Wikipedia

Talk:Bangalore/Archive 6

< Talk:Bangalore
Latest comment: 6 years ago by DRAGON BOOSTER in topic Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2017
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Strongly oppose why still bangalore not updated as bengaluru in wikipedia

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Bengaluru is the official name and common name used by bengalureans and indian,government,Media,newpapers.please do respect indians, Indian Government,take examples of Mumabai,chennai,kolkota which have been changed from old names in wikipedia, provide the justification why only bengaluru only having old name bangalore in wikipedia. –––– — Preceding unsigned comment added by ಮ೦ಜುನಾಥ ಕ್ ಮ್ (talk • contribs) 21:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The name change only applies to official use within India, and does not in any way affect Wikipedia. We use whatever name is common in English, which for this city still is Bangalore. So stop trying to change it. Thomas.W talk 21:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • When Bangaluru becomes the more common name than Bangalore, in the English speaking world, then the article should be renamed. Some places such as Rome and Moscow are so well known by their traditional names that their more official or literal spellings are unlikely to become common in English for decades or centuries. Bangaluru might take a couple of years to become popular, I'd guess. We have to wait and see. Batternut (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Having said the above, we should consider that the English Bangalore page is used a lot by Indian people, and that the application of the WP:Commonname policy should be done considering which name Bangalore and Bangaluru is most common among all readers of the page, first language English users and all those Indian readers. Such consideration will naturally swing the debate somewhat towards Bangaluru. Batternut (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite the English speaking population of India exceeding that of the USA and UK for over 10 years, a quick search engine test is interesting. Queries 'site:in "bangaluru"' and 'site:in "bangalore"' produce claims by Google of about 86,600 and 25,700,000 respectively. That is misleading though - it is a measure of the English-writing population in contrast to the English-reading population; but it illustrates the problem here: WP:COMMONNAME determines the most commonly used name by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources. It is a pragmatic approach, but biased for our convenience, for us the English-writing editors. Batternut (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me never ending battle its been already 7 to 8 RFC / moves and think with time it will change! Shrikanthv (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I've been a wikipedia editor for a long time and I'm aware of WP:COMMONNAME. But what I fail to understand that this is the only reason given to retain the article title as Bengaluru. Strange thing is that even though Odisha is still referred to as Orissa not only among the public, but also by the media, the article was moved to Odisha with no controversy. Whereas in this case, though the media and all airlines have been referring to this city as Bengaluru since 2007, there still a huge uproar in just opposing the name change of the article. Weird!   — LeoFrank  Talk 15:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
There were 3 separate move discussions on Odisha/Orissa (Talk:Odisha/Archive 1), and the final one is definitely screwy. However, experienced, non-POV-pushing editors didn't make a fuss about the move, respecting the consensus. It's too bad that doesn't work in reverse. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia double-standards for Western place namechanges versus Indian ones

Latest comment: 8 years ago18 comments8 people in discussion
Not relevant to any discussion about this article. Take it to Wikipedia talk:Article titles if you want to argue about systemic bias within the general policies, not here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Let's go to the article of the largest mountain in the US, Mount McKinley, shall we? Oops, that's right, there is no article with that title. You end up at its brand new official name that was changed literally last month. Yet somehow the Wikipedia page has already changed even tho Denali is known by no one other than Eskimos? At least Bengaluru is known among one billion Desis.

So then what is the excuse for this shoddy two-faced standards of editing on Wikipedia? How can Mt. McKinley be swiftly discarded as an article title almost simultaneously as soon as Washington DC makes the native name official - yet this evidently very special unique exclusive American privilege by the Wikipedia editing class is clearly not extended to Indian name changes, why? —Loginnigol (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually oppose the name change for that reason, but part of it is that English is the unambiguous first language in the US, while it's not in India. But please don't act as if this is a situation limited only to India's cities, as it's not. Just today, I reverted a user who changed Kiev to Kyiv, which is the official English spelling in the Ukraine, but it is not the common name in English. - BilCat (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
But Who are you to declare that English is "unambiguous first language in the US"? That is your shoddy opinion, not fact (in light of the currently already 65 million legal and illegal Americans for whom English is very much "ambiguous").
But thanks for admitting that there is indeed a manifestly two-faced (Western/white versus non-) editing criteria here that is directly leading to this discrepancy (Bangalore versus Mount McKinley).
Your Kiev example is offtopic/moot as that Ukraine is not even slightly an English-speaking country and as such, it has less claims to dictate the language than both India and the US. It is an insult to the lingua franca nature of English in India to equate it with Ukraine. —Loginnigol (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) By "unambiguous first language", I meant that it is spoken by a clear majority of persons in the US, both primary and secondary speakers. India cannot make that claim for English. And no, the Ukraine comparison is not moot, as English is only spoken as a first language in India by a small minority, and many who do speak it don't do so fluently, as many talk pages on WP will attest to. But the comparison goes further than that, as many Ukrainians view Kiev as a Russian spelling, and see it as supporting a former imperialist name, much as Indians view the UK's influence. Anyway, simply yelling double-standard and making offensive racist comments which you then edit out won't help your case. - BilCat (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Please stop trying to make this a racist issue - that's insulting, and close to making personal attacks,and is liable to get you blocked. - BilCat (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the one making it a race issue. You literally made it one. You literally said, quote "English is the unambiguous first language in the US" to justify a Wikdipedia edit and discrepancy that resulted in keeping this article's old name while swapping McKinley for Denali instantaneously. —Loginnigol (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I never mentioned race in that statement, nor implied it, nor was I justifying the article's name change. All I meant was that English has a status in the US that is not present in India, and the US is unambiguously considered an English speaking country, the presence of other languages not withstanding. That's not the case in India, regardless of its status as a lingua franca. - BilCat (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Bangalore is still quite common in English publications in India, which is why every move attempt to this point has failed. It's better to concentrate on finding sources which show that Bengaluru is more common now. If that is done, then the article will be moved. Whining about double-standards, racism, white privilege, etc. won't get the page moved, as it doesn't prove common usage. - BilCat (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I opened this section with only one question: what is the justification for the discriminatory editing that resulted two opposite results: keeping Bangalore and discarding McKinley literally days after it ceased to be official? That's it. That's the question at hand here in this section.
You chose to reply to that by mentioning percentages of total populations (to an apparent exclusion of absolute numbers). Now that apparently somehow justifies what exactly? (if not the question I asked)? —Loginnigol (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
To get the name changed you need to show Bengaluru is more widely used than Bangalore in international English sources. Kvetching about other articles or American English is of little use. --NeilN talk to me 06:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It doesn't justify anything, but simply explains why the name change is apparently not an issue on that article's talk page. Instead, they're arguing about the wording in the Lead. No one's challenged the name to the point of making a move proposal on any basis, and without that, the page won't be moved. (I've not challenged it myself because challenging such a politically correct title will only give me a monstrous headache, and my life is challenging enough.) The name choice has been challenged here, and failed on the basis of Common name. That's how WP works. People propose page moves, and the proposal either succeeds or it doesn't not. But no proposal that was never submitted has ever succeeded. If you genuinely believe that the title should be Mt. McKinley based on Common name, then you should propose it be moved on that basis. Otherwise, you give the impression you really don't care either way about the mountain's name. What you do apparently care about in changing the name of this article to Bengaluru. If you want that to happen, then present solid proof that it is the more common name in published English sources, and it will be moved. Your question is really irrelevant to that discussion, and beyond the scope of what article talk pages are for. - BilCat (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It's been officially called Denali since 1975. Denali is the common name: compare Mount McKinley and DenaliBangalore and Bengaluru. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Trend analysis above is lope sided , here is the actual trend analysis https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Bangalore%2C%20%2Fm%2F09c17&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-8 , even google recognises only bengaluru as a city not bangalore , I do not have hope anytime soon for change Shrikanthv (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Shrikanthv for exposing that fraud stats of DrKey. His own stats only show that the word obviously has some Danish meaning not related to the mountain. And Danali became official only last month (directly done by Obama government). Until then no one outside Alaska has ever heard of the term. —Loginnigol (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It says "Mountain in Alaska". Ridiculous accusations of fraud, and unambiguous racist attacks like "manifestly two-faced (Western/white" and then claiming that such a comment is not "making it a race issue", damages your cause and loses you potential allies. You would be wiser to use a less confrontational strategy. You could start by apologising for making it a race issue and making a false accusation, and withdrawing those comments. DrKay (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Loginnigol Maybe you should do some research before discussing things like this. Denali is well-known even outside Alaska. It has been the official name in Alaska since 1975 and the recent change by Obama reflected that. And if you think the article rename was uncontroversial, you obviously haven't read through the archives at Talk:Denali. clpo13(talk) 21:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Very true but it's not just Indian, it's anywhere outside of Anglia that gets this derision and ignorance. The Kyiv/Kiev thing is the best example. It doesn't matter how clearly the name is spelled Kyiv in all official English literature coming from Ukrainian and other non-Russian governments, including The World Factbook, National Geographic, etc. Yet on the other hand, we have Denali changing almost immediately! And there was a discussion on San Jose, California recently on ANI about people changing it to San José, and arguments like this are used, NOT Common Name. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago52 comments22 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Currently there is no consensus to move this article. --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Bangalore → Bengaluru –

proof's as per wp:commonname

  • International flight plans---1, 2, 3, 4
  • Comment for the closer eventhough at surface and a short search engines analysis would give more results of Bangalore this is in contrary to the new trend (after the city was renamed) as we can see this in google trend analysis, so would suggest to transclude considering any analysis of Search engine results for comming into conclusion but rather we find that the variety of english / non english speaking countries and media have started to use the now common word "Bengaluru" Shrikanthv (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If commonname is so-so important then change Sean Connery's name to James Bond, Arnold to Terminator, Sylvester Stallone to Rambo, Bruce Lee to Kung Fu. --The Avengers 11:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's unfair but the fact remains that Bangalore is something of an island of Kannada, English and Tamil in a Kannada-speaking state, and that's why adoption of the Kannada name in English-language sources both in India and globally has lagged a long way behind Kolkata and Mumbai. I expect the change will come in 10-20 years, but it hasn't happened yet. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support - I believe the "common name" policy is flawed in the way people use it to dismiss actual names in favor of archaic names, often for non-neutral reasons. (If Wikipedia had been around in 1995, the Consensus Crew would insist the article on China's capital be called "Peking" and try to block people who referred to it as Beijing.) Consensus should not overrule facts; the city's official name in English is clearly Bengaluru, and Wikipedia should strive to be an encyclopedia of fact. People forget that English is the lingua franca of India and the co-official language; people most definitely speak English there. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Nobody is getting banned for calling anything whatever they like. And yes, for the case of Peking/Beijing there would probably have been a time had Wikipedia-of-1980 been around after the Chinese made Pinyin official in 1979 where hypothetical 80s Wikipedia would have still used Wade-Giles, and then at some point it'd have switched over. So...? (It'd probably have switched to Beijing sooner than 1995, though.) SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Bengaluru City Police, Bengaluru, Bengaluru corporation, Names are changed, Names are changed The Avengers 04:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It isn't in dispute that some names were changed, in the same way that citing entities that use "Bangalore" would mean little. What matters is the overall usage. SnowFire (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • comment Again all the same wrong trend analysis in google trends to depict wrong graphs. The actual analysis here, have seen same pattern to bring about false positive analysis before ! Shrikanthv (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link. Not sure what the distinction is in Google Trends that causes "search term" to have no use but "city in India" to be similar to "search term"... okay, that means Google Trends isn't super-useful. Still, the revised link only shows roughly equivalent usage. And the burden is on the nominator & supporters to show that Bengaluru is the new more common name, although I suppose the fact it's the official name is a point in its favor. I've downgraded to a Weak Oppose for now. SnowFire (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support — The only reason why this page is not titled Bengaluru is due to white supremacy (Indian sources are regarded as somehow, someway less valid that lily white colonial sources), never mind that Bengaluru is already being used outside India as well — by the likes of Reuters for example. —Loginnigol (talk) 09:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Reuters doesn't seem to have consistently changed to either of the two names. Rain washes out second day of Bangalore test (15 Nov 2015) v/s Rain washes out third straight day in Bengaluru (17 Nov 2015). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
If both are used in one corner of the world but Bengaluru dominates the other corner then Bengaluru wins overall. —Loginnigol (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Loginnigol historically obviously it's true these Anglo-phonetic spellings (like Calcutta) probably did persist too long for various reasons but generally en.Wikipedia is usually about right - when sources tip beyond 55% the article tips to the modern name. There's afaik only one place name that is still at an old name when modern sources have passed 55% and that's a Spanish or Italian island... and my memory has gone blank at the moment as to which one... In ictu oculi (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is no point in showing government sources to back the case. It gives impression that the claim is just to match the government ruling which Wikipedia doesn't care much about. To meet COMMONNAME one has to show variety of sources commonly using this name. The whole opening rationale also lacks that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Google Trends for the latest twelve months world-wide (which is what matters since en-WP is an international English language Wikipedia, not an Indian English language Wikipedia...) clearly shows that Bangalore totally dominates... Thomas.W talk 12:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I will support moving Hayden Christensen's page to Darth Vader as per Wiki:COMMONNAME.The Avengers 12:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Silly comments like that don't belong here. Thomas.W talk 12:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
After star wars the actor didn't do any blockbuster movie, people still know him as Darth Vader. How many know his real name. WIKI:COMMONAME applies here.The Avengers 12:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Did you even go through WP:COMMONNAME? Going by your logic, this article should be moved to 'Garden City'/'Silicon Valley of India'/'City of Pubs'. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi thomas have you had a look at this trend anaylsis here (may be the correct one,perhaps ! ) Shrikanthv (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment for closing administrator------ "George Bush" gets 25,90,00,000 Google search result, but "President Bush" gets 28,10,00,000 google search result. These editors voting oppose didn't follow Wiki Commonname at that time, and they just won't. The Avengers 18:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

again before going off topic and drawing up wrong analogies, think of it the name "Bangalore" has been in google from the time begining and is giving only 130 million hits while the name Bengaluru has been only there for past one year (after re-naming ) it is already giving 43.3 million hits in a matter span of one year so do not take this analysis at face value, if you average it out (considering google starting 1998 ) for 17 years the word "bangalore" has produced 130 million hits(7.6 milllion hits per year average ) , while for just one year past "Bengaluru " is already cloaking 43.3 million hits , it is clear indication of current trend may be not going well with some wikipedians but these are hard facts Shrikanthv (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Strong Support - Indian govt will decide the name of Indian city, not anyone else. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)Of course, you're aware these changes are made by the state governments. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per Shrikanthv. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose still not in widespread use even in Bangalore (for example the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore has resisted a name change, the Indian Institute of Science still uses Bangalore, the Indian post office still uses Bangalore), so to early to change yet, probably happen in the future but Bangalore remains the common name in English. MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No conclusive evidence has been presented that Bengaluru is the absolute majority term in published sources, especially in India itself. That's all that really matters per WP policy. The rest is just emotional posturing from people apparently offended that they still can't rid themselves of Britain's influence, all while speaking here in Britain's language. I also note that there are several other Indian city articles that have not been renamed to their new names, including Mysore, but most of the energy seems to be focused on this article. (Mysore had one move proposal in Oct. 2014, while Bangalore has had 6 from that time. Quite odd.) - BilCat (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Still I do not see a definitive proof on counter claim, just saying the old name is still good enough or compare the subject to some unrelated subject to justify ? , all the proof'S for wp:commonname has already been given above. Shrikanthv (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
If you're commenting on my post, I have no idea what you said, much less what you meant. - BilCat (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
:) Bill what I meant was Mysore was another city and Bengaluru is another ,eventhough idea of city is the same, naming them due to common usage is completly different Shrikanthv (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Not really. I was only providing an example of another major Indian city that has not been renamed, and there are several others too. And they do have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. It's's simply odd to me that the focus has been on Bangalore. Perhaps there's a logical reason. - BilCat (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Because it's the capital of a state. Many Indian roads and squares are changing the names. In Mumbai Victoria Terminus station became Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus station. In Kolkata Minto park became Shaheed Bhagat Singh park. The Avengers 09:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bengaluru name is right, Karnataka government has approved it

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Congrats but there's no source here and we're not doing this again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Institutions and corporations denied change of name, agreed. Why does it matter when the name of the city itself has changed? Especially, when Government has approved. Why are the set of people denying the reality? This is something that's hard to understand. Depending on Google search or some other data, fact may not change. Also I noticed a mistake in spelling in one of the comments, saying people searched for "Bangaluru", I'm sorry, it's "Bengaluru". Hope we see facts as facts instead of deviating from the actual subject.

Simple example, name of Madras university doesn't make 'Chennai' to be addressed as 'Madras'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkeethan (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Schematic/Mobility map of Bengaluru (Bangalore)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This map does not represent major alignments intuitively. For example, Magadi Road is not there.

It is also somewhat dated. It may be best to remove it from the page till it is updated by the author or others. Swastik (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Bangalore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Want to add more about bangalore

Navyadotshreedotnavya (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Kindly remove the below text in climate section as there are no citations or proof and it is false. However, parts of North Bangalore recorded temperatures as high as 40 °C (104 °F) on April 12, 2016 due to El Nino being at its peak that time making it a hotter summer. Shrihara (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. It may, of course, be restored if a suitable citation is found. DrKay (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

1. Line in para Rail: See below: Needs citation. This much delayed project is the city's primary response to the worsening city transport infrastructure which has become a major deterrent to continued business growth. 2. Availability of cabs in Bangalore must be detailed. Ramakrishna Mallya (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

  Partly done: {{Cn}} added. If you have ideas re cabs, bring them on. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Change highest temperatures

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Highest ever recorded in Bangalore has changed and become higher.

Source http://www.indiaweather.gov.in/?page_id=639/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayankpantwiki (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rithesh15 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Megacity -> City

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According this data within the article, the population of Bangalore is not above 10 million, and thus does not meet the criteria for a Megacity. Therefore, the 'settlement_type' in the Infobox should be changed to City. However, if the population of Bangalore's metro area is 10M+, then perhaps a settlement_type of Megalopolis would be appropriate. 199.116.174.122 (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Official Language

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is the "Official Language" category missing ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suchitmore (talk • contribs) 09:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

From where is it missing? - BilCat (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Renukarajput24 (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

44 lakh vehicles?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Maybe "44 lakh vehicles" used in the article is not appropriate in an international text? With a little research I have know found out what it means (1 lakh = 100000) and that it has a very interesting etymology, but I don't think it is appropriate here. Themiztocles (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Confusion with dates?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The etymology section has this:

"The earliest reference to the name "Bengalūru" was found in a ninth-century Western Ganga Dynasty stone inscription on a "vīra gallu" (ವೀರಗಲ್ಲು) (literally, "hero stone", a rock edict extolling the virtues of a warrior). In this inscription found in Begur, "Bengalūrū" is referred to as a place in which a battle was fought in 890 CE. It states that the place was part of the Ganga Kingdom until 1004 and was known as "Bengaval-uru", the "City of Guards" in Halegannada (Old Kannada).[16][17]"

If the inscription is from the 9th century, it cannot possibly state that Bengaluru was part of the Ganga kingdom until 1004. Neither of the two references cited contain any mention of the 1004 date.

How can we contact u people.....plss reply Sunil tejasive (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is hurting Kannadiga's Sentiments by not chaning the article name to Bengaluru

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I feel Wikipedia is hurting Kannadiga's Sentiments by not changing the article name to Bengaluru. The reasons given in the archived talk about the same subject is not logical. Wikipedia is a popular free encyclopedia which has become the main source for all, world over and many learn from Wikipedia. By not changing the Bengaluru name and still using the old name in the Wiki article it is making many of the Wikipedia readers to use Bangalore instead of Bengaluru, the real and official name of the City. When Baroda can become Vadodra in Wikepedia, why not Bangalore change to Bengaluru in the Wiki Article? Vadodra is still difficult to pronounce compared to Bengaluru. When people can say Honolulu which is the official name of Capital City of Hawaiian State, they can definitely pronounce Bengaluru which is easier than Honolulu! Just the mindset which is being imposed by Non-Bengalureans and Non-Kannadigas should change.

I strongly disagree with the reasons cited by some Wikipedians to not change the Bangalore article to Bengaluru and request to change the name of our City immediately as Bengaluru.

Thanks Srinivasa Sampigesrini (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely none of that has anything to do with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, even if you think they're illogical. Until substantive proof is provided to show that Bengaluru is the common English language name in published sources, the name of the article won't be changed. - BilCat (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
So what are you are asking is the Kannadigas/Indians get the name in all newpaper to refer to Bengaluru and not Bangalore. Am i right? Until then you will boss around here telling that it's Bangalore and stall the name change? By the way Bengaluru is the term used in news articles.[2] So why this arrogance?VandeMataram (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
By the way if you're saying that some clueless clooney in some part of the world is not using Bengaluru, its none of our issues. If one is called by some other name rather than your name because someone in the world cannot pronounce it is not my problem, it's yours. Get rid of the arrogance is what i can tell you people who are preventing the change.VandeMataram (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
See WP:NAMECHANGES. You need to show English-language sources around the world (not just India) now use Bengaluru more than Bangalore. --NeilN talk to me 02:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
No, what I'm asking is that you wait until enough newspapers and other published sources decide on their own to use Bengaluru that it becomes common usage. I'm sorry you think that's arrogance, but that's OK. I think it's arrogance when a few people from one country think the rules on WP shouldn't apply to them. :) But name calling isn't going to help the situation get resolved. - BilCat (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Name in Kannada script

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the first line for many cities, including Delhi and Thiruvananthapuram at the moment, the name of the city in Devanagari and in Malayalam script are given. Why is this not being done here? The native name is in the summary table to the right, but it should also be in the first line of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.118.122 (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Bengaluru IS Bengaluru!!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Instead of saying, "Bangalore is officially known as Bengaluru", stop using Bangalore and just say "Bengaluru formally known as Bangalore”. That way you are not offensive to Kannadigas. Local people, AKA Kannadigas, have fought long and hard for proper name to city as opposed to what British called them because they could not or perhaps did not care to pronounce the name properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.110.5.66 (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Change the article name from Bangalore to Bengaluru

Thahir bm (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Thahir bm: Note: - ther're many discussions on this topic already - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please update this Bangalore is a third populous city in India and it is 22th largest city in the world in population. 49.207.54.11 (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- ferret (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bangalore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is not 'Bangalore' anymore. Please change the title as 'Bengaluru'. Instead of saying Bangalore officially known as 'Bengaluru', change it Bengaluru formerly known as 'Bangalore'. In wiki, when Trivandrum is changed to 'Thiruvananthapuram', Calcutta changed to 'Kolkatta', why can't Bangalore be changed? By not changing the name, Wiki is hurting the sentiments of Kannadigas, the local people of Bengaluru.

Please change Bangalore to Bengaluru! 203.89.152.131 (talk) 3:27 am, Today (UTC−5)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See the TEN move requests listed at the top of the talk page. - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page needs to be renamed as "Bengaluru" . It has to be written in bracket as "Formally it was called as Bangalore until 2006" . Word Bengaluru need to be replaced in all the places of this page. Girija81g (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See the TEN move requests listed at the top of the talk page. - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Update the Bangalore Metropolitan area to 8005Km2 which is not mentioned. Bangalore Metropolitan area is 8005Km2. Which is managed by Bangalore Metropolitan Regional Development Authority. Refer the below Wikipedia link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore_Metropolitan_Region_Development_Authority Lohitsjoshi (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

update the below line in the source code area_metro_km2 = to area_metro_km2 = 8005

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The page says it is a Megacity, but it does not have a large enough population to be a megacity 80.169.46.10 (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm not sure why it is mentioned in the infobox of the article. It looks to be there do some consensus. I'd suggest you to start a discussion on this and let the editors discussing decide. — LeoFrank  Talk 17:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Need to add Welingkar Bangalore Institute in "Education" sub heading

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WeSchool-Bangalore The Bengaluru campus of Welingkar was inaugurated in 2008. Welingkar has a sprawling and Green campus set up on a Rs 1.5 acre property in Electronic City, Bangalore, in the vicinity of over 180 IT companies. Being a residential school, there are over 300 students studying at WeSchool, all from different parts of the country. The Bangalore Campus is known for its various events conducted by Career Management Center (CMC) involving several sector-based Industry Roundtables to engage senior members from the Corporate and invite them for sectorial discussions at Welingkar, where the students can also present their learnings and projects. There are annual sports events Jogabonito and We-cricket where alumni, faculty and students participate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WE_School — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashutoshpopli (talk • contribs) 09:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

'Pleasant climate' is a very subjective term and not suitable for an encyclopedic article

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please remember that Bangalore is an encyclopedic article and not a travel magazine or advertisement.
When the temperature touches almost 38 degrees C in every summer, and dry conditions prevail most of the times, is this the sign of a pleasant climate?
And the rainfall is also scanty in Bangalore, is this a sign of pleasant climate?
A Canadian or a Russian may find the Bangalore climate very hot.
'Pleasant climate','Salubrious climate' are subjective terms, and advertising in nature.

Such claims are found in advertisements, travel brochures but not in an Encylopedia.
Wikipedia articles have to be written from a neutral point of view.

Hence the 'pleasant climate' statement is removed from this article.

Simple-man-everyday (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

area_metro_km2 of bangalore should be equal to 8005 Sq kms. Bangalore Metropolitan area is 8005kms. Please update the same. Below are the reference articale of Bangalore Metropolitan area

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore_Metropolitan_Region_Development_Authority Lohitsjoshi (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  Not done - Wikipedia is not a Reliable source - Arjayay (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Indian Economy about economy size and rank claims

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian Economy#City economy size and rank claims - a consensual approach which could affect this article. Please add all comments on that talk page regarding economy size and rank claims. Thanks, Batternut (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Bangalore is not a cosmopolitan city

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to the 2011 census, Kannadigas comprised of 51% of the Bangalore city population. Kannadigas are a majority in Bangalore today.
In terms of religious demographics, Hindus are an absolute majority in Bangalore, comprising of 79% of the city's population.
Bangalore is certainly not a cosmopolitan city, either by linguistic or religious data.
Dubai is the most cosmopolitan city in the world, with 85% of the population comprising of foreign nationals.
This is an encyclopedic article, and not a blog or magazine.
Simple-man-everyday (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Bangalore is not a Garden city of India anymore

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Bangalore was a Garden city in the yester years. At present, the city has grown disproportionately without any planning.
Just because there is Cubbon Park, Lalbagh and a few parks in localities, it does not mean that Bangalore can be called a Garden City.
Again, I would like you to know that Bangalore is an encyclopedic article and not an advertisement. Information should be written from a neutral point of view.
Simple-man-everyday (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

True. Johnmachan (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change transportation section to mention that the Namma Metro phase 1 is almost complete, rather than a small section being open. Anirudhrammohanram (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the population of Bangalore is currently 10,819,000 in 2017 Nathaldawson (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 02:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Bangalore should be replaced by Bengaluru

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The primary name displayed on the page should be Bengaluru.

-Bangalore /bæŋɡəˈlɔːr/, officially known as Bengaluru[11] should be replaced by " Bengaluru, formerly known as Bangalore (anglicized name).

- The keyword Bangalore should redirect to the main page and the main page should be Bengaluru.

- the name on the map should also be read as Bengaluru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bopanna MP (talk • contribs) 14:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bangalore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bangalore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Add "Garden City" to the nicknames parameter in the infobox. Sources: [3] [4] [5] 42.109.194.157 (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Dee03 20:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please change the name of the page from Bangalore to Bengaluru. The official name of the city according to Government of India is Bengaluru. You have changed names of all renamed Indian cities like Madras to Chennai, Calcutta to Kolkata, Bombay to Mumbai, Trivandrum to Thiruvananthapuram, Pondicherry to Puducherry, but you have not changed Bangalore to Bengaluru yet.

Please do the needful. 94.207.104.193 (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I would support this, but the page is move-protected after ten failed move proposals. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Bangalore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An Image of the Metro rail station at MG road to be added to the page to showcase a more clearer picture of Metro in Bangalore.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MG_Road_Metro_Station,_Bangalore.jpg StoriesofKabeera (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago38 comments15 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved(non-admin closure) TheDoctorWho (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Bangalore → Bengaluru – This article should be written in Indian English because it concerns India. (MOS:STRONGNAT)

Bengaluru is now the most common and formal spelling for the city.

Bengalurian (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Keep Bangalore - We go by what is in common use in English language media world wide, not by which name is used in India alone. Particularly not in cases where Indian media are obliged by law to use the new name. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Assessing WP:COMMONNAME can be difficult, but a Google search from England (searches can produce different results depending where they are from, but we use the common name in English) gives 59.8 Million for Bengalaru and 191 million for Bangalore - so Bangalore is still well over three times more common - Arjayay (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose move - per Common Name guideline,which applies worldwide, not just to Indian English usage. If Britannica is using Bengaluru now, that could signify a change is coming in worldwide usage. I'd be interested is seeing usage patterns by decade, which may show a change in recent usage better than a bulk search does. - BilCat (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Here is the link in Britannica Link --Shrikanthv (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Why? I looked it up before I posted. - BilCat (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
please have a look at here CNN , CNN2, THE Gaurdian UK --Shrikanthv (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Srikantv, yes I've seen that The Guardian 2012 "The other side of India’s IT capital Bengaluru – in pictures" when it came out in 2012, and when I saw that back in 2012 I thought "okay, the switch to Bangaluru is coming", but then The Guardian has gone back to Bangalore The Guardian 2016 "An insider's guide to Bangalore: the chilled out Silicon Valley of India" and 2017 "Bangalore police detain six men over New Year’s Eve 'mass molestation'", so as I said, it isn't like Minorca/Menorca where UK and US papers really have heavily gone for the local name. Not yet. When it happens I'll be the first to support it. I say local, but given that ಬಂಗಲೂರ್ and பெங்களூர் have almost equal status in the city, it might be "if" because a lot of the Tamil/English speaking locals aren't so enthusiastic for Bengaluru. This isn't as simple as Chennai. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Which can be seen if you click on the link to Google trends I posted below, comparing the number of Google searches for Bangalore vs Bengaluru in India during the past twelve months. If you scroll down a bit and let your mouse pointer hover over Karnataka in the map of India you'll find that even in Karnataka there are ~30 times as many searches on Bangalore as searches on Bengaluru, and the maps further down (choose "show city/place") show that most of those searches in Karnataka originate in Bangalore itself... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. This is one of the most common "local name vs. English name" debates here, and there's simply no change from the last few times this got proposed.  ONR  (talk)  10:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • support move.: General statements by opposing editors without any proof google statistics clearly mentions Wp:commonname to be Bengaluru not Banglaore link here
--Shrikanthv (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Shrikanthv: The Google-results you linked to are for India only (and also 2013 only), and totally irrelevant for this discussion, since we go by world-wide use. This link shows the world-wide trend for searches during the past five years, and as can be seen the gap in favour of Bangalore is actually increasing, i.e. more and more people use Bangalore instead of Bengaluru when doing searches on Google. But even that is irrelevant since we go by what is in common use in world-wide English language media, not by what terms are used when doing searches on Google. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Thomas.W: I am surprised may be your browser is set to some region even the link sent by you clearly depicts the usage of Bengaluru more than Bangalore and this is counter to your claim and statment!, I do not understand and also regarding english language media I have already posted from CNN, The Gaurdian ! --Shrikanthv (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Shrikanthv: I accidentally pasted the wrong link, this ought to be the correct one, showing (at least here in Europe) the difference in frequency between Bangalore and Bengaluru (both as search terms, unlike in your link, which at least here in Europe shows Bengaluru as "search term" and Bangalore as "city in India", which AFAIK results in lower numbers for Bangalore...), and showing a massive lead for Bangalore in world-wide searches... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Shrikanthv: If you can't see it correctly click on your own link and change the settings for Bangalore from "city in India" to "search term" (so that you compare oranges to oranges and not oranges to apples...), and you'll find that Bangalore was used far more often than Bengaluru even in India... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Thomas, but in your search the Word "Bengaluru" is not pointing to the city but to a general word term as compared to your first search where the google actually points to the right thing here, and the other way round Bengaluru is pointing to the city in google and not Bangalore , and yes i am browsing from Europe too --Shrikanthv (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
See my post right above yours, you have to compare apples to apples, and not apples to oranges. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The arguements made at the requested move of Orissa to Odisha can be raised here too. Common news reports from International reports like CNN and The Guardian (raised above) are using Bengaluru. Its not about Local name vs international name, its common name vs old name now. And anyway, Bengaluru is the common term in Indian English now, and as this article uses Indian English the title should be moved. Looking at it that way, I don't think most internationals use Mumbai instead of Bombay, Kozhikode instead of Calicut, Kochi instead of Cochin, Calcutta instead of Kolkota etc. Also, please do not use search terms as obviously the whole world doesn't use Google trends. India has an established national variety of English and that variety is to be used, similar to how American English is used in US related articles per WP:ENGVAR. King Prithviraj II (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - Shrikanthv - Your link gives me a comparison of "Bangalore search term", against "Bangalore city in India", in India, in 2013.
A comparison of "Bangalore search term", against "Bengaluru search term", worldwide, over the last 12 months is here
These are not absolute numbers but are expressed as a % of the peak figure. The peak was for Bangalore in the second week of September, when Bengaluru got 4% of that number of searches, whilst the peak for Bengaluru was first week in January with 5% of the peak figure, whilst, that week Bangalore got 91% of the peak figure. Overall, this shows that Bangalore is searched for about 70-75 times as much as Bengaluru. - Arjayay (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Did anyone even read my message of not using search terms to determine the common name ? King Prithviraj II (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It was pointed out by others, me included, before you mentioned it, but thanks for mentioning it again. This link shows the frequency of Bangalore versus Bengaluru in Google searches from IPs in India only, showing the same massive lead for Bangalore in Google searches in India during the past 12 months as world-wide. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Your personal thoughts about it don't matter, since "technical evidence" clearly shows that Bangalore is far more commonly used than Bengaluru both in English language media (by a factor of three or four to one) and in general use on the Internet (Bangalore is more than 50 times more commonly used in Google-searches than Bengaluru, and is in fact used far more often than Bengaluru even in India...). Which per WP:COMMONNAME is what matters, not personal feelings about it. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Support - whole world does not have internet for example in india only 40 percent something people have internet so internet search is not evidence. Me and my full circle use Bengaluru also technical evidence in global news and encylopaedia of britian britannica shows bengaluru as common. Search results should not be trusted also this article is about india so indian term should be common -

  • I admit that Bangalore is more common than Bengaluru but how often a word is searched for does not indicate WP:COMMONNAME, there could be WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS included. Hence a more easier way - I search for "Bangalore" in google.co.in (with the speech mark so that google searches for the exact term) show that 19,30,00,000 results are available, indicating these many people use Bangalore. I then search for "Bengaluru" (again, in google.co.in) which shows a result of 6,03,00,000 results. Hence demonstrated Bangalore is more common than Bengaluru within India (since I used google.co.in) so according to WP:ENGVAR the page stays at Bangalore. When the search results show a majority of Bengaluru even if it within India, then renominate for another move request and move page per WP:ENGVAR. King Prithviraj II (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia, not an Indian encyclopaedia, and only a few percent of the readers on en-WP geolocate to India, so we go by usage world-wide, not by usage in India. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:TITLEVAR says differently : If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English (for example, compare Australian Defence Force with United States Secretary of Defense). The key question is what is the common name in English in India, hence the likes of Kolkata. Timrollpickering 22:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Timrollpickering: The move has nothing to do with TITLEVAR/ENGVAR, since it is proposed to move the article away from the name in English, Bangalore, to Bengaluru, the name in Kannada, the official language there (while the name used in Tamil, another local major language, is still Bangalore, albeit translitterated to their script, see further up in this thread, and Bangalore is still used about 30x more often in Google searches made from IPs in Bangalore than Bengaluru, see a post further up in this thread...), and Mumbai and Kolkata aren't valid comparisons since those name changes predate Wikipedia, resulting in Kolkata being created under that name, and Mumbai being moved in the early days of en-WP (but still not until ten years after the official name was changed). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thomas.W why are going to every comment on this thread and antagonising people? You stated above that "personal thoughts about it don't matter", but you've provided zero evidence for your views and you're just arguing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now you're actually telling Indians what name is used in their country. You need to step back and let people who actually know what they're talking about handle this. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Some editors seem to be completely and utterly missing the point here. It doesn't matter what the media in England call the city. It doesn't matter what the BBC calls it. Per WP:TIES - "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." An example given is that Mumbai should use Indian English. Also per WP:TITLEVAR: "If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English." English is one of two official languages of India and we routinely attract tens of millions of readers to the English Wikipedia. India is the third-highest country for views to the English Wikipedia. There is no excuse for us to continue to demonstrate arrogance and contempt for our Indian readers by ignoring WP:TIES and WP:TITLEVAR when it comes to Indian topics. AusLondonder (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@AusLondonder: No, you're the one who's missing the point here: Bangalore is still used more often than Bengaluru even in India (please read all the posts above yours in this section before !voting...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, AusLondonder, I would discount the examples in WP:TIES. Ties is a style guideline and the examples are merely added by editors with little scrutiny. What the discussion needs to focus on is WP:COMMONNAME, since that is Wikipedia policy. The correct way to deal with this is to look at instances of the use of Bangalore vs Bengaluru, as many editors on both sides are doing, weigh the usage in India vs. the usage in the rest of the world - perhaps giving a little more (though not absolute) weight to Indian usage. --regentspark (comment) 13:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The mayor of Bangalore is R.Sampath Raj 103.62.69.84 (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangalore/Archive_6&oldid=1136547522"