Jump to content

Talk:Bengaluru/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2018

In recent past Bangalore grew very fast. It is IT hub in Asia and known as silicon valley of India. So all the transport facilities was not able to meet commuter’s requirement. Finally a new mode of private transportation facility started developing- bike rental. Which is suitable for congested road and provides independency from route selection. It also gives ownership feeling during the service without buying the asset.

[1] 106.216.186.172 (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Not notable to be mentioned. — LeoFrank  Talk 13:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "monthly bike rental". Ontrack. December 27, 2017.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

112.133.233.109 (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

gdp 110 billion (2017 est)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2018

The Indian Cartoon Gallery section says that "The gallery is been organised" but proper grammar would be "has been" organized. Anoplocis (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Anoplocis (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 04:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Namma Metro

Namma Metro under Transport needs update, having been initially written over 7 years ago. As it has been built in several reaches, I can't find appropriate sources to start continuing from: A 7 km (4.3 mi) stretch from Bayappanahalli to MG Road was opened....Malleswaram to Peenya was opened on 1 March 2014. By the end of Phase 2, it would cover 114 kms, but I can't find sources that mention it apart from this. Do you think it would be better to start the paragraph from scratch? Thanks, MT TrainDiscuss 06:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the paragraph on Bangalore metro as required. MT TrainDiscuss 10:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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) 16:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

shouldn't the main name be Bengaluru than Banglore ? and the name Banglore be included as the secondary name ? (45.248.92.96 (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC))

Is Bangalore a megacity yet?

Having elsewhere objected to Bangalore being called a megacity (eg here, and here), I have not been keen to call Bangalore a megacity.

However, someone added Bangalore as a megacity, using India Online as the source (giving population 12,339,447). I started an RS discussion on using India Online stats at the Reliable sources noticeboard, linked from Talk:Megacity#Indiaonlinepages.com figures. No objections were raised, hence we should consider Indiaonlinepages as RS. (@Vibhss: courtesy ping.) Batternut (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Noting Vibhss's edit comment "it can't be called megacity until declared by government", I haven't seen this restriction before. Where does it come from? Batternut (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: The Indian Government has officially used the Tier system to classify cities. Metropolis is a term more commonly used in India over mega city. Though I have been able to find the word mega city to describe Bangalore in a couple of sites: old and in 2013. Here it uses the standard 10 million population as a mega city, which Bangalore wasn't in 2011, but now is. MT TrainDiscuss 05:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
To add, I wouldn't consider India Online a RS. Any discussion requiring comments or mediation are always notified at WT:IN, lack of which would keep us unaware of it. MT TrainDiscuss 07:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mark the train and Vibhss: or anyone is welcome to start another discussion regarding the reliability of India Online. Regarding their Bangalore figure, UN DESA put the urban population at over 10 million in 2016, so the metro population is always going to be bigger than that.
The term "megacity" was coined relatively recently compared with the Ancient Greek term "metropolis". It seems to be being used as a badge of honour which, frankly, I'd be happy to ban! (That would be a geography discussion). Batternut (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Batternut: Please don't take offense but you seem to be fond of creating problems out of nowhere. Most major Indian city articles use census 2011 figures for population which are most reliable at the present moment, then what is the dire need for updating population of one city and that too with an unverifiable source ? Until 2021 census is conducted or an official estimate is released by the government, it is not desirable to update the population with any other source. Let me explain the problems with the source proclaimed as reliable by you alone. Firstly, the 12.3 million figure for Bangalore's 2017 population is highly inflated. The UN source estimates 2016 population for "Bangalore urban agglomeration" as 10.4 million, not for Bangalore city proper. Bangalore has no metro area as such. After the formation of BBMP, most of the built-up urban area of Bangalore comes under city-proper limits whose 2011 population was 8.44 million while that of Bangalore UA and Extended UA were 8.52 million and 8.73 million respectively.

And in this discussion, you have not got even a single response and you say that no objections were raised. You got no approval either. This discussion got archived without any input from other editors. You alone can't proclaim the reliability of a source as you did here.

Anyways, for population figures of cities, states and countries we use official census or official estimates as source, not fan created sites like Indiaonlinepages. Does it even mention the source of its estimates ? It is just a self-published open wiki. Just try modifying population figures on a featured article like India using Indiaonlinepages source and see what happens. Everything doesn't need a discussion. And before mass reverting my edits you should have at least checked them properly. Just check the infobox in the current version of the page (I am not changing it now for you to see it) and compare it with my edit which you reverted. I discarded only the unreliable Indiaonlinepages figure. Moreover, both city-proper and metro population figures in the infobox have to be updated together. Currently, city proper figure has been updated to 2017 citing unreliable source while metro figure is same and both are mentioned as 2011 figures which is grossly wrong. Vibhss (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Vibhss here. I don't think there's any urgency in updating the population by sourcing from websites when the Government is the sole body conducting census. The closest one can get is this Karnataka Government website (pg. 16), where the projected population for 2017 is mentioned as 12.11 million. MT TrainDiscuss 15:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Do not imagine that I am a Indiaonlinepages fan. Read what I wrote about it at RSN (archived link here again for you) - I listed my concerns about the site, but, disappointingly, nobody else had anything to say. I can't unilaterally declare a site to be unreliable. Please, if you think the site is just an unreliable blog, start another discussion there, and notify whichever projects etc you like (being careful to avoid Wikipedia:Canvassing of course). I truly hope it garners more interest next time round!

Anyway, back to the main question - Is Bangalore a megacity yet? Wikipedia does use info other than pure census data, particularly UN figures. The UN 2016 estimate of urban area population is likely to be more accurate (imho) than a 2013 projection, even if that was made by the Karnataka Government. Both however indicate more than 10 million, much more in the case of the Karnataka Government. BTW, the Indian census doesn't produce metro area figures, the closest it gets is extended urban areas. Batternut (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: Did you even read my last message completely and properly ? I think you should read it again, particularly the last paragraph. Why don't you look up at the population figures in the infobox of the current revision of the page ? Are you purposely ignoring the problematic figures? Since it is you who is presently insisting to use Indiaonlinepages source, it is up to you to start a discussion on it's reliability. Well, not everything needs a discussion. The site doesn't mention the source of it's estimates which any reliable source should have mentioned in case of population figures. Vibhss (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Re Indiaonlinepages as a source, you have claimed that it is an open wiki, but I don't see any "edit" button - could you kindly explain how to edit the page, as that would provide an instant disqualification as RS. Otherwise, re not everything needs a discussion - deciding the site's reliability is best done by communal discussion imho, rather than individual editors picking and choosing. Batternut (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Check the articles of major cities across the world. Most of them use either government census figures or official estimates released by local or provincial or national government for population. I never expressed problems with UN figures. UN is an international organization comprising of all major nations across the world. But it has released its figures for urban agglomeration of Bangalore only, not city-proper. The latest available reliable figures for Bangalore city-proper just like other Indian cities are those of 2011 census and they should continue to be used like earlier. What is even the need to make an exception for Bangalore when articles of most other major Indian cities use 2011 census figures ? Vibhss (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Re I never expressed problems with UN figures - you removed the UN figure and source from the lead (the "over 10 million" bit). Could you elaborate your reasoning for that please?
Re major cities across the world - looking at some of the big cities linked at the bottom of this article (under "World's fifty most-populous urban areas"), I see that Jakarta, Sudogwon, Moscow, Dhaka use sources other than census. Indeed WP:RS recommends "rely on secondary sources whenever", and even though national census bureaux are highly trusted (except in Karachi) they are obviously primary sources. Batternut (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Batternut: Re you removed the UN figure and source from the lead - I have told again and again that the UN figures as mentioned by the source are for Bangalore urban agglomeration and not for city-proper. That line which I removed from the lead was quoting a UA figure for city proper. The latest available reliable figures for city proper of Bangalore are those of census 2011 only. Why are you not getting this simple thing ? And I am telling this for the third time that had you carefully checked my edits before reverting them, you would have known that I removed only the unreliable Indiaonline figures and not the UN estimate.
There are good secondary sources quoting 2011 census figures and exactly one such was being used on this article before you went on this "updating spree". Check it out here. That is what an ideal secondary source should be, quoting the source of it's figures and estimates. Your favoured source nowhere mentions any source for it's projections and is not even a proper secondary source by any other means.
And now that you have 'updated' the metro figures in infobox, may I ask you how will you justify keeping 2017 Indiaonline's estimate of city proper and 2016 metro figures estimated by UN together without even 'updating' year from 2011 to 2017 and 2016. Now that I have answered your cross-questions, would you take time to answer questions raised by me in my last message or there are more cross-questions ? Vibhss (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't really understand the objection to urban agglomeration figures. Most city articles quote 2 or 3 figures, city proper, urban and metro.
Given your continuing disquiet with the Indiaonline site I again urge you to consider the RSN, especially if you are dropping your claim that it is an open wiki (which if demonstrable would ban it immediately). I would do this myself, had I not done it once already. And regardless of which projects/talk pages you notify it will be a better discussion by virtue of having at least twice as many contributors (u&i). citypopulation.de is a fine site, though in this case its figures though reliable are now 7 years old.
Re infobox dates, I see what you mean and have just changed the population_as_of to 2017 to match the reference that immediately follows that date; the urban population figure has its own ref which indicates its date of 2016. To have estimates from exactly the same date would be nice, but I don't think that it is mandatory. Clarity of which figure dates from when is required though. Batternut (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

As part of their Waste Management Guidelines the Government of Karnataka through the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) has authorised a few well-established companies to manage the bio-medical waste and hazardous waste in the state of Karnataka.[1] Normamoras (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm not sure if it is notable either. — LeoFrank  Talk 11:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Treated poorly, biomedical waste turns hazardous". The Hindu. India. 26 September 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2018

Please Include the metropolitan area of Bangalore to 8005 km2. Currently its not provided. Below is the reference for the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore_Metropolitan_Region_Development_Authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_India 119.151.72.80 (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Per http://www.bmrda.kar.nic.in/ Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus 14 January 2017

Bangalore to Bengaluru. In 2014, Karnataka government changed the name of Bangalore to Bengaluru. The name Bengaluru is widely used now hence it is wise to change the name to Bengaluru. Many users have also asked the name to be changed.

Yes, we need to change Bangalore to Bengaluru. Does any one object to this idea? Bangalore is the old name as Calcutta was for Kolkatta, Madras for Chennai, Bombay for Mumbai. Today officially it is known as Bengaluru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengalurumaga (talk • contribs) 06:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

BANGALORE is no longer called as such it is known as BENGALURU Whole world has changed it except wikipedia and the North Indian lobby groups. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengalurumaga (talk • contribs) 22:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-29845215

Survey

Please add either *Oppose with a reason or *Support. Support this. There shouldn't even be a survey in the first hand. Bangalore can always be redirected to the page with the name Bengaluru. If Calcutta/Chennai/Mumbai can do the same. Why can't it happen for Bengaluru ?

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2018

In the last line of 2nd paragraph in the "Early and medieval history " section . A correction has to be made to the location of "Someshwara temple" which is actually situated in Halasuru , not Madiwala as stated in the article. The above mentioned pages are enough and relevent for the change. Also , please do remove the reference number 36 . 16:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC) |answered= no

Why is Bengaluru still known by its old name in Wikipedia?

It has been almost 4 years since Bangalore has officially changed its name to Bengaluru, why is the article still known under the old name? Any reasons on why it should not be changed to the official name Bengaluru? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengalurumaga (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been 4 years since the official name change has been in effect. Name is very popular now, infact the airport is also named after the official name itself. talk Could we have the survey which tells us Bangalore is more popular than the name Bengaluru ? Let's not go by words without citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akumar5 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Read the "previously nominated to be moved" section at the top of this talk page. It was discussed last September - when a year has passed since then a new move request might have a better chance of success. Batternut (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, so how do we start a new move request ? comment added by Akumar5 (talk •

As explained above, you wait until September - Arjayay (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
If there's not enough evidence to make the change now, and apparently there isn't, waiting until September to propose a move that will not succeed, and probably be speedy closed, will accomplish nothing. Encouraging perennial proposals that will fail for the foreseeable future isn't a good idea. - BilCat (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
BilCat misinterprets the above comments as encouragement for the proposal, whereas the encouragement was to not raise it so soon after the other failed proposals. Batternut (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2018

This is not a change but addition. IFIM B School should be added under the list of renowned professional institutes. Here is the link to their wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Finance_and_International_Management Jibincjoseph21 (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

One institution missing in Bangalore premier (higher education) institutes list

The institution 'TIFR Centre for Applicable Mathematics' should be added to the list of the premier research institutes in Bangalore. Here is its Wiki page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIFR_Centre_for_Applicable_Mathematics.

This is really a cutting edge school on applied mathematics, but specially partial differential equations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upanshu56 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Cover photo issues

The cover photo of the article does not capture the essence of the city nor is appealing as an article. The main cover photo of UB city is also quite old and not updated. Perhaps a photo of Jayangar 4th block/Ghandinagar would be better, these areas are the true heart of the city. A photo of The Vidhan Soudha (the administrative headquarters of Karnataka, present in Bangalore) would also suffice.

45.126.205.163 (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Please include the topic on KempeGowda-The founder of Bengaluru(with picture) and Lakshmi Devi- His daughter-in -law,who sacrificed her life to safeguard the city then.This is of great historical importance

Most cities have a topic on History and growth.Bangalore historys starts with KempeGowda and Lakshmi Devi.Its a mark respect to include write-ups about the founder along with the picture.

WHile Bangalore is portrayed as the IT city,Garden city..,its also important to uncover the History of this beautiful city.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.204.78 (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Topic 7 -Economy MAJOR ISSUES

Most of the statistic are outdated here. Some from 2004! Bangalore economy is estimated to have grown by 1000% from 2004! Most of them are from 2014 - 15. This may not seem like much but Bangalore exports have increased by 60 % from then. Some of them are blatantly wrong stating Bangalore has GDP of $80 billion, Bangalore GDP is $110 billion plus! 45.126.205.163 (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Instead of editing , topic has been DELETED!!!45.126.205.163 (talk) 14:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Universities

The NLSIU image shows up like an advertisement Wonder why only two images are up Christ is now a deemed to be university Supersaravana (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Corrected it Shrikanthv (talk) 10:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2019

I have some amazing droneshots taken by myself of Bangalore which will add value to the existing article. KshitizBathwal (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Move to Bengaluru

Why wikipedia still follows old name? Even google has changed everything to Bengaluru: https://www.google.at/search?q=Bengaluru https://www.google.at/search?q=Bengalore


there are many more news articles in 24h timefrime for Bengaluru than Bangalore: https://www.google.at/search?biw=1536&bih=763&tbm=nws&ei=lrLJW9nFPMnpsQH8hYDIDQ&q=bengalore&oq=benga lore&gs_l=psy-ab.3...22234.23089.0.23276.6.6.0.0.0.0.138.477.0j4.4.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.0.0....0.jhKoQ5Txlo8 https://www.google.at/search?biw=1536&bih=763&tbm=nws&ei=vrLJW-idF8SnsAHEva_gAQ&q=bengaluru&oq=bengaluru&gs_l=psy-ab.3...603.1592.0.1762.4.3.1.0.0.0.118.308.2j1.3.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.wyNcqWpgv_k

How is this still standing at "Bangalore" ?! --89.144.196.148 (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone from call it Bengaluru. I work with Indians and while Mumbai for example is quite widespread Bangalore remains Bangalore..--APG1984 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it is time to move this to Bengaluru. The city is called as 'Bengaluru' in Kannada since the beginning. Bangalore was renamed as Bengaluru in 2015 and now everyone uses Bengaluru and not Bangalore. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
While that may hold in the Kannada Wikipedia, the English name of the city has been Bangalore. The fact that there can be different names for a city in different languages is nothing new (Wien/Vienna, München/Munich, Lisboa/Lisbon, and the list of examples is endless). MikeLynch (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Additional reason to change - Expedia sells tickets to Bengaluru... not Bengalore. 260 million people speak English as their first language in India We don't call Beijing Peking. Bengalore is now becoming the globally used name, this feels like western colonialism, folks. Let's change this. WayeMason (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Please undertake a move request under the WP:RM framework. El_C 18:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "western colonialism" - we use Vienna, not Wein; Rome, not Roma; Venice, not Venezia and multiple other examples elsewhere in the world - who is "colonising" Austria, Italy, etc. ? - Arjayay (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Mr. WayeMason and Mr. Dheerajmpai23,
Wikipedia does not care about what you think, about what I think, about what India and Karnataka governments think. Wikipedia is staunchly NEUTRAL. There are several cities across the world where the local name is not depicted as the Wiki page name. Just because Mumbai and Chennai were renamed several years back, that need not necessarily mean that Bangalore should also get moved to Bengaluru. Wikipedia is NOT an India-centric website. It is an Encyclopedia that caters to the entire world and people with various mindsets. However, let there be a Consensus regarding this Page Move.
P.S: Beyond this Encyclopedic stuff, I'm curious to know why didn't all these name changing drama in India take place before 1947?
2401:4900:16E8:8401:616A:CE30:AF8:2BBD (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Using terms like "Wikipedia does not care what Indian government think" as it is"neutral" is more bias wording than it can get. So is Wikipedia trying to say Karantaka government is illegitimate? And users who have given examples like why Rome is not written as Roma is misleading. This is English Wikipedia. Rome is English official wording of Italian word Roma. Go to Italian wikipedia and it will use Roma. Also Italian uses Latin alphabet and Hindi does not. In India the official English wording is Bangaluru just like Rome is of Roma. International cities like Astana has been moved to Nur Sultan within months but Indian cities still bear their former names after years. If this is not colonial mindset and bias towards India on Wikipedia then I don't know what it is.2409:4064:2094:1968:A71:F121:DE41:9201 (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:COMMON NAME applies. Searching on either google.com or google.co.uk returns 4 times as many hits for Bangalore over Bengaluru. In time this will likely change but we are not there yet. noq (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect application of the policy against written guidance... Common name links to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_English which states "Raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all." so that is meaningless for this discussion. Using the list for "Disinterested, authoritative reference works" I found Getty Thesaurus of Geographic names says "Bengalūru (preferred,C,V,English,U)" [1] the US Geonames database lists Bengalūru (Approved - N) above Bengalore on there list [2] and finally Britannica says Bengaluru formerly Bengalore. [3] CIA World factbook does not have a page on Bengalore or Bengaluru and the map of India does have Bengalore. Reuters reports from and on Bengaluru. The New York Times no longer uses Bengalore [4] The Guardian UK uses both Bengalore and Bengaluru. Washington Post uses Bengaluru [5] except in automatically generated weather reports that still say Bengalore [6] The article itself states that the city, state, and union governments all approved the change. Again, India is an English speaking country. I am not sure how much more we need here. WayeMason (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:COMMON NAME does say use commonly recognized name. Bombay was moved to Mumbai 10 years after the official name change - Bangalore to Bengaluru has only been half that time. WP:MPN says using the new name "depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage". So far I do not believe it is. noq (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually looking at the Talkpage archives and page history Mumbai seems to have been at that name as early as early 2002 (early article name changes are not very well recorded by the software, in the early days moves were either just bold or got requested elsewhere and page history mergers to counter copy & pasting obscure the matter earlier). And of course Wikipedia was not around for the first six years but if it had been I suspect it would have used Mumbai much earlier. The fact that one individual editor back in 2001 started at Bombay is neither here nor there 18 years on. Timrollpickering (Talk) 09:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The key here is that we do not necessarily use official names, instead we favor Recognizable names. We determine what is most recognizable by looking at usage in reliable English language sources that are independent of the subject. In many cases, this will be the official name, but not always. When a name changes, we examine the sources written after the change took place. Sometimes most sources start using the new name right away (for example, when Leningrad changed back to St. Petersburg). Sometimes it takes years for a new name to take hold (the change from Bombay to Mumbai is an example)... and sometimes the majority of sources never accept the new name. So... what we need is a thorough examination of independent sources... how many have changed to Bangalaru, and how many are still using Bangalore? Have we reached a tipping point? Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It has been 12 years since the name changed officially. It is past decade it took for Mumbai. I have provided the sources required, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_English. I will also note that large commercial operators like Expedia are now using Bengaluru. I will also say that I am concerned that I am providing sources, as above, and citing policy, as above, and people who disagree are providing no sources, as above, other than google searches, which as I noted goes against Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_English which states "Raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all." So all things being equal, no one is providing a solid reason to dispute my contention which is the threshhold to rename in the policy is met. So can we change it now? WayeMason (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Valid point... It would be helpful to see some examples of reliable sources (written since the name change) that continue to use “Bangalore”. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it is incumbent on those that resist this change to do that. It has been 8 days and none have done so. WayeMason (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi(talk), as you can see from above we have tried to move eleven times before! , there are some wikipedian who are in staunch love with old name and have fiercly fought for it , so I have given up trying to do this all the above discussion makes no difference sorry to say . would give it some time i.e until the staunch protectors become old and die ;) then you ll have your chance Shrikanthv (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Speaking as someone from a different commonwealth country, I feel this argument and the undercurrents to the core of my being. Not wanting to change it is not enough to not change it. You and others have been absolutely correct these last few years, and I can't help but wonder how post-colonial bias and race are figuring into it now. All the reasonable measures in established policy have been met and yet, resistance. Grumble. WayeMason (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Should rename the page. Why some are citing google as an example. It is clearly stated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Search_engine_issues not to rely heavily on search engines. atnair (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Even though many people still say Burma and Swaziland, the Wikipedia articles say Myanmar and Eswatini. Same with many Indian cities like Bombay/Mumbai and Calcutta/Kolkata etc. I say we change to Bengaluru. ThePickeringtonian (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "TGN Full Record Display, English (Getty Research)". www.getty.edu. Retrieved 2019-07-20.
  2. ^ geonames.nga.mil http://geonames.nga.mil/namesgaz/. Retrieved 2019-07-20. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ "Bengaluru | History, Points of Interest, & Facts". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2019-07-20.
  4. ^ "The New York Times - Search". www.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2019-07-20.
  5. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=bengaluru&sort=Relevance&datefilter=All%20Since%202005. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  6. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?query=bengalore&sort=Relevance&datefilter=All%20Since%202005. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2019

The article should mention that Bangalore is called "startup capital of India" [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and has the third most startups in the world. [7] 2409:4071:230C:B1E1:83A:7681:E2C1:2247 (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Already done The article already refers to it as the "Silicon Valley of India". Upsidedown Keyboard gonna take my horse... (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2020

"the 12th century Hoysala king Veera Ballala II" → "the twelfth-century Hoysala king Veera Ballala II", for the sake of consistency. 148.252.24.230 (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done; agree that this looks better for consistency with "ninth" above; MOS:NUM is flexible on which is better for that kind of number and I agree that this looks better here. ~ mazca talk 01:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Ooru a Tamil word

Bengaluru is derived from Bengaval-uru. Here uru which represents a town or place is a Tamil word. Ooru in Tamil refers to a Settlement. We have many Indian cities ending with the word Ooru. For example: Nellore. The place gradually became Nelli-ooru ("Nelli" in Tamil stands for emblica Tree and ooru generally stands for place) and then to present day Nellore ( From Wikipedia page). (2) Indore = Indra + Ooru. The city is named after its Indreshwar Mahadev Temple, where Indra is the presiding deity. It is believed that Indra himself did Tapasya (meditation) in this place and led sage Swami Indrapuri to establish the temple ( From Wikipedia page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.198.0.101 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove Unofficial Stats

Please remove the unofficial "Metro GDP/PPP" numbers from the Infobox and from the main article both in lead/economy section. Three different sources given are unofficial; none of them from Govt of India or State Govts source. So please remove those figures.--103.218.236.58 (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: all of the sources given are reliable sources. Don Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Neutrality tag in Bangalore article

There are many places in the Bangalore article's lead, infobox and a few other sections such as Demographics, etc. where the statements are biased and aren't adhering to WP:NPOV. The statements seem to have a promotional marketing tone and are biased rather than neutral/Encyclopedic. Also, please note that any article's Lead section should be an unreferenced summary of referenced statements. Some of the Neutrality issues are

1. Lead section

  • a. "Its multi-ethnic multi-religious and cosmopolitan character" - This is promotional and editorially biased.
  • b. " reflected by its more than 1000 Hindu temples, 400 mosques, 100 churches, 40 Jain Basadis, three Sikh gurdwaras, two Buddhist viharas and one Parsi fire temple located in an area of 741 km² of the metropolis" - No citation is found for this statement. The content also isn't found in the body.
  • c. "A demographically diverse city" - The demographics section explains this. Should the same thing get promoted again after 1.a?
  • d. "Bengaluru has one of the most highly educated workforces in the world" - Is this statement even necessary? It's advertising and highly biased, and adding more citations won't make the statement neutral.
  • e. "Bangalore has the highest elevation among India's major cities" - This is a vague statement. What is the meaning of 'major city'? There are state capitals (major cities) such as Shimla, Gangtok, Kohima, etc. that have a much higher elevation than Bangalore. The mentioned citation is not related to this statement. Is this comparative statement needed in the lead?

2. Infobox

  • a. "Garden city" - This seems rather outdated, although old citations exist.
  • b. Does Karnataka have an official flag? What is the reason for its inclusion in this article? Please note that this trend could lead to the addition of the state flag in other Karnataka-related articles too. As far as I know, no state in India is supposed to have its own official flag.

3. Demographics

  • a. "Telugu Speaking Morasu Vokkaligas are the native people of Bangalore" - The mentioned book citation is not at all related to this statement. In fact, this statement or claim isn't found anywhere in the Web or mentioned anywhere else!

This is just a sample, and I haven't gone through the article in detail. But the article does not adhere to Neutral point of view, just by looking at some statements itself.

Cheers,
Aviator423 (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Does Karnataka have an official flag? What is the reason for its inclusion in this article? Please note that this trend could lead to the addition of the state flag in other Karnataka-related articles too. As far as I know, no state in India is supposed to have its own official flag

Dear Aviator

Yes, Karnataka does have a State Flag. It had been part of independence struggle, much before British allotted dominion status to India, hunger common wealth.

It is the yellow & red horizontal bars in a flag.

Every state in India, is allowed to have a flag.

Because, other states didn't have one, doesn't mean what exists is wrong.

I'll be happy to provide more info. Mallikarjunasj (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Bangalore must be redirection page Bengaluru must be main page

Bangalore must be redirection page Bengaluru must be main page.

Mumbai Kolkata Gurugram are all working in the same manner.

Can English Wiki Adkins kindly take notice of this request & set this right?

Appreciating the help in this regard.


Mallikarjunasj (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Mallikarjunasj please see the ten requested move discussions in the box at the top of this page - all refused - Arjayay (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Where to see move discussion sir 

Mallikarjunasj (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Mallikarjunasj - as I clearly said, they are listed "in the box at the top of this page" - Arjayay (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2020

124.123.81.61 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please do not suggest that the article is renamed to Bengaluru, as this has been discussed at length 11 times before - see the list at the top of the page. - Arjayay (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020

Population of Bangalore needs to be updated from 11 million to above 12.34 million. Rupaiya One founder (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Interstellarity (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Not enough evidence to support move according to WP:COMMONNAME (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 11:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)



Bangalore → Bengaluru – It was almost three years since the last RM was happen and now as time changes, more source using Bengaluru instead Bangalore which is former name of the city. Because this RM seems as continuation of moving from Bangalore riots to Bangalore violence which some users suggest move it to Bengaluru, IMO, Bangaluru should be the title of the article per WP:COMMONNAME which at the time many users oppose it because some reasons. 110.137.186.235 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on Google Ngrams.[8] English language usage is shifting, but Bangalore is still the more common name in English sources based on the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as shown by User:Rreagan007's link - Arjayay (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per nom. BilCat (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Very strong support: Per WP:COMMONNAME of course. As shown by recent usage, the city is commonly known as Bengaluru in all sources. Ngram tracks historical usage of a term, and isn't very useful for the application for WP:COMMONNAME. Consider the Ngram of Kolkata vs Calcutta. If we go by Rreagan007 argument, Calcutta should be the common name of this city in Bengal, but of course it isn't: the common name is Kolkata, saying otherwise would be ridiculous. Therefore, the Ngram based argument is ridiculous and shouldn't be taken into account when closing this. Pinging Arjayay who also supported on misleading Ngram argument. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 07:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support it is now known as Bengaluru in all sources in India regarding the coverage of August 12 riots. The arguments that they oppose based on Google Ngram viewers is very poor and false. If you take Mumbai vs Bombay, i believe the title will known as Bombay, same as Kolkata-Calcutta. 182.1.25.238 (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Among many other news sources, there seems to have been a shift in the major indian news sources: The Hindu, TOI, IE, etc. Bengaluru is now the common term/name. NGRAM can throw up odd results on occasion and it's a bit of an unrefined catch-all, so i'm not relying on that. It's evident by the lack of people saying 'it's the official name' that we've reached a stage, 14 years on, that the term stands for itself as the WP:COMMONNAME. Usage in The Hindu,example, Times of India, example,Indian Express, Hindustan Times and so on. There's still some vestigial usage in URL names, and the odd website markup, but the editorial policy for major indian papers is that Bengaluru is correct. I agree with the WP:TITLEVAR points below, we should be looking at Indian sources, and from those it's clear that Bengaluru is common name. Zindor (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Even limiting to 2020, my searches of news sources find more results for the current title. If the new name isn't common in this kind of generous check, then it clearly isn't common when you consider "slower" sources like books or papers. -- Netoholic @ 21:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Netoholic: have you taken into account the names of organisations in your search? For example, the highest court of Maharashtra is still known as the Bombay High Court despite the common name of the city being Mumbai. Similarly, there's a newspaper called the "Bangalore Mirror", and even that newspaper uses "Bengaluru" to refer to the city. The Hindu has a Bengaluru edition, it's official name has the word "Bangalore" in it and yet it too uses "Bengaluru" only to refer to the city. Go ahead, do a search for "Bangalore site:thehindu.com" and see how many times you spot "Bangalore" outside organisation names. There will surely be some instances, but here too Bengaluru is certainly the more common name. Repeat this with any other website, taking into account the names of organisations formed before the renaming of the city and you'll find that Bengaluru is indeed the common name. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 21:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
180.245.102.250 you are another new editor from Palembang, what is your opinion on all the new Indonesia IP editors on this and the Ford RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment for all opposers, all of those arguments are false, notably Old Naval Rooftops which places very weak personal argument which will be discouraged. In the past years, Bengaluru become increasly more common in many news organization, mainly from India itself. Please see The New Indian Express, TOI, Deccan Herald sources which increases use "Bengaluru" in their news articles. If anyone sticks oppose argument with "Common name" reason, Kolkata should be renamed to Calcutta, Mumbai become Bombay or Chennai become Madras and so on. 110.137.166.230 (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Don't WP:BLUDGEON the process, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BilCat (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not a OTHERSTUFF argument, it's a precedent argument. The IP has shown proof that Bengaluru is the common name, while the opposers have only shown a faulty Ngram and "because I say so". And while I WP:AGF, I would note that some Britishers who love their queen seem to still be stuck in colonial era when Britain dictated what the names of Indian cities were. India has 1 billion people while Britain has 60 million? Karnataka alone has roughly equivalent population to Britain. All Kannada English newspapers and TV channels use the "Bengaluru" term. Bengaluru is much more common, both source wise and population wise. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 08:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Totally irrelevant to Wikipedia's naming policies. BilCat (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence has been presented that the usage of Bengaluru has outdone the usage of Bangalore in the English-language sources. Hence Bangalore is still stands as common name. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:ENGVAR and WP:TITLEVAR would point to what is the common name in Indian English and what sources in the country use as key just as if a place in, say, Canada was renamed we would look to Canadian sources. A glance at the list at Talk:2020 Bangalore riots#Requested move 12 August 2020 (to take a snapshot of current usage) shows most Indian news sources calling the city Bengaluru and use of Bangalore primarily in foreign sources. Annoyingly Google Ngrams does not offer an option for Indian English. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems to me that the "move" supporters are doing a very poor job of presenting their case. Ideally, we need to see actual evidence rather than emotional arguments. Such evidence, if it exists, should not be hard to find. A quick check, for example, at The New York Times, shows a distinct shift to Bengaluru from Bangalore over the last few years (cf. [9], [10], [11], [12])). Perhaps a proper examination of sources from English speaking countries (other than India) would show whether you have a strong case or not? --RegentsPark (comment) 00:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I've added links to my poor job above. Titlevar would limit the relevance of a shift in U.S paper usage, as much as i respect the NYT as a publication Zindor (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Zindor:. I think you've misunderstood my point. The New York Times is using Benagluru. A quick look at The Guardian and the Washington Post also shows that they use Bengaluru rather than Bangalore in recent articles. While I don't know what Indian sources use, I expect that they largely, if not uniformly, use Bengaluru. If you broaden your evidence internationally, you would have a stronger case. Note also that the application of WP:TITLEVAR to India is unclear since India is not an English speaking country and a case can be made that WP:CN trumps WP:TITLEVAR. You will need lots of evidence because the oppose !votes outnumber the support ones and, your !vote excepted, the support ones do not present much in terms of evidence. Keep in mind that the status quo is usually the preferred option. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I understood your point and appreciate the research. India has 22 scheduled languages, and it would be unreasonable to expect this en-wiki discussion to delve into the minutae of the usage in those. India has a wealth of significant English-language news sources, which are regularly cited on India-related articles, and Indian English is a recognised variant both on-wiki and off. We have alternative wikis for Hindi and Gujariti etc, so i do think there is a very strong case for focusing on WP:TITLEVAR here. As a straw poll, yes oppose is ahead, otherwise the !votes don't hold much water. There is a focus mainly on Google statistics, which i've seen to be erroneous in the past (will try and find a link), and editors have demonstrated in this discussion the unreliability of the trend data. Zindor (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
As I said just below, all I'm seeing presented here is anecdotal evidence of Bengaluru's prominence over Bangalore. Yes, it's obviously trending that way, but as far as I can tell, it isn't there yet. BilCat (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Clearly the results are either erroneous or not taking important variables into account. Bangalore usage is about 80% lower than 2004, yet Bengaluru has apparently been almost flatlining for 16 years? Come on. Zindor (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
They would be erroneous if, for some reason, the number of searches for one term had to be inversely proportional to the searches for the other. But they don't. The overall decrease means that the popularity of the place is not as high in 2020 as it was in 2004, that's all. The exact same is true for Ngram as well. Impru20talk 23:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC
Yes a drop in popularity would push the trend that way, it could also be influenced by other factors. A lack of data on a proportional increase, inverse or not, in Bengaluru could involve people getting their information about Bengaluru from native apps instead of Googling it, and even a shift to other search engines such as Bing and Duckduckgo. The book NGRAM could be detailing a downward trend in book authorship, because of an upward trend in the internet publishing medium, which would make the increase in book-use of Bengaluru even more significant than it looks on the graph. The NGRAM also doesn't distinguish between Bangalore as part of a multi-word proper name (such as Bangalore Mirror), or Bangalore as the name for the city. It encompasses all English uses, not just Indian-published books. The source is raw data, it hasn't been 'textured' by statisticians who could explain the data and give us the full-picture. NGRAM interpretation involves original research, and as such is unreliable. Zindor (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, India is one of the top countries in the world when it comes to use of Google over other engines, so the argument doesn't sustain itself ([13] [14] [15]). Impru20talk 21:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • All TITLEVAR does is limit the scope of COMMONNAME to the home country involved, in this case India. It still has to be the common name within India as a whole, and I've yet to see conclusive evidence that it is now. BilCat (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

*Support per ENGVAR and TITLEVAR policy. It seems that nearly all news organization in India and South Asia in general, even there a one media named "Bangalore Mirror" uses "Bengaluru" in modern days, for example Geo TV (Pakistan), Daily Express (Sri Lanka), etc. Non-South Asian media like New York Times and Reuters use modern day name Bengaluru at least since 2010s. The problem is majority of international media are reluctant to use modern name and they still called it in former colonial names instead because it was easy to spell and many users tend to use non-South Asian sources which majority of them still called it as Bangalore until now to write new information about the city with new citations. Arguments about Bangalore is common name isn't very clear, as they tend to use non-Indian sources for referencing. 36.77.93.87 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

    • Side question: why are Indonesian IPs so interested in this? Is Bengaluru suddenly famous in Indonesia? Are you and the previous IP who supported the same person? Both geolocate to different cities in Indonesia and on different networks but it's still possible that both are same. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 13:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
      • One option is WP:CANVASSING. Not an accusation, but merely a option for when IPs show up. Of course, they may just be interested encyclopedians who happen to live in Indonesia, which has a very large population btw. That's the AGF answer. BilCat (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
above Palembang, Indonesia IP was blocked for socking In ictu oculi (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
But situation is more complex in India where 1.3 billion people tell their common name of the city is "Bengaluru" in Indian English which is the official English language variant of the country. 114.125.231.114 (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No evidence that the name has changed in English sources. The appeals above to the official name have as much validity as this one and no more. Andrewa (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: I show up as the relister for fixing the relisting template, which was added by Usernamekiran (talk · contribs). This is procedural, and isn't a conflict with my vote here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support because it seems that there are many disagreements regarding what sources being used to refer the city whether it is Bangalore or Bengaluru. In India, the city now refers officially as Bengaluru, this spelling was officially adopted by the government in 2006 and all news media organization in India and South Asia refers to the current name although there are minority that still use the former spelling that was invented by British Empire that rule India which known as British Raj. On the other hand, majority of non-Indian sources, for example BBC, which is owned by the British government who rules India at the time, still use Bangalore as the common name even it now becomes archaic in its former colony. This stance particularly used by other foreign media until now (with exception of NYT, The Guardian and Reuters that use Bengaluru despite still be slow for adapted), this is like a debate whether the Ukrainian capital is Kiev or Kyiv which is the correct title in Wikipedia (see Talk:Kiev). 180.242.45.27 (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral per BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-53747331 but Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/business-to-business/2018/jul/03/bengaluru-whats-next-for-indias-tech-capital In ictu oculi (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Although we need to remember that the Guardian is painfully politically correct and would probably use any name preferred by a non-Western European government in preference to its common name in the UK. I'm not sure it's a good source for determining a common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree most foreign media sources are being slow for adopting new spelling of the city despite Indian government changes name of the city from Bangalore to Bengaluru in 2006. For most foreign visitors that visit India at once a lifetime, They think this city as "Bangalore", not "Bengaluru" as they refer it as Common name, same as foreign media sources that use former spelling at the time. In India, their citizens now calling their third or fourth largest city as "Bengaluru" even for English-language media and countries where consulate general is located in the city. For me, the situation in India is more complex regarding what they city being call for whether they follow their country source, which all of them use Bengaluru, or foreign news media which mostly of them used "Bangalore". 114.125.231.234 (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
first edit from another Indonesia IP, this one South Sumatra, Palembang again, same Internet cafe as the others? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
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.

Rationale

@Vpab15: Given the depth of the !vote rationales in this RM, would you be able to expand your rationale regarding this close? I note that you've assessed the evidence in the !votes "according to WP:COMMONAME"; did that take into account WP:TITLEVAR that would limit the common-name evidence to only Indian sources or was that discounted? Thanks Zindor (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says we should use the most common name in English sources globally, not only in one country. I don't think WP:TITLEVAR applies in a case when most English sources use a name that contradicts the local name, as happens with Bangalore. Vpab15 (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying this. Zindor (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2020

change the photo caption "The Bangalore torpedo was invented in Bangalore in 1922." to "The Bangalore torpedo was invented in Bangalore in 1912." to match the main article text and the date given here: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30023786 Tomdavies (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done → Timbaaa talk 07:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2020

" Request to add Bengaluru Bulls kabbadi team as one of the prominent team of City" " Request to add Mayank Agarwal as another performer from the city and part of Indian Cricket team" 49.206.2.233 (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Um...

"The existing Kannada name, Bengalūru, was declared the official name of the city in 2006." So... Why is the article still named Bangalore? I've read the archived nominations but... Shouldn't the official name take precedent? It seems kind of counter-intuitive but maybe that's just my opinion. –Azpineapple (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

Bangalore Is The 4th Most Populated City In India Y86654 (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources for that? Most sources say it is the third most populous city. Vpab15 (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Online radios in the media section

Tayi Arajakate included a few sentences about an online radio service in the media section of the article, which I removed since the online radio service did not seem to be notable enough to warrant inclusion. There are dozens of amateur and independent media offerings in this city, should all of them be included, this article would never end. The online radio service in question does not have any sort of history in the city nor does it have any official status. In many ways it is no different than a podcast or youtube channel. Including such a relatively unknown online radio service that has only existed for about half a year certainly fails WP:SUSTAINED. Prolix 💬 19:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Would like to add that this discussion would also apply to the Kolkata article since the content being added is the same. I see no reason to split the same discussion between two talk pages. Prolix 💬 19:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Prolix, I added a single sentence about the online radio service in this article. WP:SUSTAINED is an explanatory guide related to the notability of biographies (for WP:BLP1E) and of events (for WP:EVENT) which are wholely irrelevant here.
This is neither a standalone podcast nor an youtube channel and is primarily a community radio, which are "amateur" only in the sense that they are not for profit. Any notable media offering from the city would merit inclusion in that section. That is a important aspect of sections on media in city articles. The standard for inclusion isn't its age or its model of service but whether it has any significance with regards to the city or are notable in their own right with significant coverage from independent reliable sources.
In this case it has been covered by both national and international reliable sources, some of which is in-depth and is contrary to the assertion that it is "unknown". And no, this does not make the article "never ending", since you'd be hard pressed to find any coverage of equivalent examples. Your objection also seems to stem from the fact that it is an online service? That's not a valid reasoning for obstructing inclusion, internet based media are still media.
For instance, VU2ARC, an equivalent radio station that is already mentioned in the section, has barebones coverage despite being the oldest in the city. The sourcing for this is even stronger with regards to the Kolkata station. In any case, the point here is to expand the article and if such a section were to become too big then it would warrant a spinoff article as has been done for other sections such as those on Education and Culture. In comparison, the section on Media is far from there as of present. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Tayi Arajakate, not sure where you learnt that WP:SUSTAINED only applies to biography and event notability. The guideline is classified under WP:N for a reason and it certainly IS relevant here. Your claim that the service is a 'community radio' is wrong since it does not broadcast on AM/FM, it is an online radio service hence the comparison to a podcast/youtube channel. If it were an actual community radio station it would appear on the official list by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting here.
There are plenty of actual radio services, podcasts and news websites that have similar notability to this online radio service that have not been included in the article. You wouldn't be hard pressed at all to find similarly sourced media services simply because there are so many of them that pop in and out of existence every couple of years.
To me what's important is that any media service to be included in this page should have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Until that is demonstrated I do not believe this should be included.
Given the situation, a third opinion per WP:CONTENTDISPUTE could be the way to go here. Prolix 💬 11:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Prolix, have you read WP:SUSTAINED? In case if you're somehow trying to dispute the notability of the radio station itself then the correct venue for that would be AfD. As far as I'm concerned it meets WP:ORGCRIT which has a higher bar than WP:GNG and as such is notable by a mile.
My claim that the service is a community radio isn't right or wrong, it's just based on how reliable secondary sources describe it.[1][2][3] Please read WP:VNT. If there are similarly sourced media services in the city as you claim there are, then they should probably be included in the section as well.
Online radio and community radio are also not exclusive of each other and being listed or not on a government document doesn't make something real or otherwise, nor does it stop being media if it's not broadcast based. This just reads like original research which disregards reliable sources, we don't determine the "actuality" of things.
Podcasts or youtube channels are individual outlets, an internet based media such as an online radio tend to have multiple such outlets in the forms of streaming platforms, social media accounts, etc. They're not reducible to a single account in the same way a broadcast media would not be reducible to its own youtube channel.
I've listed this discussion at WP:3O per your suggestion. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: From the lead of WP:Notability: These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. While commonly used as a yardstick for content inclusion, this simply doesn't apply in terms of policy or guidelines. I feel that this is more a question of WP:DUE weight (part of NPOV policy). Bangalore is a city of 11 million and a huge topic. There are going to be myriad things about Bangalore which have been mentioned by reliable sources, but we simply can't include them all (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Giving undue emphasis to less significant aspects of a topic violates neutrality. I ask myself: Is inclusion of this community radio station essential to an understanding of Bangalore? Frankly, I'm not seeing evidence of that. The only listener figure in Radio Quarantine is 5,000 people, and that just seems like any other small college online radio station. A good test would be if you found reliable sources which wrote broadly about the media of Bangalore (not just a quarantine special-interest piece) and it specifically included detailed discussion of RQ. But based on the sources below, my opinion is to not include it.

This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps –  Reidgreg (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reidgreg, that sounds more reasonable and I'd be inclined to agree to an extent. But I should point out that the listener figure is from at the time of launch, whereas sources describe it to have gained popularity and acquired an international audience without providing a specific figure.[3]
My reasoning or rather the impression I have is that if a Bangalore specific radio station is being covered by international media as the example from India among similar examples from other countries,[2] then it would be relevant enough to the city to receive a mention in the article. What would your take be on that? Tayi Arajakate Talk 17:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The source you mention indicates that RQB is significant for Quarantine internet radio or possibly media during the COVID-19 pandemic. If Media in Bangalore had an article, that might be okay (there is Media in Karnataka). I feel that while it's significant to some of these narrow topics, it isn't significant to the broader topic of Bangalore (of which local radio stations is only a small part).
Category:People from Bangalore and its subcategories have about 1300 people, most of whom will have references by international media tying them to Bangalore. If we wrote 25 words about each of them (the size of the last revert), that'd be 32,500 words, or about 4 times the size of the current article. Just because Bangalore is a defining characteristic of these other subjects, doesn't mean that these other subjects are defining characteristics of Bangalore. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mukherjee, Senjuti (1 January 2021). "Echoes of Resistance: How Radio Quarantine builds solidarity in difficult times". The Caravan.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ a b I. S. (17 April 2020). "The coronavirus is bringing about a boom in new radio stations". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ a b Neurekar, Malavika (7 April 2020). "Radio Quarantine: Indian artists are trying to create a space for music and community in lockdown". Scroll.in. It is particularly popular, attracting listeners from Bangladesh, United States, Canada, Scotland, Romania and Hungary.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

The name is Bengaluru and was the official word accepted by government of Karnataka Bangalore is a wrong word and it cannot be used as option 2409:4071:D98:E012:C4D2:9843:7582:48C5 (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reactivate your request by setting the answered parameter in the {{edit semi-protected}} template back to no once you've provided reliable sources to support this change here. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Bangalore is ranked as an Alpha Global City

Bangalore is ranked as an Alpha Global City. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 223.226.106.53 (talk) 28 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2020t.html
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization_and_World_Cities_Research_Network
What is the significance of being an 'Alpha Global City'? 220 of ßorg 09:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It is a well recognized classification of world cities. Please check the reference wiki page for more details. Bangalore climbed one position up last year to reach alpha status from beta. Please check Mumbai's wiki page, you can see this statement there mentioning city status - 'In 2008, Mumbai was named an alpha world city.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.185.174.166 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Addition of sister city for Bangalore, India

Addition of sister city : Bandung, Indonesia (2018) Source: [1][2] YashAryanChopra (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The provided source appears to not be working correctly. Deauthorized. (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/01/02/bandung-bangalore-aim-strengthen-ties-sister-cities.html
  2. ^ http://en.sistercity.info/sister-cities/Bandung.html

Format only (shifted refs to relevant section) 49.177.30.125 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bengaluru/Archive_7&oldid=1259788137"