urdu, Kannada and Telugu populations apart from Anglo Indians. So how is this a twin city?

A more accurate discription is: Bangalore was primarily a kannada speaking city within which a small area called the cantonment was occupied by the British and had a large population of diverse peoples including Tamils, Kannadigas, Telugus, Urdus and Anglo Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogica (talk • contribs) 16:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

collage in infobox

I made a collage with 800px and 400px resolution which is easy to modify. But inclusion in the article reverted citing repetition. All other cities of india articles have collage, only bangalore lacks one. Such repetitions can be addressed later if we restore collage at top. Onced boath (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have inserted back the collage, and replaced same image of lal bagh with a different one to avoid repetition. This should be okey now. Onced boath (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. I have improved upon your montage. Hope you like mine better. Nikkul (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bengaluru Migration

I'm a bit confused as to why Bengaluru is still redirecting to Bangalore instead of the other way around? The names Bombay, Calcutta and Madras all redirect to the articles for Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai, so why is this not the case for Bengaluru? I feel this change needs to be made soon and would like to have a discussion about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epiphany07 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please go through this (the most recent discussion on this aspect). There have been earlier discussions too, and the consensus each time has been to retain it as Bangalore. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please also see Talk:Bangalore#Bengaluru. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Mangalore

I reinstated a {{distinguish}} template to advise readers that Bangalore should not be confused with Mangalore. This was in the article earlier, and someone took it out without explanation, but I feel strongly that the notice ought to be there. Many English speakers outside India have heard of Bangalore (though they might not be able to locate it on a map of India!) — but I suspect very few have heard of Mangalore, and of those who have heard or read the name "Mangalore", many probably thought it was Bangalore (possibly a typo) — so I do think the "distinguish" template serves a useful function here. For what it's worth, the Mangalore article has a notice saying "not to be confused with Bangalore". If some people really do think this is unnecessary or even silly, I'd like to propose that we discuss it here, as opposed to simply removing the template again. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It may demand to distinguish mangalore from bangalore, not other way. If you feel that distinguishing required please put that in Mangalore article, there not to confuse with Bangalore. I have moved {{distinguish}} to Bangalore (disambiguation). Uber crowds (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The confusion caused by the anglicized spellings of the two cities would be significantly reduced when Bangalore is replaced in the article by Bengaluru. Kanchanamala (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly true, but it is my impression that the anglicized name (Bangalore) is far more widely known in the English-speaking world (outside of India) than Bengaluru. I'm not trying to perpetuate a colonial mentality here — just acknowledging Wikipedia's WP:ENGLISH naming convention.

I'm content to see the {{distinguish}} moved to Bangalore's disambiguation page. I'm less sure I agree with the same change having been made to the Mangalore article, but I'll take up my concerns there.

If "Bengaluru" has in fact been made the official English-language name for the city (similarly to Kolkata and Chennai), I would of course support the idea of renaming this page and redefining Bangalore as a redirect. Similarly for Mangalore / Mangaluru. But only if said renaming is in fact something officially pushed by the Indian government (again, like Kolkata and Chennai). Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Economy Largest employers

Perhaps the Economy section could go with information on the largest employers in Bangalore and how many people they are employing.

Gulielmus estavius (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Largest city in India

As per this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population it lists Bangalore as the largest by area among city propers in India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.202.80 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Check the list properly please. Mumbai is on number 2. MikeLynch (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the cited source Mumbai is the second most populous city in the world and the most populous city in India. Also, Bengaluru is the largest city in India with an area of 709.5 km square in contrast to 603 km square of Mumbai. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• That source has no proper reference. On the page of Kolkata, it lists the area as well over 1000 sq km. MikeLynch (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right. It gives the area of Kolkata as 1750 km square. I think the citation for any claim will have to be checked out for authenticity. Kanchanamala (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think the difference comes in whether the whole city, or only the metropolitan areas are included. For example, Areas like Kengeri weren't under BBMP earlier, but was included in Bangalore Urban District. So I guess there has to be a proper list which states whether the given area is of the metropolitan area only or of the whole City. The list isn't proper. MikeLynch (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The article in question lists cities in order of population (which is the primary marker for the ranking on that list). AFAIK, a similar list for cities by area doesn't exist because there are too many disparities in determining what exactly constitutes a city proper. For all Indian cities on that list, it is the area under a single municipal administration, and Bangalore just happens to be the largest among them. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting observation. May I urge my fellow users to consider it. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bengaluru

Folks, can we now change the title of the article from Bangalore to Bengaluru? Kanchanamala (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I still oppose that. Being politically correct, Bengaluru is not yet official. Even as per WP:COMMONNAME, Bengaluru is not yet more commonly used than Bangalore. MikeLynch (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

True. It is interesting that the latest version of world map published by National Geographic reads "Bangalore (Bengaluru)". Eventually Bengaluru will prevail. Kanchanamala (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it is just a matter of technicality. The name change will happen eventually. MikeLynch (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Etymology may be

If we translate in Kanada or Tamil, we get "Ben Gal Ooru" meaning "White Rocky Place", In Tamil something white or fair is "Ven", Kannada have this as "Ben" or "Bel" for white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.11.139 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your views, but it can't be included unless you provide suitable references. Thank you. MikeLynch (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What I have given is the literal translation of the word "Bengalooru" - Ben(White/Pure) Kal(Stone/Rocks) Ooru(Place) in the local language of that place, which can be included in the Etymology section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.182.142 (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sir/Madam, I appreciate you looking for other possible origins of the name of the city, but it can't be included unless it appears in a reliable source like a newspaper article, an encyclopedia, or a published book, or something like that. Please refer WP:RELIABLE. MikeLynch (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

MikeLynch, I suggest you ignore the above pseudo linguistic view. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by Pseudo? Do you know how many places in Karnataka that starts with Ben...? the meaning of "Ben" or Bel in Kannada is white? and the rest in the name is "Kallur" which is clear in its meaning. any one travelling to Bangalore can see the multiple Hills with white rocks aurrounding it. The white granites are famous here. There is a town called Kallur in nearby district and an archeological site in Karnataka named Kallur. I dont know why people want to twist and complicate things when there is clear translation of the word in the local language Kannada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.99.218 (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me reply in Kannada and Tamil: "noddappa, ooru sari, aadare beńgaļa pada vishayadalli bhaaļa samshayavide." "tamiļļe veņ irakarda, aanal yanna? adapatti pesanaa yannaa mudiyuň?" Let me retract the characterization pseudo, but you will need to furnish linguistic sources. Kanchanamala (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Mr. IP, lets stop this meaningless discussion. Your views can be accommodated in the article provided you furnish reliable sources. Please refer WP:RELIABLE. Find proper sources, and your views are more than welcome. MikeLynch (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Crime statistics outdated

The crime statistics in the article are outdated. The new ones are from year 2008 and are listed here : http://ncrb.nic.in/CII2008/cii-2008/Snapshots.pdf

It is now 8.5 % and not 9.2 %. Although if you would be noteworthy to write that per capita Bangalore rates the highest amongst all metropolitan cities in terms of crime. The other cities including Mumbai and Delhi have far lower crime rates than of Bangalore.

165.86.81.20 (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Stats updated. Thanks for the note. However, the NCRB document you linked to above, itself states that Delhi and Mumbai have higher crime rates than Bangalore. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I said per capita crime rates. Considering the population of Mumbai and Delhi to Bangalore, it can be easily established from the stats that Bangalore is the unsafest metropolitan city in India. 123.2.12.175 (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

City's GDP

"Bangalore's 260,260 crore (US$58.56 billion) economy (2002–03 Net District Income) which in 2009-10 should be around $100 billion makes it one of the major economic centres in India."

That figure is highly exaggerated. Which part of the reference gives that figure ? plus there is no reference for the latter part of the sentence. Read the last 2 paras of this article - http://www.financialexpress.com/news/gdp-growth-surat-fastest-mumbai-largest/266636/ . Delhi's GDP was second at 160K . 123.2.12.175 (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Image of Brigade Road

The user Proxygeek added the image Brigade Road to the article. I do not see why it had to be removed by the user SBC-YPR. There is absolutely no harm in keepin this image in the article. As the user Proxygeek explains the image does showcase the fast moving life of the city. ---Abhishek191288 (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I do not see any depiction of any fast moving life in Bangalore. 'Fast moving' itself is not any properly defined term. About the image, I don't see any harm in including it in the article, but I suggest you contact SBC-YPR regarding the reasons behind its removal. MikeLynch (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As a basic rule of thumb, an image in an article should be relevant and able to illustrate something meaningful about the topic, especially in a featured article such as this one. It is not clear as to (a) what this image was trying to illustrate - as pointed out above, "fast moving life" is a vague term - and (b) the relevance of the image to the article in general and the surrounding text in particular. These aspects need to be clarified before adding the image to the article. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tamil Title for Bangalore

I added Tamil title to Bangalore article as it was needed to show that there are lots of Tamil presence there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosur1 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Then before doing so add a Kannada title to Ooty to show that there are a lot of Kannadigas present there. Adding Tamil title is absolutely pointless. Abhishek191288 (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please provide proper demographic statistics which show a significant Tamil population in Bangalore. MikeLynch (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Look Singapore too has a lot of Tamils, but the Singapore article does not have a Tamil title. The same holds good even for Bangalore. Tamil is not the official language of the city. Just because there is a significant population that speaks a language, it doesn't make that language official to that place. So kindly do not add a Tamil title to this article. Abhishek191288 (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Look at Madras, with Telugu being the most spoken Language for over 1000 years, Telugu is not recognised as the first language of Madras. So also, Kanchi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.49.223 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Tamil is an official language in Singapore. Anyway, a Tamil translation is not needed, and there is nothing called an official language of a place(in India). MikeLynch (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MikeLynch. A Tamil translation does not belong here. Bangalore/Bengaluru is in Karnataka, and Kannada is the official language of that State. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The bulk of the ethnic population of Bangalore District are Kannadigas (who also have some influence of Telugu). The Hebbar Iyengars are the non migrant tamils in Bangalore and are a small community. Tiglars are a small community of tamils who migrated during Tippus time to take up work as gardners and live in small settlements in sothern bangalore.Urban Bangalore is a small part of Bangalore District. Specific parts of Bangalore city have large concentrations of Tamils due to British Occupation (Cantonment), Public sector and Manufacturing jobs (HAL, Malleshwaram). In recent times, a lot of Tamils have come to Bangalore due to the IT Industry. Still, Tamil is the third most spoken Language in Bangalore. Both Kannada and Kannada-Telugu each have populations about 10 times as Tamils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.49.223 (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Hindi may outnumber Tamil in Bangalore. Hindi has presence in Bangalore since Jain Times. But we know for sure that there was no presence of Tamil in the 16th century in Bangalore at which time Telugu was the primary spoken language in Bangalore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.74.203 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Now stop this. Bangalore will have a title only in Kannada and not in any other language. Please close this discussion. Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

UB City Image

There should be an image of UB City skyline because Kingfisher is the biggest company headquartered in Bangalore and has a huge presence in India. Nikkul (talk)

The image you are talking about is already present in the info box of the article. Abhishek191288 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about this particular image. I think there should be another image in the economy section Nikkul (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Okay, but don't you think there are a lot of images in the article already. If you are adding one, yeah, I guess you could put another image as this particular one already exists in the article. MakingTheMark •^Talk 06:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a second image of UB City is quite unnecessary as there already exists one in the montage. Also, your justification is factually incorrect on two points — firstly, Kingfisher Airlines is headquartered in Mumbai, not Bangalore, and secondly, the United Breweries Group, headquartered in UB City (which is what I guess you meant to refer to), is certainly not the biggest company headuartered in Bangalore: Infosys and Wipro have much larger turnovers. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference #25 is junk

The reference #25 makes conclusions based on the 'work' of Janaki Nair. However, we have to remember that Mira was simply expressing popular opinion of a Tamil ghetto dweller. Her work is not based on Sociologically acceptable evidence. How do we weed out such references? Not every reference made is good simply because it has another source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.148.239 (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe. The pdf isn't loading here. I'll let other editors have a look at the source. MakingTheMark •^{Wassup doc?} 18:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Loaded. After seeing the source, I think it is acceptable. Published sources have usually been accepted widely in Wikipedia, and the Janaki Nair source should be OK I suppose. MakingTheMark •^{Wassup doc?} 18:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

e Please note that the document bases its information on the opinion of Janaki Nair that there are no Kanadigas in Cantonment and that Kannadigas only migrated to cantonment only later. Where is the evidence for this? Its only an opinion of Janaki which, because I know broader bangalore is simply incorrect. Do you find it ok because the document was made to look 'official'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.148.239 (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. Btw, it doesn't look 'official' anyway. She never says that 'there are no Kannadigas in Cantonment', but that there were more of Tamilians. I think it is better to wait for the opinion of other editors before making a change. Thank you for pointing it out. MakingTheMark •^{Wassup doc?} 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a place where this point is made by the authors of this doc drawing on Janaki's work. There is a lot of in accuracy in using this document. When Janaki said 'today' it was some 15 years ago not really today. But when these authors use it, they are thinking today. Janaki's says that the city is awash with tamil simbols. That was true only in cantonment area where muslims, tamils and Anglo Indians existed. A place we called mainstream folks called 'Ding Town'. Where as in the rest of the larger city Tamil was not so known. Respectable kanadigas and Indians usually avoided the Ghetto. But these folks from the ghetto had their own view. Today that is getting published as the mainstream view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.148.239 (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the reason why it is in the History section of the article, if you'll notice. And stuff about the Tamil symbols isn't present in the article is it? MakingTheMark •^{Wassup doc?} 19:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

everything post Indipendence can be evaluated by hard evidence and there is no need for opinions. The points are there you have to search. In the last few hours, I have read quite a bit on this evidence. Its not acceptable from a strength of evidence perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.148.239 (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That is partly true. I am inclined to agree with your views, but I still think it would be wiser to wait for a few more opinions on this. I must also appreciate you for discussing here first before making any changes directly on the article. MakingTheMark •^{Wassup doc?} 19:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Instead of saying "predominantly" it would be accurate to say that there was a significant presence of Tamilians [who were bilinguals and they also spoke the local Kannada]. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

True. MakingTheMark •^{Wassup doc?} 10:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Move Request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The official name has changed to Bengaluru. — 18:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Sources: Rediff.com, Times of India--ashwinikalantri ^talk 18:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Map: Google Maps--ashwinikalantri ^talk 19:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The name used in the overwhelming majority of English language sources is "Bangalore". Wikipedia does not call Prague "Praha", it does not call Moscow, "Moskva", it does not call India, "Bharat" and it should not call Bangalore "Bengaluru". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment Then why are articles called Kochi, Kozhikode and Thiruvananthapuram though many English news channels/ newspapers and even some airlines call them Cochin, Calicut and Trivandrum respectively? Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 19:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Mumbai, Kolkata have all changed their names in the recent times - officially. You dont have article about Bombay, just an mention that it was the former name of Mumbai. Bengaluru is the official name, majority of press and all official document quote that.--ashwinikalantri ^talk 20:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • And the coverage of Mumbai's last world-class disaster demonstrates that the English-speaking world generally calls it that. Find comparative evidence that the English for Bangalore has become Bangaluru, and this is not another failing municipal publicity stunt or exercise in the politics of ethnic separatism, and this should be moved. But where is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Since when did media coverage dictate the name of the place? Is WP not supposed to have facts and not interpretations? And what do you mean stunt? The government of India has changed the names of all the metros to India-centric names from the names given by the British before Independence. --ashwinikalantri ^talk 04:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Bengaluru International Airport
      • Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Municipal Corporation of Bengaluru.

--ashwinikalantri ^talk 04:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • Media coverage doesn't dictate the name of the place, but it does (often) dictate what we title our articles. Powers ^T 13:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mattinbgn and Septentrionalis - the case is not comparable to Mumbai and has not widely caught on yet, for example: [9] and [10] are two similar pages from CricInfo, one using "Mumbai" and the other using "Bangalore". As and when the name is widely used across the English speaking world, please relist.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. I'd brought this matter up when this page was named Bengaluru and had got it moved to Bangalore. The discussion can be found here. The situation hasn't changed appreciably. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 09:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. Mattinbgn makes a good point. Besides, Mumbai's case is very different. And Ashwinikalantri, have a look at WP:COMMONNAME. In a way, media coverage dictates the name of the article. It isn't anyone's interpretation. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 09:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and Comment: Well although I do oppose the move, the point that media dictates the name is somewhat not pleasing here to retain the title as Bangalore. Look for example as I explained above, the media still calls Kochi as Cochin, Kozhikode as Calicut and Thiruvananthapuram as Trivandrum. If this the reason, then these three articles too must be renamed as per their English names (what the media uses). This reason cannot be grounds for opposing the move. Bengaluru is not official yet and hence the article should remain as Bangalore. Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 09:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  Official is irrelevant. WP:COMMONNAME (and, by extension, WP:OFFICIALNAMES) is very clear on this matter. So the only reason to go for an "official" name over the "media" name is if the wider English speaking public commonly use a name other than what's in the media. That can happen, but is probably rare, so the media is actually a pretty good indicator IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Çomment. Suggest move this generic argument to WikiProject India. Let it be fought out there and then apply the decision o be consistent, one way or another. AshLin (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks Amakuru. I didnt know that official is irrelevant. But try googling Bangalore. The first thing that pops up is the Google map of Bengaluru. If Google uses this name, I feel its popular enough for Wikipedia. --ashwinikalantri ^talk 11:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  OK, maybe "irrelevant" is a slightly strong word; we should certainly consider official names, but I do think that common name takes precedence. Regarding Google Maps, you may be right, but I think this link shows that what is shown on Google maps has to be taken with a pinch of salt, unless you think we should move the M25 motorway article to Autoroute britannique M25 :-)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now per WP:COMMONNAME. If you search news sources over the past 24 hours, 30 days for most recent uses (within and outside India), you will find that Bangalore is still the most common usage. Even governmental sources still use Bangalore significantly -- Bangalore Urban District, Governor of Karnataka etc etc. Until such time that Bengaluru becomes the more commonly used version, the article ought to stay at its current location. —SpacemanSpiff 11:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I would have been the first one to support the move of an article to it's official name used by the government on the very same day the name change went in to effect. Unless I am missing something the city is still called Bangalore per the Etymology section of the article. The reference cited there gives the details of why the official name change has been delayed. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, I oppose this requested move. The city is still referred to as Bangalore in many English media sources. With Mumbai, it is a different case - only because the name change happened about 15 years ago, and the media has had enough time to transition to the new name. With Bangalore, that is yet to happen. Wait for a few more years, and this page will definitely be moved to Bengaluru.
  Signed | Aoghac2z
  15:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I find the argument about Google maps unconvincing. Google maps uses Sankt Petersburg for Saint Petersburg and Napoli as Naples, neither of which are commonly used in English. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Support Move Request

• Strongly Support: The new official name is also stamped on the [official] passports at the airport. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support: Usage of 'Bengaluru' in media has certainly increased. For instance, Deccan Chronicle almost exclusively uses this. See. Niri / ನಿರಿ 04:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion above regarding the move request has been closed. It might be a good idea to wait awhile before raising the same issue again. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and please refer WP:GOOGLE. A google search for Bangalore excluding Bengaluru and Bengalooru gives 110,000,000 results, while a search for Bengaluru excluding Bangalore gives 6,930,000 results, which is significantly smaller. Anyway, the discussion is closed now, and it is a good idea to wait till the situation changes appreciably, probably in a year or more. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 06:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me, but a discussion about move request is never closed. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

National network newscasts, including Doordarshan, in English and Hindi, refer to the city as Bengaluru. Kanchanamala (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

NDTV and CNN still refer to it as Bangalore. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 10:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Mike, I was mentioning Doordarshan, which is a government of India network, and Indian networks like ZeeTV. Kanchanamala (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the sports channels? ESPN-Star also uses 'Bengaluru.' Even the commentators, during a match. Niri / ನಿರಿ 07:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Bangalore to Bengaluru

I am aware about Talk:Bangalore/Archive 3. Since it is more than 3 years talk was closed and the name Bengaluru is officially accepted, used by government; It is the time to update page name.

I propose, Bangalore should be redirected to Bengaluru.

~ Teju2friends (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC).

I second. Kanchanamala (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. In the english language, most people still call the city Bangalore. Nikkul (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not about what people call, it is about fact. Fact is, place name has changed back to Bengaluru & Bangalore is not even a official second name (like Bharatha is having other names as India, Bharath etc.). While we are having a redirect from Bangalore to Bengaluru, what sort of difficulty people will face? People who are unaware of change, will come to know about it. When new primeminister is elected, do we wait to change primeminister's name in wikipedia till most of the English speaking people comes to know about the change? Teju2friends (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: There was a discussion right above which was closed as oppose. I'm opposing the move per WP:UCN. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 02:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

per WP:UCN, However, common sense can be applied – if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change..
This is the case Teju2friends (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a move proposal right above this; I do not see how the situation has changed. Yes Michael? •^Talk 08:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: When did the name change to Bengaluru? The centre hasn't given a nod in renaming the city to Bengaluru. Government of Karnataka will obviously call it Bengaluru. That doesn't mean the city is officially Bengaluru. It is still Bangalore. And btw, as told previously by both MikeLynch and me, there was a discussion right above which was just 2 months ago. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 14:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no gag order against users who support the new name Bengaluru. Kanchanamala (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course there isn't. Let the name change officially, then I'll be the first to support the move to Bengaluru.

Of course there is no such order. There is a proposal which has just ended, and the situation hasn't changed much. Yes Michael? •^Talk 05:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right. The Central Government has withheld the entire list of new names because of Belgaum. Kanchanamala (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sukhilleo13, 9 May 2011

Please change

Bangalore City officials Municipal Commissioner: Siddaiah[43] Mayor: S.K. Nataraj[1] Police Commissioner: Shankar Bidari[44]

to

Bangalore City officials Municipal Commissioner: Siddaiah[43] Mayor: S.K. Nataraj[1] Police Commissioner: Mirji

because the Police Comissioner has been changed from Shankar Bidari to Mirji

Reliable source http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/search?q=B%20G%20Jyothi%20Prakash%20Mirji

Sukhilleo13 (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)  Done - Updated mayor and Police commissioner. Yes Michael? •^Talk 10:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Using "†" sign in Demographics/Religion in bangalore table.

Hi,

As this sign"†" is symbol of particular faith(christian). Please change the sign to either "*", "#", "&".

-simsnoop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simsnoop (talk • contribs) 21:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This is not the cross symbol used here. Besides I have reverted your similar changes to Hyderabad, India —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 01:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

why to use controversial symbols. Use other symbols, which are not controversial. why bring religious things in public domain. i know, you being catholic, you would be first to oppose this. But, i also expect fairness from u, as u were indian before catholic. -simscoop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simsnoop (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Er, its a standard symbol, included in Unicode. I don't think the user's religion has anything to do with it. I'm Hindu, and I still oppose your proposal. The symbol is used widely across articles, textbooks, journals, everywhere. If you'd open a physics book by H.C Verma, you'd find many occurences of this symbol. Lynch7 16:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm Catholic and the symbol used is a standard one as pointed out by Lynch. The symbol is used to add any footnotes and is used in many textbooks. So I find nothing against it!. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding Malayalam to the Major languages list of Bangalore

There are so many Malayalees settled/working/doing business in Bangalore. The Malayali population have been increased from the last decade to a notable percentage. I think, we need to add Malayalam also as one of the most spoken language in the City. In the Malayalam page of wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayalam) it is mentioned that Malayalam is speaking in Bangalore. But in the Bangalore page, there is no mentioning about Malayalam.--Kandathil (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kandathil (talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

--Kannadiga123 (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC) kandathil is right. Malayalam also to be added to the language list spoken in Bangalore.

Comment: Please provide suitable sources showing a percentage of population of Bangalore that speaks Malayalam. And Kannadiga123, when the discussion is going on you should not be reinstating the edits. — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 14:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

--Kannadiga123 (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Abhishek, can you provide the suitable sources showing percentage of population that speaks Tamil/Telugu and Hindi? I think, since there is no source of this, these languages also to be removed from this page.

Comment to Abhishek191288: You have to provide citation that shows sources showing the percentage of people who speaks Tamil/Telugu and Hindi. Otherwise this is an invalid and unauthenticated information.Your argument is invalid and biased.--Kandathil (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Tamil and Telugu polpulation has been a huge number for over 3 decades in the city unlike the Malayalam population. Moreover most Bangaloreans know Tamil and Telugu but not Malayalam. I know there has been a significant increase in the Malayalam population, but not to the extent of the Tamil, Hindi and Telugu population which is why I asked you if there is a source showing the percentage population of Malayalam people. And Kandathil stop your false accusations. — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 16:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Abhishek191288, your argument is vague." The Tamil and Telugu polpulation has been a huge number for over 3 decades in the city unlike the Malayalam population" :- This is just your view point. Otherwise you should be providing proper sources. This kind of statements anybody can provide.

--122.178.193.253 (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: IP sock of User:Kandathil. — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 16:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, lets have a CU validate that. Lynch7 16:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

: Both Abhishek191288 and MikeLynch are arguing with out any valid data. Please provide the % use of languages in Bangalore and the source of it. Otherwise I would suspect the authenticity of the data available on Bangalore page

--Kannadiga123 (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Good that finally you have given a quote stating the Tamil and Telugu population have been in Bangalore for decades. But, even if you didn't mention about the Malayalee population and Malayalm as one of the languages spoken in Bangalore in "Bangalore" page, it will remain as a fact and truth that lakhs of Malayalees are settled/working in Bangalore and it is not a negligible percentage. Their population is just behind the Telugu population ( Kannadigas -> Tamils -> Telugu -> Malayalee).With out mentioning this, Bangalore wiki page will remain incomplete. --122.178.205.154 (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well! Bangalore has substantial number of Malayalees, but not like Tamils and Telugus. According to the 2001 census Kannadigas form only 39 percent of the population. Tamil population in bangalore is more the 1.5 million. Telugus form the next majority. But I have no clue about the malayali population living in Bangalore. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 11:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Commander : Yes.since we don't know the % of Malayalee population in Bangalore,shouldn't we add Malayalam as one of the language speaks in Bangalore? But the fact is that there are lakhs of Malayalees in Bangalore.Why shouldn't we mention this fact? --Kannadiga123 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments -> There are lot of Malayalees migrated to Bangalore over the last two decades. You can see Malayalam speaking people all around the Great Bangalore. In Hospitals, governments offices,shops,bakery and private companies you can see the presence of Malayalees. It is assumed that 10% of Bangalore population constitutes Malayalees. I would say, we should mention this fact also in Bangalore page. --Shijutkr (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a quack quack...But I have been in Bangalore for almost 10 years now and I think Malayalam is one of the major language people speaks in this city. I am giving this comment based on my experience.--Notemake (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are the supporting website which says Malayalam is one of the most spoken language in Bangalore city :

1) http://www.worldcityphotos.org/India/IND-Bangalore.htm 2) http://www.mapsofindia.com/bangalore/bangalore.html 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayalam

The wiki malayalam page says Malayalam is speaking in Bangalore. But Bangalore page is not yet added Malayalam. Let us keep the wiki with consistent information, otherwise users will get confused! --Notemake (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment to Notemake: You are definetly a sock of Kandathil (talk · contribs) — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 19:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why this user is so much interested in adding Malayalam to the list of major languages. 10 percent doesn't make it a major language. One of the sources provided by him does not list Malayalam. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 17:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

He won't be able to now. He has been indeffed. — Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Historic Demographics in Bangalore: 1. According to the book the new cambridge history of India in the 16th century, Telugu was a dominant language in Bangalore along with Kannada. There is no mention of Tamil or Malayalam 2. According to the Mysore Gazette 1927 census data, compiled by BL Rice, of the 716,289 people in Bangalore, the Mudali population (who spoke tamil language) accounted for 1625 people and the Tigalas (who spoke Sanketi language) account for 28,192 people. Mussalmans (Urdu language) accounted for 69227 people. The rest of the people were Kannada and Telugu communities. There is no explicit mention of Malayalam people in the 1927 census. 3.According to the book 'castes and tribes of India' by edgar Thurston Bangalore was ruled first by 7 Reddi chiefs and later by 21 Gangadikar chiefs till the 9th century as part of the Ganga Kingdom. At that time, Salem and Coimbatore were part of Ganga Kingdom and were later annexed by the cholas. Thus the significant presence of Kannada and Telugu in KonguNadu. This is confirmed again by the book 'new cambridge history of India' which summarises the demographics in the 16th century as Bangalore and Kolar being predominantly Telugu while Salem had a mix of Tamil, Kannada and Telugu. 4. Kannada and Telugu form the historic population of Bangalore while Tamils, Andhra-Telugus, Hindi, Urdui and Malayali are migrant populations. -Thanks, Tellasitis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellasitis (talk • contribs) 21:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 202.45.7.162, 7 July 2011

Javagal Srinath's name is missing from cricketers who represented India

202.45.7.162 (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done He is from Mysore. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 10:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not true. He is from Hassan not mysore. Both Mysore and Bangalore are from Gangavadi as also Hassan. But Javagal is not from mysore or Bangalore. He is from Hassan. He took a transfer to Mysore after his first year in Engineering in Hassan in my batch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.214.241 (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyhow he is not related to Bangalore, so it's not going to make any difference. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 16:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The 2nd para in the main section

The 2nd para is totally unsourced. Unless reliable sources are given, it could be considered as original research and I see no reason to retain it there. Also, the para states about the history of the city which is not supposed to be there in the main section. After sources are given, it should be moved to the history section. Hope you guys understand. Thanks!!! Secret of success (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I am unaware why this para is in there without context and what we are supposed to infer from this para - tellasitis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.214.241 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Move

Why not move the page to Bengalaru?? My hands are full. So can't initiate the proposal myself. Shouldn't be difficult for Bengalarukars with so much of silicon.(don't know what kar translates to Kannada as in Mumbaikar). See self-designation is what is the guide for titles[11]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

sir, please check [[12]]. regards --Omer123hussain (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And here - Talk:Bangalore/Archive_3#Bengaluru, also interesting the Hindu-Arabic numeral renaming. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding UB City Image in Economy Section

Since Kingfisher and United Breweries is one of the biggest companies from Bangalore and UB City is essentially downtown Bangalore, I would like to add a picture of UB city in the economy section. All other big cities have pics of their skyline in the economy section. Nikkul (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how UB City is representative of the city's economy; probably ITPL or some of the industrial estates would better represent the economy. Lynch7 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Kingfisher is a big Bangalore company. We already have a pic of an IT company. Nikkul (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily mean another IT company. What I mean is that UB City is nothing but a mall (for the most part), and as a mall, it does not represent the economy of Bangalore. Lynch7 17:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it is also the headquarters of United Breweries and Kingfisher which is a big bangalore company. Nikkul (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

KF is headquartered in Mumbai. Lynch7 14:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Kingfisher beer is headquartered in Bangalore. The airline is headquartered in Mumbai but also has a hub in Bangalore. Nikkul (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Karnatak or Bihar

I thought Bihar was the most corrupt state in India. But this link states that Karnatak holds the position of most corrupt state in the country. Which is true? Secret of success (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That is quite obviously the opinion of a person; it is not a fact; indeed, the definition of corrupt state itself is very vague. Unless an extremely reliable source makes something like a ranking or something, it is totally meaningless to make any additions to the article. Lynch7 14:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This link puts Bihar in the top and Karnatak in the fifth place as 'very highly corrupt'. Secret of success (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

where is urdu?

Percent Kannada

50% Tamil

20% Telugu

12% Hindi

8% Other Languages

10% //Religion Percent Hindus

79.3% Muslims

13.3% Christians

5.8% Jains

1.1% Others†

1% Distribution of religions//

more than 10 % of karnataka is urdu speaking people - urdu means musilms while URDU IN KARNATAKA[13] this statics is 1991 , musilms will normally breed more at 2011 statics urdu population and muslim population atleast too 12-13% of karnataka population after two decade at 2011 cencus

musilms who in karnataka even converted people too adopted urdu as mother tonque total 13.3% of population of bangalore is muslims (out of which 11% of them will urdu speaking muslims(even who migrate from other states(north indian states and andhra pradesh or else where will use only urdu ) 2.3 % of musilm will (malayali mapala muslim whose mother tonque is malayalam,less than 1 % will be tamil musilms ) this propotion can change , even in bangalore rural district more num

in 1991 population hindi speaking people in karnataka is 1.67( that too some marwadi and army central govt employee) i don't know how you calculated them to 8% at present population , hindi and urdu is same language with diff name and diff script

u ignored totally urdu and other in 10% malayalali will occupy the maximum share

urdu will more than 11% of bangalore population 115.242.236.44 (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore#Demographics check here totaly giving wrong information no urdu 115.242.236.44 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Its a legitimate concern. I will look into it. Lynch7 13:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The linguistic distribution above is a misrepresentation. Please indicate the source of such information -- tellasitis

Morasu Nadu - from the book 'The New Cambridge History of India' - To understand the Primary Languages of Bangalore

I quote from the book 'On the northern boundary of the future core of the (Mysore) kingdom was the area called Morasu-nadu (modern Bangalore and Tumkur districts) dominated by one of the large sections of the southern Karnataka peasantry, Morasu Vokkaligas, who seemed to be Telugu Migrants to the area in the fourteenth century. To the south of the core of the future Mysore state was kongu with its mixed population of Kannadigas, Telugus and principally Tamils.'

The author states some observed facts and makes one speculation.

Clearly this English Historian (writing in the sixteenth century) observed that during the 16th century (1500 to 1599), the Morasu vokkaligas dominated Bangalore and Tumkur Districts. They Spoke Telugu and were Vokkaligas of southern Karnataka.

In the case of Kongu Nadu he observes that though the primary population was Tamil, there were Kannadigas and Telugus. But for Morasu nadu there is no mention of a language other than Telugu.

He writes in the 16th century and speculates that the Morasu vokkaligas probabily migrated in 14th century (1300 to 1399). This he could not have verified since that was two centuries before. Moreover, he states that the majority of the population of Bangalore at that time - Morasu Vokkaligas - were migrants which is less likely.

Vokkaligas are concentrated primarily in south karnataka and not settled much in other places. Gounders may share some similarity - which we are not certain - but are very differnet from vokkaligas in the race and culture.

13:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hesaraghatta lake image

In the Flickr link of the image, the uploader has stated that the image's white balance has been modified. Is it proper to use those kind of images in the article, especially in a featured one? Secret of success (Talk) 13:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bangalore 6th worst in world for commuting

Any problem in mentioning this information?? Maverick.Me (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to the discussion table. I don't see anything wrong in mentioning it; though I'm not a big fan of these kinds of statistics. Lynch7 18:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Official name"

The very first line of the article reads ", officially Bengaluru". I am removing the "official" part, since the source from rediff [14] mentions the state government clearance, but not the Union Government clearance; and we know that the Union Govt has to clear it. These more recent articles make that clear: [15], [16]. Lynch7 05:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Census 2011

1. The current mix of population figures is obviously wrong - in the box is given population of 3,690,561 and metro of 8,499,399, what is of course completely unlogical. The figure in the cited list is even given for the UA, means Urban Agglomeration, what should be according to my understanding Bangalore Urban plus Bangalore rural. But rural is not in the cited list, even though it is given in the Karnataka only figures with approx one Million!

2. Is there any explanation why the actually given figure from obviously official Census 2011 source http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/paper2/data_files/India2/Table_3_PR_UA_Citiees_1Lakh_and_Above.pdf differs so widely from the other official Census 2011 figures which are given for Karnataka only, pl. compare http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/data_files/karnataka/table1.xls? There, Bangalore as district 18 is described as having 9588910 heads, plus Bangalore Rural as district 29 given with another 987257 people. This is really a huge difference to the figures of the list which is currently used - has any one an idea which one of the figures is true?

3. And btw: according to whatever figures are taken, Bangalore comes now on 3rd place in India, not on 5th - so should we better cancel the other link/figure of 2010? rgds Bangalorius (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the calculation. Bangalore urban agglomeration does not fully cover the Bangalore Urban district. It forms a major part of the Urban dist and some parts of the Bangalore Rural district. The urban dist has an area of 2174 sq.km and the rural extends over an area of 2300 sq. km. So both the districts put together would result in an area of 4300+ sq. km which would make the UA a huge one. The city/UA ratio of Bangalore is very small. I guess this confusion to be the reason behind your doubt. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, let me repeat- You tell one figure is UA mixed from any parts of the city plus rural, another one is Bangalore Urban district, a further one is the Rural district, and finally even another one is only the city, means the bbmp-part? Fine, but which one of the figures is the right one here, for the Article - means for Bangalore as city, as described here? Shall we take any Urban Agglomeration figure, nobody knows exactly what part of the city or the rural is agglomerated there? Or do we have any official one for the BBMP part? Or one of the district figures? I am definitely confused ... ;-)

Means, even if we take the 8 Millions of the UA as city figures - what exactly is the definition of Bangalore then?

and whatever we take - it should be 3rd in the list of Indian cities (which seems to be meanwhile completely wrong, or?), so means that also has to be changed ... Bangalorius (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is no perfect answer for computing the area of UA for any city in India. Bangalore is the third largest city as of now and fifth largest UA. The 2001 census is the answer for your question. Bangalore UA != Bangalore Urban + Bangalore Rural. Bangalore Urban Dist was 88 percent urbanised in 2001, which means the UA does not fully cover the district. See the census website to get an idea of what all areas are covered under the UA. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 17:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, ok, census makes anything - but if the article describes Bangalore as the BBMP area, we should try to get this figures, or describe the figures as figures of whatever else areas ... otherwise it makes no sense, or? I always thought Bangalore Urban is now identical with BBMP - is there any difference? And Urban Agglomeration of Bangalore, where can I find the definition on the census site?

The other aspect is here in the Article the difference of the figures - on top is 8 mio something plus 3rd place in India. In the box it is 5th place, but place referring to figures from 2010. You say also it is 5 according to UA - but if I check the list from 2011 of the largest cities, it seems to be also there the third (maybe I have overseen something?). In the demoscopic article, again figures from 2001, including the religious groups. Really confusing ... especially if nobody can exactly tell for what that figures finally stand ... ;-) Bangalorius (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please be more specific about the question. I'm confused with your question. The answer for your question might be in the article itself. See the following table for more info.

Rank	City	Population (2011 census)	Population (2001 census)	State/UT
1	Mumbai	12,478,447	11,978,450	Maharashtra
2	Delhi	11,007,835	9,879,172	Delhi
3	Bangalore	8,425,970	5,438,065	Karnataka
4	Hyderabad	6,809,970	3,637,483	Andhra Pradesh
5	Ahmedabad	5,570,585	3,520,085	Gujarat
6	Chennai	4,681,087	4,343,645	Tamil Nadu
7	Kolkata	4,486,679	4,572,876	West Bengal

Rank	Agglomeration	State	Population	Coverage
1	Mumbai	Maharastra	18,414,288
2	Delhi	Delhi	16,314,838
3	Kolkata	West Bengal	14,112,536
4	Chennai	Tamil Nadu	8,696,010
5	Bangalore	Karnataka	8,499,399

--Commander _{(Ping Me)} 17:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, more precise, what I find completely confusing:

This is the reference link for the agglomerations in the article: List_of_most_populous_metropolitan_areas_in_India, it does not show Your list here, but figures from an estimate of 2010.

In the box top right are different figures for "Metropolitan" and "Population", obviously from two different ways of counting and two different sources of the same census, and it is given as 5th city in India according to the said link inside WP, which shows figures of 2010, but in the box it seems that all the figures are described as figures from 2011.

Differing from the 5th place of 2010 in the box, Bangalore is described in the articles beginning to be the 3rd largest city of India as of 2011.

If You go down in the Article, there is a headline "Demographics" - there are again different figures, still from 2001.

Concerning Urban, Rural, Agglomeration, and BBMP: the article describes, if I understood right, not the Urban, not the Rural, and not the Agglomeration of Bangalore, but obviously only the nowadays "BBMP"-Bangalore. So, if we are not able to give exactly the bbmp-figures, but give any figures which differ from the BBMP-area described in the article, we should either describe this fact in the article, or anywhere near to the figures, otherwise one understands the given figures not or wrong (same as I do/did). ;-) Bangalorius (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

ok, I got it, at least concerning the box: 8,425,970 population seems to be the BBMP figure, but 8,499,399 metro is the agglomeration (i.e.UA). If this is right, then the given 5th place after the population is wrong (should be 3rd biggest city, also according to the link), and the given 5th place for the metro is right, but it links inside wp to a list with old figures as of 2010 (but resulting in the same ranking as of 2011). Bangalorius (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Banglore to Bengaluru

Banglore is now no longer called Banglore it is now called Bengaluru so why cant this article be renamed to Bengaluru.--Muneeb Reply me on my talk page See my contributions 12:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no proof that the Union government has passed the proposal, making it official. see Talk:Bangalore#.22Official_name.22 above. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)