Talk:Bangalore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been proposed below that Bangalore be renamed and moved to Bengaluru.

The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, usually under the heading "Requested move." If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance.

Maintenance Use Only: {{subst:WP:RM|Bangalore|Bengaluru|}}

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India.

Quality: FA-Class (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian cities workgroup.

This article is maintained by the Karnataka workgroup.

[edit] Area

This pertains to the area of Bangalore mentioned in the article as 1280 sq. km. However, the area for Mumbai states it is about 498 sq. km. If this is so, why is Bangalore ranked smaller in size than Mumbai? Am I missing something? - Vayu 12:25, 28 Apr 2006 (UTC)

The definition of large and small is with regards to population, not city area size. AreJay 13:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent information on literacy rate

This article claims that Bangalore has the second highest literacy of 80-odd% after Mumbai, and the article on Mumbai says the literacy rate there is 77%. Could we have a source for Bangalore's literacy rate and for the fact that it is the second highest in the country? Cribananda 03:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The data for literacy in the Bangalore article was taken from here, which itself is sourced from the 2001 Census of India. The map shows Mumbai's literacy rate to be 86.4% and Mumbai (Suburban) to be 86.9%. It also shows Bangalore's literacy rate to be 83%. Appropriate modifications to the Mumbai article may be needed. I will look into that some later today. AreJay 14:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -Cribananda 02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population rank

The population rank shows up with the population density. I'm not sure how to change this. - Cribananda 07:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd want to remove that. But, if one has to do that you need to remove the line "population_metro_rank = 5th |" from the article text. The code at {{Infobox Indian urban area}} roughly reads like "if the rank is available, display it there". I can do it if you tell why you'd want to change that. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 08:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

May be I wasn't clear the first time. I don't want to remove it, but when the rank appears with the population density, it seems as if Bangalore has the 5th highest density of population. The way it should be (and the way it used to be) is that the rank showed up next to the population number. I hope you get the idea. Like here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bangalore&oldid=55684170 Thanks. Cribananda 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Thanks. - Cribananda 08:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communal conflict

It seems to me that the information on the Kaveri and Urdu news riots would be better placed in the "History" section than the "Demographics" section. Just a small suggestion. -- Arvind 13:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaveri to the north of Bangalore?

It is written in the article that the rivers Arkavati and Kaveri cross paths at Nandi Hills, which is to the north of Bangalore. Kaveri nowhere appears north of Bangalore. It is far down south. Arkavati beings in the Nandi hills and I believe it joins Kaveri somewhere near Kokkrebellur.

You're right. Kaveri dosen't flow anywhere near Bangalore. This has been corrected in the article now. Thanks AreJay 14:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rajkumar Statesman!

No offense to anyone, but does Rajkumar really need to appear as a statesman. Inasmuch as I fully appreciate the effect of Rajkumar on Bangalore culture (much to my dismay), he really wasn't anymore than an actor. Do we really need to acknowledge his absent "statesmanship"?

I just removed a reference to his picture, as it is irrelevant to the article, and his passing away happened some time ago. --Vivek 20:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I rv'ed the deletion because I meant to capture an image of Bangalore-based media (in this case Deccan Herald). Whether or not Rajkumar was in the article that appeared is immaterial. A screenshot of a Deccan Herald frontpage will suit just as well as a screenshot from any other paper or magazine.

Fair enough. --Vivek 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal for Silicon Valley of India

* I don't see the rationale for having a separate article about the above, as "Silicon Valley of India" is said to refer to the city of Bangalore itself (so it is different from the original Silicon Valley (which strangely, the article does not link to or even mention) or areas such as Silicon Fen, which are unique names referring to the regions which are not identifiable as a grouped area in any other way). The phrase is also different from Big Apple, New York's nickname, as "Big Apple" is unique and has its own original history of creation. "Silicon Valley of India" has simply been coined to compare Bangalore to Silicon Valley, California. Also, the information going into the Silicon Valley of India article could easily go into the Bangalore article itself, or possibly an article entitled High technology industry of Bangalore. Mentioning the Silicon Valley of India nickname is fine, I just don't see how it belongs as the name of its own article since its not a unique name, and it apparently just describes Bangalore. Bwithh 23:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cantonment in History Section

Is such a detailed description about the history of cantonment required in History section?. It makes the history section very long. I suppose that can be moved to a seperate article. Sumanthk 11:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the recent addition to the history section, let me inform that I've reverted the copyright violation. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 11:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electricity

Electricity in Bangalore is provided by BESCOM which buys it from KPTCL, not directly by KPTCL

[edit] Dr. Raj Kumar a Statesman?

A statesman does not have to be a politician, academician or someone with great educational degrees. A statesman can be someone who brings the masses together for a unique cause while maintaining a clean image about himself. But eventually, it depends on how one views the word statesman. In this case to me it simply means "A Man who is undoubtedly the Pride of the State".

Dinesh Kannambadi

[edit] External Link clean Up

I have removed following Links

indiaroads.mapunity.org
bangalore-city.blogspot.com Bangalore City Blog
hosuronline.com/update/weather/changelocation.asp?code=INXX0012

The purpose of External Links is to provide sources and other points of reference related to the topic. None of the listed above websites do so, they are all adverts for the individual websites. Fail to see how these are usefell in informing people about Bangalore. Pastor Linu 05:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Temples

I just rv'ed these edits, because they don't conform with Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. However, I do think a list of temples in Bangalore may be useful, and I recommend that the user create a separte List of temples in Bangalore article and link that back to the main article. Thanks AreJay 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass media

Is Deccan herald the largest circulated newspaper in Bangalore ?? I doubt it. As per the most recent surveys, TOI emerges as the newspaper with the largest circulation. Aditi.

Can you provide (preferably non-TOI) sources supporting this claim? We can then effectively make changes to the mass media section. Thanks AreJay 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't it Bengalooru

I Think the government is planning to name Bangalore to Bengalooru ,(not Bengaluru),in accordance with the pronounciation in Kannada.Akshay

If you have a citation which supports this, please provide. As per the current citation added in the article, it is Bengaluru. - KNM ^{Talk - Contribs} 15:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I had read that in the newspaper "Times of India" ,If you want i could search for the date Akshay

Oops, I saw this after i posted somewwhere down there. My source for Bengalooru is [1]. atanamir 01:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's official. Bangalore now has a new name. It is time we update to reflect this new name. I saw on a debate as to what to name Venice. In India, Indian cities are the same for any language, whether you speak Hindi, Tamil, or English. So, I support renaming the "Bangalore" page to Bengalooru. We should also replace words stating "Bangalore" to "Bengalooru." And Bangalore should only be mentioned as a refernce to the city's former name. User:amitroy5

It is pronounced Bengalooru. The article mentiones the name as Bengalūru (with a ū instead of u) which I suppose takes care of the longish 'oo' but it may lead to confusion. I vote for Bengalooru, as there is no confusion. But in newspapers, it is still referred to as Bengaluru -- WikiCheng | Talk 08:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangalore meetup

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

[edit] Requested move

Bangalore → Bengaluru — The city has officially changed its name as of today. There is precedent for this as Bombay redirects to that city's new name Mumbai. Chris Quackenbush 08:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the discussion has already been going on in Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics#Article_name_updates_for_some_Cities_of_Karnataka as, this is not just applicable for Bangalore/Bengaluru alone, but also for several other cities of Karnataka.

Please participate in the discussion here - KNM ^Talk 08:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Oppose: Not yet. The question is, by WP:NAME, which name is most readily used and recognized by the whole English-speaking world, including India. Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: Use common names in English. A tie-breaker giving preference to the official name when "common" is unclear is legitimate, and this is what was used to move Bombay to Mumbai, after Mumbai had caught on. If and when Bengaluru becomes commonly used in English (even if it doesn't quite surpass Bangalore), I'd support a move, but the day of its official renaming seems premature. --Delirium 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Use English.--Hús ö nd 03:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, stick with the common most searched name for now especially since there is no evidence the English usage will change with the Hindi name change just as Bombay and Calcutta have remained the most searched for those respective cities. Gateman1997 08:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose "Bangalore" is by far the most widely recognised name for the city in English, and this is English wikipedia. Moscow not Moskva, Florence not Firenze, Germany not Deutschland - need I go on? The recent "name-change" is irrelevant. Kannada-speakers will continue to call the city "Bengaluru" as they have always done, English-speakers and people from elsewhere in India will call it "Bangalore" as they have always done. The Karnataka State government has no power to impose a particular form of the name on anyone.Sikandarji 14:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - as the name is Bengalooru according to [2]; (see section above). Is there one single authoritative source for the name? Government of Bangalore/Bengalooru/Bengaluru? atanamir 09:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - a recent name change is irrelevant. Curious as to why this hasn't been closed as failed? Gene Nygaard 01:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose This name change hasn't been concluded. It has been approved by the state government only. That does not mean the change is confirmed. The public has to vote. The Central Government has to decide and the President has to approve the change. This process will take at least 6 months. Until then, the name is Bangalore. There is no point arguing whether or not there should be a change in article name. Tu160m 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The English-language Economist is using the new spelling "Bengalooru." --128.135.36.150 21:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Please respond on the India topics Noticeboard page. This issue is being discussed in front of a bigger audience there. Please refrain from voting here and duplicating effort. Sarvagnya 03:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bengaluru

Lets move on with the official changes. Its Bengaluru in English as well. Please read the link [3]. I dont think we need to world to tell us what is right and wrong when its already official. Once it goes on wikipedia, the users will accept it anyway. Lets us not forget that this voting business is bogus, leaving out the common man on the streets with no access to wikipedia whose wishes have been fulfilled. We dont need people from all over the world to tell us if Bangaluru is right or wrong. Is'nt the whole idea of changing the name meant to send a signal to the world we are asserting our identity.Dineshkannambadi 14:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Hey, I left some comments at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics#Article name updates for some Cities of Karnataka. The upshot is that the "official" name has nothing to do with what we use on Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia is not necessarily a place for the views of the "common man" to be expressed, at least in article titles. Please get a consensus in favor of the move before moving the page. Thanks! --Xiaopo (Talk) 18:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I moved it back. The proposed move has only been discussed around a day now, and nobody's even sure what the new spelling is. Also, moving the page totally broke the dab link at the top. Build up a consensus over at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics#Article name updates for some Cities of Karnataka and then move it. That's the wiki-way. ;-) --Xiaopo (Talk) 18:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about the name. While Bangaluru or any other spelling with diacritic marks are not official, the correct spelling might be Bengaluru or Bengalooru. U. R. Ananthamurthy had suggested the latter, but apparently the Chief Minister chose the former (upon which Dr. U. R. Ananthamurthy reported to the government that the name might need to be changed again), but on November 1st, many newspapers published that the new name of Bangalore is Bengalooru. Can someone confirm with proper links what the correct spelling is ? Thanks.

Also, wouldn't most of you think that 'implement the name change _from_ November 1st' seems a better way to put it rather than using _on_ ? -- Abhijitpai 16:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "on" is better. But maybe Indian English is different US English, where implement is used to mean "start" in such contexts.

Since people are still moving this, I'd like to point out that not even the Indian media are using "Bengaluru." The Hindu has used both "Bangalore" and "Gulbarga" in the last few days [4] [5]. So does the Times of India [6]. Same with Business Standard [7]. As for the foreign media, Forbes [8] and Reuters [9]. Meanwhile, let's all keep in mind that the name change hasn't even been implemented yet [10]. --Xiaopo (Talk) 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

German wikipedia has done the move:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengaluru 203.101.61.7 13:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- The German Wikipedians do use official local names, against German usage; for another example, see de:Pennsylvania, when German usage is Pennsylvanien. This is unfortunate for WP as a whole, since the German word for Pennsylvania should be easy to come by; it does not, and should not, affect what this English WP does. Septentrionalis 18:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Just to keep things correct: er, not always. California can be found under de:Kalifornien, e.g., which is common usage. However, for Pennsylvania, usage is not "Pennsylvianien" - never heard it. Baranxtu 13:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

it seems it is Bengalooru, not Bengaluru: [11]. Does anyone know which one is the official one? User:Atanamir

It is not Bengaluru untill the Central Government approves it. It is incorrect to change it untill it is decided for sure. This is a moot issue and don't change anything on the page untill there is a consensus. Tu160m 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Like Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata, whenever Bengaluru becomes official, it should be quite proper to reflect the change in the main article and elsewhere in Wikipedia.Kanchanamala 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history section

The History section is quite large. Since the article is already at 49 Kb, I was thinking of keeping just a summary of the history in this article and moving the details to a separate article. I will wait to hear opinions from other editors before making any big changes. --ashwatha 10:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the History section as it stands as of now is actually a summary of the History of Bangalore article. The History of Bangalore article was initially a part of the Bangalore article. To conform to Wikipedia:Summary style requirements during WP:FAC, the history section was condenced and brought to its current state and a separate "History of Bangalore" article was created with the original material. AreJay 18:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But it could easily be summarized more tightly; most such summaries are a paragraph or two. Does Garden City of India belong in this article, for example? Septentrionalis 18:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, but I think we need to be very careful as to what to retain and what to move to the other article. Personally, I think this is as concise a summary as I think I've come up with without having to leave out important historical information. For example, the Garden City of India is important because prior to Bangalore becoming what it is today to the rest of the country, it was famously referred to as the Garden City. It is part of Bangalore's history and the moniker is still popular among locals and folks from other parts of the country. AreJay 21:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

ah, ok..yesterday, I saw the link to the non-existent History of Bengaluru as the main article in the history section of this article. So I assumed that a separate article did not exist. My bad... I see that someone has corrcted this link in the article too. Thanks! --ashwatha 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The citation for the statement that the Marathas sold Bengaluru to Chikkadevaraja in 1687 is: "The Mughal Throne", Abraham Eraly, Phoenix, London, Great Britain, 2004 (ISBN 0 75381 758 6), Incidental Data, page 538. Will someone please record it in the edit I have just made to the text? Thanks. Kanchanamala 06:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the citation. In the future you can do the same by enclosing the citation between <ref> and </ref>. Please see WP:CITE for further info. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bangalore news aggregator

After placing a link on the Bangalore page and having it reverted by an editor, I would like to propose here that a link to a website called Bangalore Buzz (at [[12]], be placed in the External Links section of the Bangalore page. While KNM informs me that links to blogs are frowned on, I suggest that an exception be made for this site, as its content is composed entirely of news articles about Bangalore, reprinted from newspapers; it does not contain any personal opinion (except editorials that were printed in the newspapers). It has proven a valuable resource to me as I research Bangalore for a book I'm writing, and I believe others would benefit from knowing about it. Thanks. MarkPritchard 03:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose that link. For starters, even though that blog doesnt cite any personal opinions, it is a hopelessly biased blog. Most of its 'content' is gleaned heavily from the Times of India and many a time quotes articles selectively. It deliberately doesnt quote articles that give both sides of a story and even when it does gives disproportionate coverage to the POV of the blog owner. For example even in cases like the name change, BMIC controversy, the schools controversy etc., the blog heavily quotes only articles that criticise(many a time ad hominem) the government, its policies and many times even 'kannadigas'.

That blog is hopelessly biased and serves no purpose on WP. Even its opening lines,

Point to Ponder -

What do you call a congenial, captivating, cosmopolitan confluence of software and shopping malls, electronics and environment [snip] ....cities for business, December 1998. Does Bangalore resemble any of this today?

and its quote of Kennedy shows the biased nature and POV of the blog.

Who is to guarantee that the blog owner will not start adding his own comments too in the future? And who will keep a watch on such things?

And in any case, I think WP's policy about blogs is clear. A blog is a blog is a blog is a blog. Sarvagnya 21:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't it Bengalooru?

See articles:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8148630
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8139874
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8345066
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/off_cuff/10087162.html

The Economist has adopted the name Bengalooru:
"The capital of the state of Karnataka, home to Wipro and Infosys among others, has changed its name to Bengalooru, following the lead set by Mumbai (Bombay), Kolkata (Calcutta) and Chennai (Madras)."
"They have every right to do so, of course, and it seems discourteous not to use their new names if they expressly ask you to. That is why The Economist adopts Myanmar, Côte d'Ivoire, Kyrgyzstan, Timor-Leste and now Bengalooru (see article) too. But it rankles, for several reasons."

Yet some other newspapers claim it's Bengaluru.

So is it Bengalooru or Bengaluru? This is ridiculous. Why don't people know for sure? --128.135.36.150 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

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

It is pronounced Bengalooru. The article mentiones the name as Bengalūru (with a ū instead of u) which takes care of the longish 'oo' but it may lead to confusion. I vote for Bengalooru, as there is no confusion. But in newspapers, it is still referred to as Bengaluru which is actually wrong. (Problem with non phonetic languages? :-) ). The newpapers don't care a hoot as long as they have something to print. -- WikiCheng | Talk 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move Page

Now that the name change is completed and official, there is little reason not to move the page. Hope there is a consensus this time. 155.69.5.234 20:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Support - its official.Baka man 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That request has failed. Gene Nygaard 05:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/n/Talk%7EBangalore_67c7.html"