Jump to content

Talk:Bangalore/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move [3] (back to "Bangalore")

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

The result of the proposal was restore the established page name, which is Bangalore. A look through the deletion history of Bengaluru shows that the page was tagged as CSD-G6 and speedy deleted on August 23. This is a valid method for the uncontroversial reversal of a redirect, but extensive discussion in the archives, as well as the debate here, shows that this move was known to be a controversial change. Further, the redirect from the original title was altered upon the initiation of this discussion. This prevented any users from moving the page back themselves. It has been made clear by ArbCom that an RM discussion is not necessary to restore the original title in such a case. A future discussion may show a consensus in favor of changing the name of this article to Bengaluru, but the evidence here is that no such consensus has yet been reached. Everyone need not be happy with this close, but please respect the integrity of established titles and try to make yourself aware of previous discussions when thinking about renaming an article. Thank you. Dekimasuよ! 13:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello,
I have some concerns about the recent move of the page from Bangalore to Bengaluru. It seems this was done by a user (User:Naveenpf) without any discussion or consensus. My concerns are:

  1. Although the Central Government has approved of the name change last week, there is no official communication in any government publication/website saying, for example, that "from today, Bangalore shall officially be called Bengaluru". The Government of Karnataka and Bangalore Municipal Corporation continue to use the name Bangalore on their websites. Moreover, news outlets published from the city itself viz. Deccan Herald still use "Bangalore" and not Bengaluru.
  2. According to this article in Deccan Herald, "Bangalore can officially junk its Raj nomenclature to become Bengalooru only after a final gazette notification is issued.", something that we do not have yet.
  3. Online versions of other encyclopedias that we love to hate (EB, Encarta etc.) have not changed the names of their articles about Bangalore.
  4. The "Requested move" thread (although it is about 8 months old now) on this talk page still has some good arguments for why the move should not be done yet. Please do go through them.
  5. Late addition: WP:NAME Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) suggests the use of a name that most English speakers all over the world would recognize, and "Bangalore" wins that game by a long shot. — Max 17:11, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

In light of this, I propose we restore status quo and move the article back to Bangalore, pending official announcements and acceptance of the changed name (atleast by major news services). I hope this will be alright. If you have any objections, I will be glad to answer them. Thank you, Max - You were saying? 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

In the interests of keeping the survey clear, though, please do not use use it as a place to argue against (or otherwise comment upon) the opinions of others. Please use the "Discussion" for that.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support a move back to Bangalore. Wait until official change. Better yet, wait until English usage reflects official change. — AjaxSmack 04:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, in accord with prevailing English usage. -- Lonewolf BC 06:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support, as nominator. Reasons are outlined above, and in inline replies to the opposition. - Max - You were saying? 09:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support per Lonewolf --Yath 09:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Let's stick to the more popular name, governments don't run this encyclopaedia. Most mainstream media, airlines, travel agencies, corporate websites all refer to the city as Bangalore. Even the state govt and central govt websites still refer to it as Bangalore (so much for being the official name). Until the name catches on, the article has to be called Bangalore, not Bengaluru, Bengalooru or Bangaluru. As for following the example of Chennai, Kolkata or Mumbai they all had this name change about a decade ago, so no point using that line of argument.Lotlil 19:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    (See in "Discussion" for follow-ups.)
  6. Support - Per nom. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - wait until Bengaluru enters common usage.Hornplease 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong support. No more evidence of usage in English now than there was at the last discussion, still on this page. We don't do official names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Strong support The move was done ignoring consensus against the move. Wikipedia does not depend on Government edicts, rather on the society. Bangalore is in immensely popular usage than Bangaluru. When this name become popular replacing Bangalore, this article may be renamed. Parthi talk/contribs 08:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Strong support — by far the most common and widely-used name and per above. ···巌流? · talk to ganryuu 08:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support The common name, not official name is used on Wikipedia. There are many articles on people who are known by nicknames and accordingly, the title of the page is their nickname if it is common. GizzaDiscuss © 10:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support change name back to Bangalore. Better yet, change it to Bangalore (Bengaluru) since I am an advocate for indigenous names and language preservation. However, official recognized name must be shown first, until it officially gets changed to Bengaluru, just like when Madras was changed officially to Chennai. Wiki Raja 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    • just fyi - "Bengaluru" is official.[1][2]
    Sarvagnya, You're going to have to show me some proof that it is. Wiki Raja 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Did u click on those links? Sarvagnya 23:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, but you still haven't shown me valid referenced sources that prove that Bengaluru is the official name. Wiki Raja 00:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support, personally, I think we should wait until "Bengaluru" is common usage in English, rather than merely official. john k 17:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose - Well, its officially Bengaluru now. The initial announcement by the state government was made almost an year back. The central government has given its approval now. In the lines of articles Mumbai (and not Bombay), Chennai (and not Madras) and Kolkata (and not Calcutta), the article name should now be Bengaluru and NOT Bangalore. - KNM Talk 04:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    (See in "Discussion" for follow-ups.)
  2. Oppose - That Deccan Herald link is from October 2006. Not sure why it is being passed around here. As the rediff link above shows, it is "officially" Bengaluru now. Also that 'online versions' of EB, Encarta is a bogus argument. EB and Encarta arent really 'online' encyclpedias like wikipedia. They are traditional encyclopedias which also have online editions and I dont think they're maintained everyday. They will change it when they make the changes and we dont have to wait for a green signal from them or anybody else. Sarvagnya 05:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    (See in "Discussion" for follow-ups.)
  3. OpposeNaveenpf 05:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose the move back. Things like this dont always take a fixed route. There is really no gauge for what is the "popular name" and what is not. The central government has accepted it after the state government had proposed it and will notify on Nov 1st. Take the case of Bombay becoming Mumbai. How many people know that the Maharashtra state went ahead and notified without informing the central government and later sent the proposal to the centre. Lets give some credit to a more democratic approach taken by Karnataka of atleast submitting the proposal to the centre. I dont see any need to wait.Dineshkannambadi 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Calcutta gets more ghits than Kolkata. However since the official name (in english) in Kolkata, the name kolkata is used in en wiki. This is an analogous situation.Bakaman 03:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    (See in "Discussion" for follow-ups.)
  6. Oppose, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Bengaluru is official now, along with a couple of other cities, which have got their named changed. Another example of this as a precedent on Wikipedia is the Cho Seung-Hui article, which was changed to Seung-Hui Cho because Cho was the family name. Whether it has entered into common usage or not is an irrelevant argument. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose - We do do official names. Note that Calcutta is five times more common than Kolkata on Google[3][4] but we put it where it belongs. At the official name. Let us try to be consistent on this encyclopaedia. Reginmund 06:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    And I wonder how much wikipedia mirrors add to "Kolkata"'s bulk. skew it in favour of Kolkata! Sarvagnya 06:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    Also, Google hits take into account past historical usage. Google news, however, indicates whether the new name is in general use right now. I think we will notice very different results for Kolkata and Bengaluru. Hornplease 19:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    First, there is just no metric(that we all can agree upon) to gauge 'general use' levels. Sencondly, we werent bothered about 'general use' until now. No reason why Bangalore should be an exception. Sarvagnya 19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, in lines of Puducherry, Kolkata etc. Bangalore can very well sit in its official name of Bengaluru - ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits06:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose as per KNM. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose as per Dineshkannambadi and KNM. -- Naveen (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  11. oppose per Sarvagnya Iwazaki 会話。討論 06:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, per KNM and Sarvagnya, what more proof do you want? It is the government that decides the names places, NOT common usage. Also, to quote from WP:WWISG
    While traditional encyclopedias might be revised annually, current affairs articles, as well as older articles being edited, are updated thousands of times an hour.
    We don't wait an year to change things on Wikipedia. Leave Britannica to play the catch up game. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, if it's official, no need to wait. --Filip (§) 07:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Bangalore is officially Bengaluru. --Grubb 18:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The move to Bengaluru was done in opposition to consensus, so you don't really need a requested move to move it back. --Yath 09:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(Commenting on the "Oppose" of KNM)
With all due respect, since when has Rediff replaced official sources such as a government notification in a gazette? As for your second point, it is only because of the time factor that the articles have been known by their new names. Consider this - Bombay was renamed in 1995, Madras in 1996 and Calcutta on 1st January 2001. Wikipedia didn't even exist back then. In the meanwhile, the new names of these cities were officially changed and widely accepted in English usage. Hence, the articles began with their new names when Wikipedia was in its formative years. I'm sure if Bangalore's name had been changed then, we could've had an article with the new name a lot earlier, but that's not how the circumstances are, are they? - Max - You were saying? 09:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I didnt see you cry hoarse about Pondicherry -->Puducherry. Or do you want me to believe that Puducherry is more popular among English speakers? Nor did I see you nitpick about a gazette notification on that move. Sarvagnya 01:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(Commenting on the "Oppose" of Sarvagnya)
The link is being passed around because it highlights the official procedure before a name change takes place. So what if it's from October '06? Plus the link is from Deccan Herald, and despite the fact that it is an English language newspaper published from Bangalore, it doesn't refer to the new name in any of its reports till date. That was only an example. DH is just a small regional paper. What is more important is that almost all of the major Indian or international news outlets still use "Bangalore". As for Rediff, it cannot be a replacement for official sources (see reply to KNM above). You will also notice the glaring irony of the same Rediff article being written by a certain Vicky Nanjappa in Bangalore. Clearly, no one has adopted the new name yet. So yes, I think we do need to wait for a green signal from outside, until there's a proper government notification and the new name enters widespread English usage. Who says that Wikipedia is supposed to play the role of a trendsetter? Aren't we supposed to base our facts on stuff that already exists and is well-accepted? - Max - You were saying? 09:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont care what reasons Deccan Herald or any other newspapers may have for their choice. Its purely their choice. Even if they continued to use Madras and Bombay and Calcutta, it doesnt remove from the fact that those cities have been renamed. Same with Bangalore. The govt., didnt need Deccan Herald's permission to change the name and we dont need it either. My name is what I say it is and the city's name is what the govt., says it is and not what your whims dictate. As for gazette notifications, I am no legal expert, so please come up with a source from aug of 2007 which says that a gazette notification hasnt been done yet. Or drop it. Sarvagnya 01:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? You're asking me to come up with a source which says that a gazette notification has not been done yet? That's like a fundie asking an atheist to prove that God doesn't exist. Mate, the burden of proof of finding a government source is on you or the person who moved the page.
It's funny that you say that we don't need permission from news sources to rename the article but then depend on the reliability of the same sources to prove that the city has been renamed. Don't you think the editors of these sources would've checked to see if the name had been officially changed? If articles on Wikipedia depend on well-established and reliable external sources for their content, and if those sources haven't yet changed the way they call this city, why are you in such a hurry?
Looking back at the talk page, I think you had supported moving the article a year ago, when there was a mere announcement about the name change. After the Central Government's assent, the process has taken just one more step ahead but is by no means complete. No government website mentions that the name has been changed, not even the Government of Karnataka or BMC. I guess the article name may be changed eventually, but it's too early right now - Max - You were saying? 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No. I'm just pointing out that gazzette notifications are not required for us to make a change on wikipedia. Hundreds of articles have been written on wikipedia on Indian politics and I am yet to see anybody ask for or produce a gazette notification or even confirmation of a gazette notification. Bengaluru doesnt have to be an exception because you choose to nitpick. And oh, btw.. where are the gazette notifications for Pondicherry and Chennai and Ooty and Mumbai.
Rediff is a reliable source and they say in no uncertain terms that the name change is "official" now and we'll just go with it. Again, it doesnt concern us in the least whether Rediff in its infinite wisdom chooses not to accept the name change. That is rediff. We are wikipedia. We go by facts and not editorial whims.
Your "..even GoK websites.." line is pathetic. I've already pointed that out. According to the same GoK website, "Sri. T. N. Chaturvedi" is Karnataka's governer. But we know better. Dont we?
Stop with your specious arguments. We had none of this nonsense in the case of Pondicherry or Calcutta or Ooty or Trivandrum etc.,. No need for this useless exercise just for Bengaluru.
Sarvagnya 16:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Tch, tch. Getting all hot under the collar, aren't we? :-)
I didn't mean only a gazette notification, but any sort of official government endorsement of the changed name. Alright, let's forget the government for a moment. Then what do you have left? One Rediff news item? The WP articles on Mumbai and Kolkata are named so because the names "Mumbai" and "Kolkata" have been widely accepted, and appear on government documents and websites. If you used some common sense, you'd realize that it's only because of the time factor. The question of finding a "gazette notifications" for these cities, hence, is of no consquence. If you don't agree, be my guest and move those articles back to Bombay and Calcutta.
As for Pondicherry/Puducherry, atleast there's some shred of official confirmation on their website which mentions "Government of Puducherry" on the home page. And to beat that, they have this. Enough said. Do note that the territory was renamed in 2006 but the article itself was moved to the new name very recently. Heh, I hope my "specious arguments" have been specious enough for ya. - Max - You were saying? 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(Commenting on the "Oppose" of Baka)
Not quite. Not that ghits should be taken as the litmus test, but just thought I'd clarify: Calcutta gets 10.7 million ghits versus 8.6 million for Kolkata. OTOH, Bangalore generates 18 million against a whopping 250,000 for Bengaluru (total of all spelling combinations). Lotlil 03:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Uttaranchal has the same thing compared to Uttarkhand. However we use the official name, not the old name.Bakaman 04:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This time we are talking 2.2 million hits versus 1.8 mil. Unlike percentage-point variations with Uttaranchal or Calcutta, the Bangalore case is orders of magnitude (80x ?) apart, using your own metric. Let's give up on the ghits argument and move on. Lotlil 04:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(Commenting on the "Support" of Lotlil)
Govts., dont run the encyclopedia but travel agencies do. Right. And linking to Indian govt., sites is an extremely poor argument. Indian government sites are notoriously shoddy at updating info; its probably a miracle that the sites even show up. For that matter, according to this GoK website, "Sri T.N.Chaturvedi" is still Ktaka's governer. Now, go figure. Sarvagnya 05:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Govt. websites are not reliable on official name changes that "happened" one full year ago, but a solitary random article from rediff.com is ?!! I'm yet to see a single entity that has started referring to the city by the proposed name. Government, newspapers, tv, IT companies, airlines - nothing. Wikipedia would be the first (and probably only, for a long time) place one would find this name, thanks to the persistent POV pushing. Lotlil 07:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this entire "most common english name" argument is bogus. Pondicherry, Ooty, Calcutta etc., are all easily the 'most common English names'. But they all sit pretty at Puducherry, Ootacamund, Kolkata etc.,. Sarvagnya 06:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Calcutta isn't the 'most common english name', not even easily so. Lotlil 07:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to use the same yardstick for all cities and towns, irrespective of size and importance. If Bengaluru needs to move back to Bangalore, every town/city on wiki that carries its native name as opposed to a more popular English name needs to revert back too. I think the onus of doing this research lies with those people who want to move back. Every one is crying hoarse about what the media is saying (news papers etc) only days after the announcement of name change, is'nt wiki also media? Why should one source of media follow other sources.Dineshkannambadi 14:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with moving other cities back to the more common usage (if we can clearly demonstrate what is more common). The onus is really on the supporters of the new name to prove that it is common, given that this move was done against previous consensus. Since this is very recent change, why don't you guys just wait until the name becomes commonplace? I'm sure you must have verified by now that it has not caught on with one single entity of significance. Not yet. Lotlil 14:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No Lotlil. I am sure, you have not looked into several websites. With just a quick search, I got below links.
http://www.efytimes.com/efytimes/fullnews.asp?edid=18510
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/22bang.htm
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bengaluru,+Karnataka,+India&sa=X&oi=map&ct=title Google Maps!
Other Wikipedias:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengaluru
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengaluru
Even the Jet Airways, one of the top rated air carriers of India, now says Bengaluru and not Bangalore when you try booking a reservation.
So, the statement "it has not caught on with one single entity of significance" is not true. - KNM Talk 15:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
KNM, do you have a government source that gives official confirmation of the name change? - Max - You were saying? 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
No KNM, you are misinterpreting your sources. The rediff link merely reports the story about the name change, rest of the articles in rediff still use Bangalore. And those two other language wikipedias were using 'Bengaluru' since 2004 (see this and this), way before there was even talk about changing names. They aren't the English WP, so they are justified in using the native name. Lotlil 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Arguing that the name change has not caught up in popularity is a loosing arguement. No point in trying to delay the inevitable.Dineshkannambadi 15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A dozen others above seem to think it's a winning argument! Lotlil 16:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
When did we start using sources to gauge popular opinion? We glean "facts" from RSes, not 'public sentiment'. Whats next? We start citing SMS polls from NDTV and ibnlive? Sarvagnya 16:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing like 'more common' and 'less common'. Did you conduct a referendum or something? There is just no valid metric to measure that. "Since this is a recent change" doesnt fly either. What if it is a 'recent change'? It is a "change" all the same. 'More common', 'recent change', 'even govt., websites...', etc., are classic cases of special pleading and there's no reason we should entertain it. Sarvagnya 16:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing like 'more common' or 'less common' . What about 'common sense'? Or is that too much to ask, around here? Oh well. Lotlil 23:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
'oh.. well', the sky is blue and the veerattamizhkkudimagan's loin cloth(ca. 200 BC) was blue too. Maybe because they were 'sky-clad'. huh. Flows beautifully from common sense. Doesnt it? Sarvagnya 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Flows beautifully indeed, smooth as the 'music' from neolithic rocks, or should we say empty skulls? Lotlil 00:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the nom -

  • #1 Indian govt., websites are notoriously laggard in updating info. Many days after a new governer was sworn in, GoK site still would still have us believe that T. N. Chaturvedi's is Ktaka's governor. Sites are RSes for what they say, not what they dont say. This link from Rediff clearly says - "It is official now. The silicon city Bangalore will no longer be called Bangalore. Instead, it will officially be called Bengaluru."
  • #2 is plain dishonest presentation of the facts. The link being provided is from almost a year ago and is irrelevant to the discussion now. And in any case, we dont need [[Gazette notifications |primary sources]] to write an encyclopedia. Also, no gazette notifications were asked for or produced when other cities were moved. No reason Bengaluru has to be an exception.
  • #3 "EB and Encarta havent changed it.. so we shouldnt change it" is bogus argumentation. I'm almost certain that we beat them to updating Pluto's status and several other things. We arent a paper encyclopedia and they arent an online encyclopedia. eod.
  • #4 The only 'argument' there was that we should wait till it becomes "official". Everything else was special pleading or just bigotry. Sarvagnya 18:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • #5a No. WP:NAME doesnt say that. - Maximvs is once again trying to push through a dishonest representation. He is citing from WP:NAME's "nutshell". A closer look at WP:NAME reveals this - ".... In general, there are no special naming conventions for cities, unless multiple cities with the same name exist. Digging further, the policy which says nothing like Maximvs is claiming also adds this disclaimer "..This is a proposed addition to the naming convention, for which there has not been any clear consensus established...". So 'fella', come back when your whims are policy. Or better still, go look in the mirror. huh. Sarvagnya 18:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • #5b "...and "Bangalore" wins that game by a long shot...." - do you have anything else other than your own assertion for that? Though, it really doesnt matter, because like I've pointed out above, the policy you cite doesnt sanction the kind of 'games' you're indulging in. Sarvagnya 18:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh wow, you've really got me this time, haven't you? But wait, did you look closer?
Bangalore does win by a long shot, but unfortunately, the obtuse-minded may not have read that WP:GOOGLE is not so useless after all. Oh by the way, you've always wanted to know how people arrive at "common usage", didn't you? Try these fun games and see what "long shot" means. Then couple it with the stuff written in the earlier link and see if you can put two and two together. - Max - You were saying? 19:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • #5c ugh.. really. Now you dumb down a supposed 'Policy violation' to a 'convention 'not set in stone' violation'. Good. You're making progress. For starters, that 'convention' you're pointing to rambles away in ambiguous terms and many parts of it are at odds with WP:NAME (which is a policy). WP:NAME deals "directly" with the question of naming city articles(and Indian city articles) and it tells us in no uncertain terms that "most common english names" pitch is bogus. That tenuous 'convention' you point to rambles on without making any sense. No wonder it never became policy. It lists Istanbul/Constantinople and Bombay/Mumbai as if they were analogous. Whoever wrote it, clearly doesnt know what they were writing. Also "Geographic names" has more to do with "Geographic 'region' names" and is largely irrelevant to this page and discussion. You should be drawing attention to this policy.. er.. 'convention' on talk pages where people fight endlessly whether "India" refers to India or Pakistan or the sub continent or British India or Mughal India or Akhand Bharat etc etc., etc. And clearly, we have precedents like the Republic of China, Puducherry etc.,... and er.. not sure how many here knew Stalingrad was actually Volgograd. So much for "most common English name". huh. And about Ganeshbot... well thankfully, wikipedia is constantly updated based on reliable secondary sources and we dont have to wait till 2011 for anything. And your rationale for using ghits is flawed for various reasons, but we dont even need to go that far just yet as personal whims are not policy on wikipedia. So 'fella', come back when your whims become policy. Also, what precisely is your objection to the move? at the moment, it vacillates incoherently between "its a vio of policy" to "I wont let 'regional fanboys'(sic) have their way". Like I've shown, it doesnt violate any policy and regards the latter, I urge you to read up on WP:POINT. And also WP:IAR and WP:BOLD and WP:Wl and WP:BURO. So long. Sarvagnya 21:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, so now you're trashing something that's "generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow". It doesn't suit my interest, so it "rambles on without making sense". Oh and I'll just discredit the people who took the pains to document these generally accepted principles. Is this how you work? If there aren't any clear directions for city names according to policy, the next best thing to turn to is how people have been doing it in practice i.e. the guidelines. Oh, and a city is a geographical area and the reason why the Constantinople and Mumbai examples were given were to illustrate the different kinds of questions faced when naming an article about a city. Don't just make stuff up. If you have a grouse against guidelines, you should note that the WP:BOLD and WP:POINT links you're throwing around are guidelines too. So why not apply your brand of logic to them and say that since they never became policy, they're all "incoherent" too, eh?
Somewhere at the end of the page, you had also called WP:NAME "broken" and now you use the same policy to defend your stance. Typical. You want to be bold and ignore the rules quite conveniently, when you find that you can't have your way with reason. And maybe you forgot to read this (which by the way is policy) before you unilaterally moved this important FA. So tell us, why do you want us to make the occasional exception, be bold and ignore all rules for just this particular article? Is there any solid, justifiable reason for doing so, or do just you want us to ignore them because you can't have it your way? Please do read this and see what IAR means and doesn't mean before you start waving it in people's faces.
My objections are as noted in the nomination, and in the umpteen replies I have had to give you. Kindly read them because I don't want to waste more time or WP server space repeating myself. - Max - You were saying? 04:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to comments: First of all, let me clarify to everyone that I'm sure the article will be moved sooner or later. I just think it's not the right time to move it yet. Now on to the replies.

1. Is User:Sarvagnya implying that there is not a single government source out there which would affirm the fact that Bengaluru has been adopted as the official name? I find that hard to believe. If you want to go by news sources, The Times of India had us believing one year ago that "It's official: Bangalore is now Bengalooru". Newspapers will print whatever they want and will probably do so in loose words. It was due to articles like these that certain regional fanboys had supported an overzealous campaign to move the article a year ago (with someone making utterly rotten arguments like by changing the name, we are sending out signals that we're asserting our identity - what the #*%$!), a demand that was fortunately turned down by other level-headed editors.
So why should this Rediff article be different, I wonder? Isn't it better if we have absolute, non-refutable confirmation from a government source? (I emphasize government because User:Sarvagnya seems to think that a city shall be called what a government deems it should be called)
2. Again, I have to repeat myself for people too obtuse or deliberately unwilling to understand the purpose of the link. There's no dishonest representation of facts here. The link provides information on the procedure that is followed to change a name, and I gave the link so that people know what it is. Period. Dishonesty is when one moves an important FA by choosing to act upon parochial instincts, without asking for consensus or without giving any sort of warning.
3. User:Sarvagnya needs to read things carefully before shooting his mouth off. I said "online versions", not the paper versions. By the way, EB has already mentioned the new name, but they've still kept the article under the title "Bangalore". So they're not as snail-paced as you'd like to think they are. Go figure.
4. "Special pleading and bigotry?" Sorry. I refuse to dignify this textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black. - Max - You were saying? 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Parting note: Another point being bandied around is about the precedence set by articles on Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai, These cities were renamed way before Wikipedia was even formed. Their names entered general English usage officially and commonly before their articles were written, so it was natural that the first articles about these cities were written with their new names. Unfortunately, no one seems to be taking this into account. As for the Pondicherry -> Puducherry move, just take a look at their website, the home page of which says, "Government of Puducherry" and even more convincingly, they have an official circular. So that move can atleast be justified using this proof. Do we have any of this for Bangalore? No sirree bob. - Max - You were saying? 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Dishonesty unlimited; dishonesty unabated - Maximvs once again misrepresents and misquotes a source. He says ".. the TOI was having us believe that Bengalooru was official one year ago.."! However, on a closer look, this is what that TOI report says - " Bengalooru: Using the platform, nearly a year after his predecessor N Dharam Singh said Bangalore would be renamed as Bengalooru, he said: "I am formally stating that 10 cities including Bangalore will use their Kannada names in English also. The process to make this official is on." Since when did we start citing newspapers 'headlines'?! Or is that the way Mr. Max works?

It was on then and now it is "official" (see rediff) now. And the Puducherry circular is besides the point. Point is, no 'govt., source' was asked for or provided (rightly, understandably and justifiably so) when the move was made. Come back in a year and I'll get a pdf of the GoK circular for you, if need be from RTI. Several govt., websites still call it Pondicherry. Same with Trivandrum and other cities. (Try an imaginative "<search string> site:nic.in" to see what I mean) So let us leave the fact checking from primary sources to reliable secondary sources and get on with it.

And like I've pointed out below, almost all(nearly every single one of them) Indian cities and towns were created by Ganeshbot. And I am positive that Ganeshbot used a database with "official" names in it. There is no reason why B'luru has to be an exception. Sarvagnya 21:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And oh btw, thanks for pointing out that EB also acknowledges that it is "officially" Bengaluru. Thats good enough for us. As for why they havent moved their article yet, feel free to write to its editor and ask for an explanation. But please keep that off-wiki. We dont control their editorial practices and we're not interested either. Sarvagnya 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but didn't you try to move the article back then too? What was that based on? The same sources such as ToI, right? The exact reason why I quoted the ToI article was to highlight the kind of news reports, based on which the regional fanboys, eager to show off how superior their "culture" is, tried to move the page a year ago. Precisely because of such antics (and this is just the tip of the iceberg), it is quite hard to AGF. All I'm asking is how the situation now is any different. You're waving that small article in Rediff in our faces as if it's the decisive be-all and end-all of the renaming process. "Dishonesty unlimited; dishonesty unabated"? Yeah, look into the mirror, fella.
I fail to see the relevance of Ganeshbot in this discussion. When has Ganeshbot referred to the new name? Elaborate, please.
If no official source was asked for Pondicherry, it should've been. Quit quoting the Pondicherry move as if it's a golden precendent that we're all bound to follow. Also, if you had cared to notice, the Pondicherry article had also been renamed prematurely, but that move was reverted. It is only very recently that the article was moved again to Puducherry, although the renaming was effective in late 2006. You ask me to wait for a year until you can get a hold of sources. Why don't you practice what you preach, and do likewise and move the article after a year? - Max - You were saying? 04:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • My reasons for voting to move the article back then are in the archives. Feel free to go and dig.
  • Ganeshbot created almost all Indian town and city articles and every single one of them is at their official names and nobody (has) complained in all these years.
  • As for the supposed vio of the WP:NAME clause, nobody here has cared to explain how they 'arrived at'/'calculated' the "most common English name". I only hope they didnt take this route or that they're not asking me to take their word for it.
  • I'm not asking you for a year to provide sources. Unless you're blind, I've already shown you rediff and you yourself have given us EB. If it is a official govt., notification that you want(which incidentally is NOT mandatory on wikipedia), feel free to go to Vidhan Soudha and get your copy. Just stop bothering us about it. Sarvagnya 23:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I've read your reasons, and they don't cut it - then or now. Nothing to note in them. No proof of official government notifications, and ignorance of a WP policy (willful or not, I don't know). Just an overwhelming urge to jump the gun even though, by your own admission a few paragraphs above, the renaming process was only just beginning.
  • FYI, Ganeshbot takes its data from Census India 2001. While you're busy trying to ascertain whether others are blind or not, you've failed to notice that the database still says Bangalore and will do so for some time to come. If you want to base your arguments on Ganeshbot's source, you should rename the article in 2011 after the next census when "Bengaluru" might be in it.
  • Don't worry, people here have enough common sense to know which name is more widely known across the English-speaking world. Oh by the way, WP:GOOGLE isn't as useless as you think if you choose to interpret the results properly. When "Bengaluru" produces some 141000 results and "Bangalore" produces 17.8 million, a person with reasonable mathematical faculty will see that that's about 126 times the former. Not exactly neck-and-neck, is it? I hope you realize the same too.
  • Given the kind of arguments put forth in last time's move request, official notification is the least one could ask for, not to mention the violation of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names) that this unilateral renaming has brought about (and please, if you have a modicum of sense, don't try to pretend that you don't know why "Bangalore" is more widely known in the English-speaking world than the new name).
  • "Stop bothering us"? Who is "us", if I may ask? Surely not the WP community at large, because I don't remember them electing you as spokesperson. Or does "us" refer to regionalists that sneakily tried to move an important FA without discussion or any attempt to form consensus? - Max - You were saying? 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Reply to Gizza - The common name is used and not the official name? Can you show me few examples from among Indian city articles on wikipedia? Almost all Indian city and town articles were created by Ganeshbot(right?) using a database that had "official" names in it. Right? Or did Ganeshbot conduct an sms poll to gauge what the 'most common english name' was?

Also, comparing city/country articles and people articles is futile. Wikipedia treats both very differently. For starters, we dont have a WP:BLP equivalent for places and countries. Or we'd be deleting "Allegations of...." articles on sight. Your analogy is not valid. 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My argument stems from the first sentence of the second paragraph of WP:NAME, Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. I still believe, judging from the evidence provided above, that despite the official change, most Engilsh speakers would still recognise Bangalore much easier than Bengaluru. WP:NAME is an official policy but of course, policies can be refined if consensus chooses to refine it. WT:NC would be an appropriate place to argue that official usage should override common usage. Thank you GizzaDiscuss © 04:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:NAME is obviously broken and somebody needs to let them know. That, however, shouldnt hold us back from building an encyclopdia. See WP:BURO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvagnya (talk • contribs) 18:34, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Most users would also recognise Puducherry, Kolkata, Mumbai, the Republic of China, etc.. I think that Wikipedia should be consistent with the aforementioned articles.
Reginmund 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, The Deccan Herald even today seem to think it's still Bangalore. so does the Karnataka Tourism website as well as numerous other 'official' websites of Karnataka. What is the haste in changing the name in Wikipedia? - Parthi talk/contribs 03:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The change has to happen, so why not now. Why the delay? Web sites will take their own sweet time. Why wait?Dineshkannambadi 10:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
True. Indian government websites are slow to update (given the fact how lazy govt officials generally are). --Grubb 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like The Deccan Herald has caught up to the new name.[5] Reginmund 00:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article needs proper referenced sources to prove that the name "Bengaluru" actually exists or not. Wiki Raja 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As I've been asked by a few editors to elaborate upon my closing comments, I'll do so here. I'd like to clarify that I didn't close this move request as "restore" for purely procedural reasons. If I had felt that the discussion showed a consensus in favor of Bengaluru, I would have left the article there. It is not my role here to determine the philosophical merits of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names); the opinions presented here show it continues to enjoy support, and it is based in policy. It was only after I reviewed the whole discussion and came to the conclusion it showed a lack of consensus that I considered the procedural issues making up the bulk of my closing comments. It was at that point that I considered 1) a requested move which results in a "no consensus" close should be at its original title, not the new one, because stability in titling is a positive thing, and 2) it is likely that non-admin editors would have reverted the move to Bengaluru if it hadn't been blocked by an edit to the redirect. I hope that this will explain my reasoning satisfactorily, even if it fails to engender more support. Dekimasuよ! 10:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

Why in the name of Darwin was this article moved? There is one more vote for keeping it! Reginmund 17:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The archives for this talk page are a bit of a mess right now, so you have to look at Talk:Bangalore/Archive 1 to see why. There was a "requested move" to move the article from "Bangalore" to "Bengaluru", which failed (no consensus). However, someone moved it anyway. Now that erroneous move has been corrected. --Yath 06:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
But it appears now that there is more consensus to move it to Bengaluru. Reginmund 06:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Reginmund,
One vote more does not imply that consensus has been reached. Though straw polls are used to gauge the overall opinion of editors, since WP is not a democracy, "its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting". As mentioned here,
In the case of this article, there was already a failed "requested move" from Bangalore to Bengaluru, as noted by Yath above. Still, someone moved this article without seeking consensus or without discussion. Hence the article's status quo was restored (please see the comments by the closing administrator Dekimasu). Even if opinions had been sought on moving the article (to Bengaluru), they would probably have ended up being split evenly, as the discussion above shows (but in the reverse way, of course). I hope this is clearer. Regards, Max - You were saying? 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Then it would seem quite pointless to have a poll to move the article back if it was going to be moved anyway. Reginmund 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there was a technical problem. As mentioned by the closing admin Dekimasu above, "Further, the redirect from the original title was altered upon the initiation of this discussion. This prevented any users from moving the page back themselves." i. e. the "Bangalore" page, which was converted to a redirect page after the unilateral move to "Bengaluru", was further edited so that now it had an edit history. The WP software apparently doesn't allow users to move a page if it has edit history other than moving. Hence, there needed to be a formal move request and discussion, the result of which you see before you. Regards, Max - You were saying? 19:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we can now safely ignore the first requested move thread. Consensus can change, and that discussion is over 6 months old. I think the question is whether the consensus of the above poll is to name the article as "Bangalore" or "Bengaluru". I suggested Bengaluru, so I'm not the best to judge consensus here, but from what I can see the only arguments to keep it as Bangalore was that the name Bengaluru wasn't official yet and that we should use the more common/popular name. The first argument is no loger true, as established by this article, while I think the second one is debunked by the fact that consensus is, as in the case of related articles like Puducherry, Kolkata etc, the official name should used for articles, not the incorrect, former names. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 20:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This section was focused on the question of whether there was consensus to move the article to "Bengaluru", which is a procedural question. To discuss the merits of choosing one name over another, I recommend starting a different section, rather than introducing a different subject into this one. --Yath 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Apropos of Snowolf - Exactly. The archived discussion is several months old. Pointing to an older discussion to literally invalidate the present one smacks of red tape and is clearly just a technicality that is being pointed out. Snowolf summarises the present poll lucidly and I request the closing admin to explain his actions in greater detail. Pointing out technicalities and wiki-legal anamolies isnt enough. The fact remains that there is consensus at the moment that the article should be at "Bengaluru". It appears that the closing admin hasnt bothered to read the discussions at all and has simply gone by bureaucratic and procedural detail.
Any which way we see it, there is consensus now to move it to Bengaluru. There were 14 votes for Bengaluru against 13 for Bangalore. However, taking a closer look at the 'reasons'/'arguments' of the voters who voted in support of "Bangalore", it is clear that many, if not all of those votes will have to be discounted. Here's the breakdown -
  1. Nom/per nom - MaximvsDecimvs, Wikiality
  2. Dont move till it becomes official - AjaxSmack, DaGizza, WikiRaja
  3. Move to Bangalore because Bangalore is/reflects English usage - Lonewolf BC, Yath, Septentrionalis
  4. Popular/common name - Lotlil, Parthi, Ganryuu, JohnK, Hornplease.
...and here's why the above votes have to be invalidated -
#1 - The nomination was full of lies and backpedalling which I pointed out in the discussion. Dishonest attempts were made to mislead voters by linking to an article that was almost an year old. It was also claimed that it was a vio of WP:NAME, when it most emphatically is not (read the discussion).
#2 - "Bengaluru" is official. (cf. Rediff, Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia(!!))
#3 "Bengaluru" is official and also English. Bengaluru is the English name of what was Bangalore. afa Kannada usage is concerned, it was always Bengaluru and this name change hasnt meddled with that in the least. What changed was infact, the English usage!
#4 Popular/common name is a classic case of special pleading and has no precedent among Indian city/town articles. All Indian city/town articles are at their official names and there is no reason Bengaluru has to be an exception.
I request the closing admin to make amendments to his closing notes and move the article back to Bengaluru. Or are we expected to follow procedure - challenge this close first and then once again open another poll, this time requesting that the article be moved to Bengaluru?! Sarvagnya 21:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it sounds like you're arguing that a 14-13 vote represents a consensus, which is absurd. --Yath 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it appears like you cant read. Where am I arguing that a 14-13 vote represents a consensus? Did you even read what I've written? Sarvagnya 21:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Any which way we see it, there is consensus now to move it to Bengaluru. There were 14 votes for Bengaluru against 13 for Bangalore. - Sarvagnya
The fact remains that there is consensus at the moment that the article should be at "Bengaluru". - Sarvagnya
If I've misunderstood the above statements or taken them out of context, please clarify it for me. --Yath 22:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)\
Yath, I think the reason Sarvagnya said
There were 14 votes for Bengaluru against 13 for Bangalore. However, taking a closer look...
"However" meaning even though the numerical count doesn't represent a consensus, he believes the consensus of the arguments was to keep the article titled Bengaluru, as he goes on to explain. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That aside, any comments on the points brought up? --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment Quick comment on the categorization of the Oppose voters:
#3 and #4 are really the same. What people in #4 have called English usage is what I (and most likely others in #3) refer to as common usage. Especially since we are discussing the entry in English WP. So, that's just one category. #2 is a distinct category but only Wikiraja should be in it. Gizza clearly says in his vote that he supports common names. AjaxSmack falls in the third category, people who want the name to be both official and common. And, Max's nom makes it clear he is in that same category also. So I would categorize the votes as:
  1. Common usage: DaGizza, LonewolfBC, Yath, Septentrionalis, Lotlil, Parthi, Ganryuu, JohnK, Hornplease
  2. Official name: Wikiraja
  3. Both official and common (Nom): Max, Wikiality, AjaxSmack
In other words, all Oppose voters, except Wikiraja, want the name to enter common usage. Lotlil 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Read my lips - (a) "Common usage" nonsense is neither policy nor guideline. It is your own BS (b)'Calculation' of 'Common usage' is inherently problematic, flawed and unverifiable. Even if we were to consider the ghits argument for a minute, it would only tell us what the most common usage "online" is, that too historically. Not in the real world. And needless to say, the ghits argument is bogus. Bangalore for one, is linked multiple times on thousands of pages on wikipedia and each of these thousands of pages are replicated on hundreds of mirrors on the web. That itself adds up to millions of hits.... (c) And, in any case, all Indian articles are at their official names and Bengaluru will only be following a time tested and honoured precedent. bah! Sarvagnya 01:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And oh btw, much as you'd like to believe otherwise, "common usage" and "english usage" are NOT the same. "English usage" was an issue last time round too. And back then, it was argued that Bengaluru is Kannada and Bangalore is English since Bangalore was the "official" name in English. Now, times have changed but some people like AjaxSmack are obviously uninformed. It is clear from his comment. Not only is he uninformed about the "official"ness of the status, he is also in knots about what is English and what is Kannada. Same with Lonewolf, Yath and Septentrionalis. Sarvagnya 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it really that difficult to understand? Ok one more time: 'Common usage' in this context (the english WP) means 'common usage in English'. Now, go back and read what I said before. As for being a policy or a guideline, can you enlighten us by showing which policy or guideline says to use the names made official by local governments? If you can't, your 'official usage' campaign is as much nonsense and BS as 'common usage' is, if not more. If it's really that difficult to figure out what the 'most common name' is, how come a well-known naming guideline suggests precisely that, although for persons/things and not specifically for cities? I wonder what the policy makers where smoking when they thought we could figure out if a name is common or not? Lotlil 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(I only skimmed through most of the above discussion) Changing Wiki's "common usage" policy to "official usage" means Mahatma Gandhi and India would have to be moved to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Republic of India respectively. GizzaDiscuss © 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(a) "Common usage" is, in fact, an official policy. See use common names. (b) We do our best. It works pretty well. (c) As DaGizza has pointed out, the statement "all Indian articles are at their official names" is false. And by the way, if someone has argued in the past that Bangalore should be used because it was the official name at that time, it is unfortunate that they did. But it is not relevant to our current situation. --Yath 09:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Gizza, changing "common sense" article titles to "common usage" ones would mean Mahatma Gandhi would be moved to Gandhi, United States of America to US or just America, September 11, 2001 attacks to 9/11 etc. From the discussions above, it's pretty obvious that current naming policies don't exactly establish what should be done in such cases. We could twist them however we like, but there is no conclusive guideline about what to do when peoples/places names change. That means it's probably up to us to come to an agreement here.
With regard to the name, are you actually suggesting that we go with an incorrect name just because it is more commonly used? Whatever happened to being factually accurate on Wikipedia? "Common people" don't determine place names, respective governments do, so make no mistake, it is officially and accurately Bengaluru. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 04:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It makes no sense why Wikipedia should resist natural change. Bangalore should be replaced by Bengaluru. Thanks.Kanchanamala 08:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

To Snowolf, you raise some interesting examples. Firstly note that United States of America despite being the official name as you indirectly alluded to, is not the title of the article. It is at United States, which is only used colloquially. Regarding why Gandhi and US aren't used, while they both redirect to their respective pages, they each have own disambiguation page. From my experience, official names are used when there is a potential for confusion when the common name is used (and hence a need for disambiguation). Take for instance, E. V. Ramasami Naicker, which is his official name. The page was previously at his more common nickname Periyar. However, Periyar has become as disambig and as such, the article has been moved. Also Gandhi is unlikely to referred as just "Gandhi" in India, where there other famous people with the surname of Gandhi (Indira Gandhi), which is why Mahatma clarifies this issue.
I admit you weaken my point with the September 11 example to an extent. I suspect why September 11 isn't used is because the date in general far exceeds the importance of the one event. Regarding your factually accurate claims, from WP:V, we strive for verifiability, not truth. My interpretation of "common" doesn't refer what you and me call the city, but what WP:RS say. As it stands, I still see Bangalore as being used more predominantly. I do notice Rediff and some other media sources switching over and while there is good chance Bengaluru may become more popular, Wiki is not a crystal ball. Further, what is exactly "incorrect" in me saying that say, Bombay is the capital of Maharashtra? Bombay can definitely be argued as an outdated term, but if someone still uses it, are you going to accuse them of being "wrong" just because they haven't adapted to the change? Thank you GizzaDiscuss © 11:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, Bangalore is not the only Indian city to be listed under a name other than its official name. Udhagamandalam remains at Ootacamund, though it's been well over a decade since its English name was changed. It's been moved to the official name once or twice, but the moves have been swiftly reverted. -- Arvind 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooty, if we go by the infamous ghits argument is the most common name. You tell me that Udhagamandalam is the official name. Why on earth is the move being reverted then? This example and the others cited above just go to show that this so called guideline that people keep harping about(whats more, its a different guideline each time!) is hopelessly broken and we can safely ignore it, just as countless articles on wp seem to be doing. Leaving out such exceptions, all Indian cities are as a rule at their official names and it is in the fitness of things that Bengaluru also be moved to its official name. Establishing what the "official" name is infinitely easier than establishing what the most "common" name is. As for India not being at "Republic of India", feel free to move it. Infact, people have more than once proposed moving it to Republic of India along the lines of People's Republic of China and China. Endless filibustering and shouting matches related to the India vs Pakistan fights on wiki have drowned it so far. Sarvagnya 22:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that all places which have an official English name should be listed under that name. It has not, however, been possible to get consensus on Wikipedia to this effect, and as a result a number of places are listed under a name other than their official English name (the official English name of East Timor, for example, is Timor Leste), while others are moved backwards and forwards every once in a while (Puducherry is a case in point). The basic problem here is that Wikipedia's rules on city names are vague, and different people insist on interpretating them in their own way. -- Arvind 13:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That is what. If rules are vague, you 'err' on the right side of caution, not the wrong side. You just go with 'official names' which can never be contested for accuracy. afa the guideline about naming Indian cities goes, it has "this is a proposal.. there is no consensus about this policy (read as, "dont use it yet")" written all over it. Same with WP:NAME - which is the only actual 'policy' in these matters. After I pointed this out, people are in utter bad faith clutching at straws and pointing to some esoteric and vague guideline(which again, I am sure is not being followed diligently on wiki) which deals with naming biography articles!
In the case of people there is a difference. In most cases, it is not the 'common name' that is being used. What we are using is usually the pen name, screen name etc.,. For example, people like Rajkumar, Vishnuvardhan, Rajnikanth and such others are not addressed by their real names even by remote chance. More importantly, even they dont call themselves by their real names. George Eliot, for example called herself George Eliot. Rajnikanth, calls himself Rajnikanth and would answer to Rajnikanth. So, in spite of specious parallels being drawn by the bad faith filibusters here, the case of 'people' articles is different. And even in such cases, if there is no consensus, we'll have to go with the official names, not the so called 'common name'. The common name is simply 'incalculable' and any guesses are prone to error. otoh, in the case of Bengaluru, the Govt., being the voice of the people calls it Bengaluru. It is 'commonly' called Bengaluru not just in Kannada or by Kannadigas, but it is called Bengaluru in most Indian languages(atleast all Southern languages(watch the news)). And now it is officially Bengaluru in English too. Sarvagnya 01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, there is absolutely no reason why now "Bangalore" should not be replaced by Bengaluru. A spelling imposed by the foreign rulers should not be allowed to continue simply because it was in use during their long reign, and for some years until now. It took 190 years to oust the British, and 60 more years eventually to correct the spelling of this city. I would urge that someone will make the change in the article. If some people don't like it, tough luck. Thanks.Kanchanamala 03:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia has no problem with Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai, Pune, and Varanasi, to quote a few, why all the fuss about Bengaluru? I insist that Bangalore in the article is changed to Bengaluru without further delay. I shall start the process. Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Bruhat Bengaluru Maharanagara Palike

See proposed rename for this body's Wikipedia page at Talk:Bangalore_Mahanagara_Palike. Imc 22:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Opening line

Please don't revert the edit of the name Bengaluru. Thrash out your differences here on this page. When Wikipedia has no problem with Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai, Pune, and Varanasi, to quote a few instances, why all the fuss about Bengaluru? Thanks.Kanchanamala 04:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The name given priority in the opening should match the title of the article. There is no consensus to move the article -- as has been established through exhaustive discussion -- so the opening should stay as it is. -- Lonewolf BC 05:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Guy, it is a matter of Wikipedia convention, not consensus. It is not reasonable to revert the edit from Bengaluru to Bangalore. Please thrash out your differences on this page. Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to rephrase the opening, putting the new official title first (which should probably be cited), and the common name (as reflected by discussion here, it's not just the former name) second. Both get bold text. On both sides, please don't simply revert without adding edit summaries explaining your position or contributing to discussion here. Dekimasuよ! 07:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The common name line has been refuted many times over. The main antagonist in the above discussion was down to defending himself with vague and poorly worded guidelines which is being disregarded all over wikipedia (of course after his WP:NAME bluff had been called) . Neither of us decide what a city is named. The govt., does it and the govt., is the elected voice of the people... elected by a majority. If anything, the official name is the common name. This is the most sickening case of bureaucracy I've seen on wikipedia. Someone spends days refuting every bogus argument and then an admin comes along and closes it as "no consensus"(!!).. all for just crying out loud on the part of those opposed to the name change. Sarvagnya 08:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is still on my watchlist because I was worried that this type of argument would continue. However, if you are going by "Wikipedia convention", there are two ways this can be started. One is "Bangalore, also known as Bengaluru", which doesn't speak to the official nature of one name and corresponds with the current article title. The other is "Bengaluru, commonly known as Bangalore", which shows that one is official and that the article is listed at the other because it is more well-known by that name. The name of an article in the real world is not decided by either of us. On Wikipedia, though, naming is determined by a consensus among users, not dictated by government decisions. If you want to contest my close of the move request or attempt to show a new consensus, I suggest you ask for a fourth opinion from another administrator or open a request for comment. If you want to contest the validity of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), the place to do that is there, not here, and I do not grant that our naming conventions are "poorly worded guidelines being disregarded all over Wikipedia". Failing either of those, it is not productive to edit the article as though it were at "Bengaluru" when it's not. Dekimasuよ! 13:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The common name of is "Bengaluru".Dineshkannambadi 12:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Will someone stop LonewolfBC from reverting Bengaluru to Bangalore against reason and Wikipedia convention in this regard? If he has special powers, will someone please strip him of his special powers and bar him from unnecessarily messing with the article on Bengaluru? I wish I could. Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes suggested by User:SBC-YPR

This is a topic for discussion related to a new Urban Layout section that User:SBC-YPR has added to the article. I have reverted it for two reasons:

I want to open up this topic for discussion among other editors for their view-points on this and to arrive at a consensus. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 14:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • What does the user SBC-YPR want to add? I think he should create a sandbox , fully edit what he wants to with citations and then we can look at it and decide if its worth it. Its one thing to suggest minor changes, citations etc. Its another thing to add whole new sections.Dineshkannambadi 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Technical help requested

Friends, I'm not computer savvy. Hence the request. The name Bangalore in the heading of the article, and suitably elsewhere in the article, needs to be changed to Bengaluru, in keeping with the Wikipedia convention as noticed in the articles on Chennai, Kolkata, and Mumbai. Will someone please make the change. Thanks.Kanchanamala 23:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The title in the header is the result of the page location, what was discussed in the requested move above. Because Wikipedia is descriptive and not prescriptive, these are not things that need to be changed until common use reflects the new official name. Common usage has changed from "Bombay" to "Mumbai", but there does not appear to be consensus that this is the case for "Bangalore" and "Bengaluru". The relevant Wikipedia convention is WP:UCN. Dekimasuよ! 12:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


I did the Google test. Bengaluru with about 225,000 entries indicates that this new name for Bangalore is gaining popularity at a fast pace, and will soon replace "Bangalore" as a more common name. It is interesting to note that Google now gives the map of that city as "Map of Bengaluru, Karnataka, India." Do we have to be restrictive in asking the question whether Wikipedia is descriptive or prescriptive? Let us be normal and change the name of the city in the article to Bengaluru. Thanks.Kanchanamala 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Volvo B7Rle,Bangarore.jpg

Image:Volvo B7Rle,Bangarore.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

peacock?

I labled the article peacock. may be it was unfair but juts to note some sentences in current article --

... and is today counted among the best places in the world to do business.[2] -- no explaining why, just citing an article/survey. may be its ok, it did not seem to me. Home to prestigious colleges and research institutions ... (like this and that) dont get me wrong, for someone who knows little about Bangalore, their are parts of the article that assume you know the city is great, or otherwise just believe. thanks.--BBird (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing them out. I will try addressing them. - KNM Talk 17:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 Done. The first sentence is well sourced from a reliable source. The claim is, it is one of the best places and not the best place, in the world to do business. I do not see any concern of WP:PEACOCK here. The second sentence has been addressed by removal of the term "prestigious".
If you have any other examples, please provide. I will look into the article again and see if there are any more WP:Peacock issues. Thanks - KNM Talk 17:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to make it clear -- one of the best places.. -- source s good but it does not make it generally considered as such, or if it is, may be actual examples could be put in place. as for the schools, they could be named and linked to. btw -- just trying to help with an quite ignorant outside view. --BBird (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nikkul's images

I have been feeling for sometime that this article has been inundated with images, most of which have at best a tenuous relationship with the section they have been added to. For example, I can't understand what the Public Utility building image is doing in the "Civic Administration" section. The image also bleeds into the next section ("Economy"). What does the Public Utility building have to do with Civic Administration?

The "Economy" section looks even worse, filled as it is with gawdy and ungainly images of objects that look like extracts from Star Treck. Of the three images in the section, two have nothing to do with the content described in the section, only the Infosys image, perhaps has any relation to the section. While I applaud Nikkul's interest in adding quality images to articles, these images have got to go from this article. Many of these buildings, I'm sure, are architectural delights to those interested in that sort of thing, but I don't think they fairly represent the Bangalore that I know. The negative impact they are having on page formatting is another issue altogether. I am therefore going to go ahead and delete them. AreJay (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


" BANGALORE: The biggest commercial property project in the city centre will be ready in the next few months. The landmark UB City, coming up on some 13 acres of land on Vittal Mallya Road, will add 1 million sqft of high-end commercial, retail and service apartment space. "[1]

  • The UB City image shows an upcoming very very important zone in Bangalore. It is literally downtown Bangalore. That image shows the city's new skyline. It is a very important commercial zone. And the fact that it is right next to Cubbon Park makes it all the more important.
  • The Whitefield image shows an area of Bangalore that is famous for the tech firms and for the way Bangalores economy has boomed in the past few years. Few years ago, Bangalore just like Whitefield was a small village. Today, both are bustling because of their economic importance.
  • "extracts from Star Treck."??? Im sorry to let you know that these are actual buildings...in Bangalore. I mean its not like the pics are fake. They show the different industries and the different areas of economic importance in Bangalore.
  • The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) was constituted in 1968 to supply water to the city and to provide for the disposal of sewage. The Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) was formed in 1957. Believe it or not, public utilities are owned and administered by the government. They are not private entities

Please do not revert without consensus Thanks Cheers Nikkul (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul, with respect, please don't tell me what I can or cannot do. One of Wikipedia's cardinal rules is "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I have been active on the Bangalore article for years and was the main contributor that led to Bangalore's successful FA, so I can tell you I know a thing or two about this city. Below are my responses to your points:
  • UB City: First, this project is "upcoming". Meaning it's not even in play as yet. Second, UB City is a commercial shopping center. What does have to do with the "Economy" of the city? People in all cities shop. UB City is hardly reflective of the consumer patterns of the people of the city at large (for multiple reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the shopping center hasn't even opened yet). Thirdly, " And the fact that it is right next to Cubbon Park makes it all the more important"....umm, care to indulge me a little more on your logic here? What if I ran a taco stand next to Cubbon Park? Will you also include me in the "Economy" section of this article?
  • A few years ago Whitefield was not a "small image" as you believe. If anything, it was a sattelite town of the city and had been for years. And the lesser said about your comment that Bangalore was a small village a few years ago the better. Regardless, the Economy section has no discussion about this (rightly so) so as I said before, any link that you are trying to make between the Economy section and this image is tenuous.
  • "They show the different industries"...no they don't. One apparently shows a shopping mall. The other two are pictures of buildings servicing the same industry — IT. There is more to Bangalore than just IT (The city has a huge PSU base...over 42% of all Central PSUs in South India are in Bangalore. HQ for ISRO, HAL, NAL, etc)
  • Umm, I don't think you realize this but the Public Utilities building is a shopping center, among other things. It has absolutely nothing to do with the KEB or BWSSB. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. In light of these facts, I'm removing these images.
  • Finally, please stop removing cited material about Bangalore's population and relacing it with link from an internal Wiki source. If you have a valid reason for why you're removing it, bring it up, otherwise please stop doing it. AreJay (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • UB City is already operational and is still in construction (believe me its possible). UB City is not just a commerial shopping area; it houses the headquarters to large groups and has office space for other companies.
  • What does retail have to do with economy? Please! It has everything to do with economy. Guess how the average person spends his money- through retail! Retail and commerce isa drivingforcein the economy. And UB City also houses commercial offices, banks, high-end retail stores, a five star hotel, serviced apartments, restaurants, food courts.
  • People in all cities shop? Lol, People in all cities do IT work, and other things that people in Bangalore do. Bangalore is not the only place intheworld in which things get done. Banglaore has similar economy as other cities.
  • Whitefield is an important hub for IT services. Read this from the whitefield, india page: Whitefield was a small village which was a retirement colony for Anglo-Indians. It has since become a major hub for the Indian technology industry. The Export Promotion Industrial Park (EPIP) at Whitefield of one of the country's first information technology parks - International Tech Park, Bangalore (ITPB) which houses offices of many IT and ITES companies. The EPIP zone also has offices of other IT and R&D giants like Symbian (Symbian India Ltd.), GE (John F. Welch Technology Center), Wipro- GE Medical Systems, iGate Global Solutions, Sapient_(company), Manhattan Associates, SAP AG, Perot Systems, Dell, IBM, Intel and Oracle,TATA Elxsi,Geometric Software. An Intel Xeon processor code named Whitefield was being developed (but was scrapped later) in Intel's ITPB campus (Intel has since moved its campus from ITPB).
  • Since I do not know about the Public Utilties Building, I will not add it intill more research is done. Wikipedia states that when there is a dispute, that we resolve it on the talk page witha consensus. Like you, I have been a major contributor to the Bangalore site as well as other india sites. I am not inferior to you. So let us waitand see what others have to say. Please do not revert the images till there is concensus. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You just completely missed the point. The scope of my discussion wasn't about the intricasies of retail in the economy of a state or city, but rather over the relevence of your images in the various sections. You are dead wrong on this Whitefield business. Firstly, there is no mention of Whitefield in the section or article, so where is the relevence. Second, you can't self reference Wikipedia articles (see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples). I can go to the Whitefield article and write absolutely what I please..where's the verifiability? It was not a village back then and neither is it now.

You also didn't answer my question about why the UB City image is inlcuded in the Economy section. For all this talk about UB City, there is but a 1 sentence mention of it in the section..something about a high-end commercial zone. What is the relevence of a high-end commercial zone over revenue from large-scale heavy industry manufacturing in Bangalore?

Bangalore's retail market value is approximately ₹33,727.50 crore (US$4.0 billion)[6]..what is UB City's contribution to this??? Contribtuion of Heavy Industries of HAL, BEL and ITI alone amounts to ₹61,325 crore (US$7.3 billion) [7] [8] [9] and there are 14 other Heavy Industry PSUs in Bangalore I've not even mentioned! Compared to them this so called "high-end commerce" is but a drop in the pond!

I never inferred that you were "inferior" to me or anyone. I am more than aware of the issues you are having with images on the India article and other articles. I do not say that this is all your fault, however, this obsession with adding images unrelated or insignificant to the overall theme or section has got to stop. As for your other imgaes, the pictures of the auto and the Bull Temple are bleeding into the other sections.

For all your apparent liking for "building consensus", let me ask you this question — did you build consensus when you added these random images to the article?? I don't think so. So let's play the game the way you want it played...I'm going to remove these images, if you'd like them added, please start a section in the talk page and build consensus.

Also, for the last time, stop removing content that has clearly been cited (ie. the size of Bangalore's population). AreJay (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments:I would like provide my 2 cents in this discussion. First of all, there should not be any dispute over the size of Bangalore's population. The article List of most populous cities in India still doesn't have valid and current references, and the only reference it has is Census of India website, which corresponds to year 2001 census data, that is, 7 years older one. On the other hand, World-Gazetteer.com has more up-to-date statistics on this. However, the given citation still ranks Bangalore at number 3, so we can still mention it this way and leave it with the given citation.

...,making it the third most populous city of India,[2]

Regarding images, IMO the UB city image is highly undue to this article. Personally I feel, the statement made by Nikkul above, "The UB City image shows an upcoming very very important zone in Bangalore" is exaggerated, and there are way too many very very important zones in Bangalore compared to the upcoming UB City. Is it (going to be) much important than Majestic? KR Market? MG Road? Airport Road? Corporation Circle (Hudson Circle)? At this point of time, I would say it just a speculation.

Some of the other images are really dull are not having enough relevant information in it. For example, the hesaragatta lake image, the book stand image etc just do not have information in them. What does a caption like Hundreds of magazines can be found in Bangalore's newstands this mean? Every news-stand in every city will typically have hundreds of magazines. Isn't it? Few months back, the article had Image:Vijaya-karnataka.jpg image, and it was well-captioned (Vijaya Karnataka, the largest circulating Kannada newspaper in Bangalore) and was explained in that section as well. If there is no objection, I would like to bring this image back to the article.

This article is one of the best articles, and will need to have best possible images, both in terms of quality of the image, and the relevance of it in the article. It would be better to have images of KSRTC / BMTC Bus stand (also called Kempegowda Bus Terminal), Railway Station (either the one in Majestic or the one in Cantonment), Bangalore Doordarshan TV station / Akashavani Radion station. Thanks - KNM Talk 02:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


I'm sorry, AreJay, there is no rule on wikipedia that says that every edit must be discussed on the talk page. These images have been there for a long time and no one has had a problem with them. There is a rule that if there is a dispute, that the dispute should be sorted out through a consensus. If you dont like them, then you have to build a consensus to get rid of them. 

These images have been around from 07:19, 23 October 2007 203.91.209.250. Thats 4 months. Many people have edited the page since then and No one else has had a problem with the images. If you have a problem with them, you have to talk it out here. I agree that the newstand image doesnt contribute much, but the newspaper image is copyrighted.

About the population; the info arejay is adding is wrong. Bangalore is NO WAY the second most populous city in India. Unless Mumbai or Delhi are wiped of the map, Bangalore is going to stay 3rd populous. Just look at the source!

Industries in UB City include Brewery, Alcoholic Beverage, Airline, Chemicals & Fertilizers, Information Technology, Pharmaceuticals And for your info, heavy industries like hal do not have anything to do with retail. retail is like stores,and unless HAL has a store where you can go and buy an airplane, it doesnt constitute retail. I think you should read what economy is before replying. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And I think you should read and understand what I've written before replying. Your contention was that this high-end retail was "very very important" and therefore the image of UB City was justified. I just showed you that PSUs, which have nothing to do with the high-end commerce that you're talking about, far outweigh revenue from any type of retail, high-end or otherwise. So if any image of Bangalore needs to be added in the economy section, it should be that of HAL, ITI, BHEL, BEL, etc and not some silly UB City. That was my point. How is the info I've added about the cities "wrong"? I've cited the same source that Wikipedia India articles have been using for ages. Please review the source before commenting. As for this issue about discussing, I asked that you build consensus around the images, simply because you seemed to want everything discussed before edited..."contraversial edits", as you termed them in your edit summary. How do you know that no one had a problem with your images? You didn't discuss when you added them, in much the same way that I didn't discuss when I deleted them. Seems perfectly fair to me, you can't play the game both ways; please take a stance on the matter and stay with it. AreJay (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You telling me that Bangalore is the second largest city in India is wrong. According to your argument, if I had a source, I could say Bangalore is in pakistan. Theres a difference between having a source and having correct information. I have used the same source u used and I have shown through the source that bangalore is the 3rd largest, not 2nd.

Second of all, you fail to recognize the importance of ub city as an economic zone in downtown bangalore. Perhaps its time you take a trip to Bangalore soon, cuz you obviously havent been there recently. And I know no one had a problem with the images because the images have been there for months and hundreds of people have edited the article, but not one has changed the image. That says something. If you have a problem with it, please discuss it before changing it. This is wikipedia, there are rules. Nikkul (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What rubbish! Nikkul I didn't know that you had all of a sudden become my travel advisor to recommend tourist destinations to me. I've presented financial data to show why images from PSUs should be included in the economy section, while you've just been harping on about UB City without any source or citation to prove it's importance over PSUs...and the reason for that is because there are no such sources. Let me break it down very simply to you, since you clearly have trouble understanding my point...

1) Just 4 of the 17 PSUs in Bangalore (HMT, HAL, ITI, BEL) contribute ₹95,897 crore (US$11 billion) to Bangalore's economy

2) The entire retail market in Bangalore is worth only ₹33,727.50 crore (US$4.0 billion).

3) Bangalore's entire contribution to IT is ₹47,590.62 crore (US$5.7 billion).

Therefore, not only are the PSUs the largest segment in Bangalore's economy, just those 4 PSUs contribute more to Bangalore's economy than the entire revenue from retail + Information Technology! This is because Bangalore was, is, and has always been a big PSU base.

Here's why I bring this up..there are two images in the Economy section. Both are related to IT. If this doesn't qualify for UNDUE, I don't know what does (remember Wikipedia's Summary style guidelines). One of them (and I don't care which one) needs to go to make way for a balanced representation. The image that I had added this afternoon (SU-30MKI India.jpg) is a manufactured product of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, which is a big PSU in Bangalore. Additionally, it is a public domain image and is free of any sort of copyright (as opposed to both your images which are CC images). Instead of purile reverts of my edits, I challenge you to tell me (since clearly, you seem to object to it) why this image, representing a product manufactured by a PSU in Bangalore should be supressed over two images of IT buildings whose companies' revenues total to only a fraction of Bangalore's PSU revenue. And please, spare me your "please discuss it" lecture, as you very clearly bend and pick and choose which rules you want to use and when. I haven't rv'ed your edits right now but I'd like you to come here and address my discussion above. AreJay (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


First of all, Bangalore is known around the world for its IT. Everyone who knows about Bangalore, knows it because of the IT revolution that Bangalore stands for. If you think people who know about Bangalore around the world know about it because of HAL or ISRO, you're totally wrong. Also, UB city is the central business district of Bangalore- it has office blocks for companies and is already changing Bangalore's skyline. It has offices for Brewery, Alcoholic Beverage, Airline, Chemicals & Fertilizers, Information Technology, Pharmaceuticals. I feel that you seriously do not know Bangalore and especially the economy if you would like to eliminate an image showing IT. Anyway, hundreds of people have edited the bangalore page since the images were put on, but none of them removed it or changed it. Hence, youre the only one who has a problem with it. Nikkul (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm, thanks...for your...valuable insight???? I mean I've just showed, not once or twice, but thirce that revenue differential between IT and PSUs is dramatically huge and all you can offer in response is a (badly written) character analysis of myself. You are filibustering this article, and this will not continue. Let me speak plainly — either you come up with an explaination on why PSUs shouldn't be included vs IT and back your hypothesis with financial facts (as opposed to wild conjucture as you have above) or I am going to go ahead and replace the first IT image that I choose to replace. At least one other editor has objected the status quo in terms of images in the article. Your IT images are UNDUE and will be replaced. If you want an edit war, you'll get one. AreJay (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A little busy, I will get back to you soon. Nikkul (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


An IT image in the economy section is needed because:

Right off the bat, another classic example of you not doing your homework. I never suggested that an IT image was not needed. I said there are two IT images in the Economy section — one of them needs to go. Go back and read my reply before jumping to conclusions AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The images in the econ section show different hubs of economic activity in bangalore. Iflex is in the banking sector, Infosys is in the it sector, and ub city is in the retail sector. Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Joke of the century. Iflex is an IT company that provides IT solutions to the banking industry. It isn't in the "banking sector", it is in the IT sector. So, no, you can't get off of the WP:UNDUE rap through clever semantics. AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • India has emerged as a hub for IT and BPO, and Bangalore is the main center for Info Technology in India
Yes, it has. I have bachelors and masters degrees in IT and I work as an IT auditor...I am more than aware of the state of the industry that I work in, thank you very much. AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow! No way! a bachelors AND a masters in IT??? WHOA! You are my new god! That makes your arguement so much more credible! Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if I am your new God, you should be willing to readily accept it without question. What was my "argument"??? You made a statement and I said that I was aware of it. I wasn't arguing with it. Now..apprently...you have a problem with what I said, ergo you have a problem..with..what..you..said?? Self-contradiction is dangerous. Hope that new god thing works out for you. AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not having an IT image would be UNDUE
Just like not having an image of a PSU would be UNDUE. See my comments above. AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
PSU's are not as important as IT, and IT companies make more money and contribute more than PSU's. Please take your sources, convert them into dollars, and compare them with the figures I listed for IT companies. Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time...this is your opinion. I've cited my sources and provided links, not once, but thrice. And if you can't be bothered to go read them, I'm not going to sit around spoonfeeding you. AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • An IT image has been on the Bangalore page for the last 3 years, a PSU image has never been on the page [10]
So what?? Just because there was undue bias towards a certain area for three years, does that make it right?? And anyway, as usual you continue to be wrong. I couldn't be bothered to go all the way back to 3 years, but here's an archive of an HAL image present in the article as recent as June 2007. [11]}} AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
If the image has been there for 3 years, that means you need to establish concensus Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow. Do you ever read what I write?? I said there was an image of HAL as recent as June 2007. Clearly, that wasn't three years ago. I have to establish consensus when there are questions on an article's content. I do NOT have to establish content when something is in violation of WP:UNDUE...UNDUE is official Wikipedia policy, it isn't a guideline. And if something is in violation of it, it needs to go.AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thousands of people have edited the page since the infosys image was added, but no one has had a problem with it besides user:Arejay
That's your opinion. How do you know? Did you conduct a pulse survey? Just because someone doesn't reply doesn't mean they don't have a problem. Please present solid, quantifiable facts..not POV. AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No, that is not my opinion, that is straight up fact. People have the ability to edit all of the page,and if they dont edit out the image, it means they dont have a problem with it. its not that complicated of logic Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Blah, blah..there's nothing "factual" about it my friend. You are making judgement call on something and that makes it your opinion.AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No one knows Bangalore for HAL or ISRO
Again your opinion. Wake up and smell the coffee. Lockheed Martin and Boeing have been wooing HAL for ages to sell their aircraft [12] [13] [14] [15][16]. If you haven't heard of it, that's your problem. Not anyone elsesAreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin and Boeing have also made deals with infosys[3] [4] whats your point? Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You said no one knows Bangalore for HAL. I just showed that it did, through some valid citations. That was my point. Simple enough for you?? AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • People all over the world who know about Bangalore know about it because it's an IT hub
Again. Your opinion. If you can't quantify this with emperical data, no one will buy this POV. AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[5][6]

[7][8][9][10][11]POV? Please! I could provide another 100 sites that say that Bangalore is known for its IT

Wow. I said quatify your opinion with emperical data. Not send me newspaper clippings. AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Bangalore is know as the Silicon Valley of India not because of HAL
  • As headquarters to many of the global SEI-CMM Level 5 Companies, Bangalore's place in the global IT map is prominent.
  • There are more than two paragraphs about IT in the economy section
  • There are only two sentences about heavy industry!
Ugh, so what???? How is this proof that IT > PSUs? I mean from what angle does this present itself to be a logical argument??? AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It has to do with this thing called relevance Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well then that immediately bats you out of the game, seeing as how "irrelevence" has been the central theme of your so-called "argument" thus far. AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Bangalore contributed 33% of India's Rs. 144,214 crore (US$ 32 billion) IT exports in 2006-07
Yes, I already used this number to demonstrate how this $10.56 million (32m * 0.33) is a paltry number compared to the revenue from just 4 of the 17 PSUs in Bangalore. But then, I wouldn't have to point this out..again..if you had read my reply AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Um from what I investigated, your numbers are terribly wrong. Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please! My numbers from NASSCOM, India's leading IT strategy group and from the Department of Public Enterprise, a Government of India undertaking which manages PSUs nationally. AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Your Source does not even list the word Bangalore in it! The location is listed as New Delhi
Delhi or Dacascus. So what? ITI is headquartered in Doorvaninagar, Bangalore [17]. During year end close of financial books, all the accounts of sub-entities roll up to the accounts of the parent entity, which is located in Bangalore...this therefore counts as Bangalore revenue. AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
If Bangalore isnt mentioned in your source, then how can you say it relates to Bangalore. Youre arguments are totally rediculious! Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is "rediculous" that I've been sending you a link to this website and that just be clicking on the "Corporate Profile" link you would have seen that the HQ is in Bangalore, but I guess that's just "rediculous" for me to ask you to do that. AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • IT Exports account for 35% of the total exports from India
So what? 60% of the people working in India are agrarian workers. By your logic, we will have to delete all the economy images and add photos of farmers. Please consider the scope of your argument AreJay (talk)
You dont understand anything. Youre blind to even trying to understand someone elses point of view. You just keep deriding anything anyone else has to say. I am tired of hearing your excuses! There is no point of even trying to respond to you because rather than tryingto understand, you just insult others and make excuses for why you think you should have your way Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh but I do. You don't want to understand my point because I've disproved your so-called theories every single time, but yet you go on some tirade or the other and try to draw attention away from the issue at hand. Tired of hearing my "excuses". Please! AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a reasoning for something? Did you even read the caveat on List of Indian companies that said "Please note that the list is highly incomplete and does not have every company of all sizes"?? And anyway, how is this verifiable?? I've mentioned before that you can't use Wikipedia articles as the basis for your claims. See Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
If you feel that the biggest companies in bangalore are not it companies, please do show me which ones and how much they make because from what I see, PSU companies make a fraction of IT companies. Butif you feel otherwise, do back it up. Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Go back and see all the links, with converted amounts posted above. I'm not going to regurgitate them again. I've shown revenue figures of how the PSU sector in Bangalore outweighs the IT sector manyfold. You'll have to go back and look at the data that I've provided..I'm not going to do that work for you. AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Financials Heavy Industries mentioned in econ section: HAL has a revenue of $1.2 Billion HMT doesnt even have a working website. I doubt its revenue is more than $1 billion ISRO has a budget of .815 billion

Umm...what??? Can you please click on the links that I added? All PSUs are managed by the Department of Public Enterprise in India. I had added links to all their financials. How do you doubt it is more than $1 billion? Based on what? Your opinion?? Your opinion is impremissible. If your opinion is that it is not more than $1 billion, then it is my opinion that its revenue is $2 trillion. Where do our opinions leave us? And do you understand the difference between a budget and revenue? What was the purpose of dragging ISRO's budget into the discussion?? AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK well if you believe that HMT's revenue is more than 1 billion, please do show me because from what i have reseached, its not. Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
First, it was you that brought up HMT, not me. The companies that I brought up were ITI, HAL, BEL and BHEL. Then you claimed you "doubted" its revenue is more than $1 billion. Therefore I asked you what you mean that you "doubt" something's revenue is some amount. If HMT's revenue is less than $1 billion, what does that do to your argument? Are you under the illusion that all IT companies in Bangalore make more than $1 billion??? AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


IT companies Infosys has a revenue of 3.2 billions dollars Wipro has a revenue of 3.4 billion dollars TCS has a revenue of 4.3 Billion dollars Hmmm...which type makes more money???

What's your logic? You just compared three IT companies based on financial numbers to your opinion of how much some PSUs make. Do you think this argument of yours has any sort of logic? AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well based on my EVIDENCE, Infosys makes 3.2 billion while HAL makes 1.2 billion...now who makes more???? hmmm...thats a tough one! Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
{{subst:comments|First, based on my EVIDENCE, I just showed how the PSU sector makes more money than the IT sector. It's just that you cant be bothered to go read my replies and I can't be bothered to supply them to you again. AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where you got your numbers from.

Of course you don't. Because you obviously don't want to click on the links that I provide that show where those numbers came from. You don't have to sell me on this fact, I'm already well and truly sold. AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Your evidence said that 4 PSUs make 24 billion; I researched the revenue of one of them and foundthat it made 1.2 billion, how can the three others make 22.6 billion? Please do back that up with facts with each revenue of each company. Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
As stated above, I've already provided links..not once, but twice. I'm not going to do that again AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, you need to have a consensus and resolve the dispute before you can change the images. Please be civil. You will get blocked if you engage in an edit war. Nikkul (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No my friend, contrary to your opinion, I don't need consensus. There are two images in the Economy section that represent one and only one industry. This is UNDUE and I don't need to "obtain consensus" to remove one of them. I am however giving you the benefit of the doubt to try and establish cause for why both those images should be kept. You are yet to do this, obviously.AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Im sorry, but as far as I know, when there is a dispute, it must be resolved through concensus on the talk page. Thats official wiki policy. So you might as well resolve it now instead of being uncivil and engaging in an edit war as you have already suggested Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The dispute exists because you choose to make it one. Wikipedia's policies are very clear. WP:UNDUE is policy - not a guideline. The undue bias of IT images in the Economy section violate WP:UNDUE...that's fairly clear cut. No dispute. It simply exists because you choose to prolong this fracars AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, outdone yourself again I see Nikkul. You want me to be civil?? What would constitute "civility" in your book? Running around accusing other editors of making "uncivil edits"? Accusing other editors of lying? Then having the almighty gall to come back and say "just kidding" without so much as an apology? Would that be civil? Please keep your threats to yourself, I've been here long enough to know what the rules of engagement are.
Look, this is all getting quite cumbersome and meaningless. I've basically been repeatedly shooting down your so-called "points". If you can't produce valid, quatifiable arguments based on strong logic, I'm just going to go ahead and change whatever I please. I've given you the benefit of the doubt thus far and that obviously hasn't worked. I've replied to each of your points in red above. AreJay (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


There are 1721 IT companies in Bangalore How many PSU's are there? Nikkul (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And there are 1,345,243 roadside kadalekayi stalls in Bangalore. So yes, let us go ahead, delete all the images in the Economy section and replace them with images of roadside vendors. AreJay (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Great comeback! That really makes sense! Instead of acknowledging my facts, you have once again chosen to not listen, make excuses, and deride me once again. There is no point in talking to you because it falls on deaf ears. You are not interested in resolving a dispute. All you want to do is overlook my facts and make excuse. You are wasting my time. Nikkul (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Made about as much sense as someone saying that just because there are 1721 IT companies in Bangalore that it automatically qualifies IT images to be plastered all over the Economy section. Making "excuses". What a joke. I'm the one presenting numerical facts and you're going around opining on all kinds of issues that have nothing to do with why PSUs shouldn't be adequately represented. Overlook your facts?? It's hard to overlook something that hasnt been presented as yet. I'm not telepathic. If I've wasted your time, you've wasted my time doubly, with not just having to reply to you but to go around monitoring your Talk page reverts made by you for reasons known only to you. Since you can't seem to give me a valid reason, I'm going to research online to find a good PSU image and add it to the Economy section. This whole imbroglio is leading nowhere. You or anyone else that chooses to post are more than welcome to continue, but this discussion is over for me. AreJay (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The truth remains that it is your opinion that it is WP:Undue. Since this is a dispute, you must establish a consensus that concludes that this is indeed undue. Your shady reasons and your false sources do not help in your argument. Nikkul (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Clearly, that's not the truth. WP:Undue is policy; there is no grey area for so-called "disputes" as far as it is concerned. If you can't distinguish perception from reality, you can't be helped. AreJay (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, that is your point of view. It further shows that what you are adamant and unyielding. What you think is not always right. Nikkul (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1672524.cms
  2. ^ Population of cities and towns in India. World Gazetteer. Jan 8, 2008
  3. ^ http://www.defenceindia.com/company_news/news181.html
  4. ^ http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Boeing_may_pilot_captive_unit_in_India/rssarticleshow/2353769.cms
  5. ^ http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/travel/26bangalore.html?scp=1&sq=bangalore+it
  6. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/business/worldbusiness/20bangalore.html?scp=3&sq=bangalore+it
  7. ^ http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2418/ITW_2-2-01_bangalore/
  8. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5406270.stm
  9. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6288247.stm
  10. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6293291.stm
  11. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6352865.stm

User:AreJay's Uncivil Edit

User:AreJay reverted an edit[18] by User:202.62.92.102 who left her name in the intro ("Rashmi Karanth"). AreJay has accused me of adding this comment in his edit summary. I would like to stress that accusing others without evidence is uncivil. I am not a user who will add the sentence:

"It is also called the Silicon city because of its many industries. Banglaore is a city full of lush greenery,kind people and malls,shops and markets. Its also modern and a great hangout for youngsters who like to party everyday.--202.62.92.102 (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Rashmi Karanth "

Accusing me of writing this edit is an insult to my efforts to improve Wikipedia. It is also considered lying. I use my account when I edit and I also have an American IP address, hence this is proof that it was not I who did this, besides the fact that whoever did edit, left her name as attribution. I hope User:AreJay will not make such baseless accusations in the future. I am very offended that I was blamed for such vandalism Nikkul (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, just kidding! Cheers Nikkul (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Images & Lead

In re Nikkul's constant rv's to this article, it needs to be pointed out that there was a prolonged discussion above where I presented financial statements from the Department of Public Enterprise which indicated the importance of PSUs to Bangalore's economy. User:Nikkul has referred to these as "false sources"; clearly, this indicates that he is not willing to listen to reason, given the fact that the Department of Public Enterprise is the only body in India that is authorized to manage PSUs. Under the circumstances, there can be no "consensus" if one is not willing to look facts in the face. In addition the the above discussion, let me point out the following:

  • The iFlex image in the economy section is based out of Whitefield, which is a separate town by itself. While it is a sattelite town of Bangalore city and is part of Bangalore Urban district, it is not part of Bangalore city. it is If this image is relevent anywhere, it is in the Whitefield article; not in this one. map with distinction history of Whitefield
  • The UB City image - I am opposed this on account of WP:UNDUE; User:KNM has also raised his objection to it based on the same Wikipedia guideline. During the course of the discussion, no one but User:Nikkul has vehemently supported this image on account of it being a "very very important zone" in his opinion. Please refer to the extract below of WP:UNDUE (some text has been highlighted)

User:Nikkul's rv's without ryhme or reason are not constructive and are serving as a hinderence to people interested in improving the quality of the article. He has reverted the edits of multiple editors on many occasions stating "please obtain consensus" or "please discuss". Clearly, he has not familiarized himself with WP:CONSENSUS (extracts included):

I would also ask that he realize that it is Wikipedia's policy that editors be bold in making their edits. Disputed edits must be discussed; however, if an editor is going to dispute every single edit made by other users, the editor's good faith is questioned. Clearly, people have been editing and improving this article long before Nikkul appeared on the scene; he should stop acting like he owns this or any Wiki article. AreJay (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I emphatically support AreJay's comments and arguments on the issue. I have followed the revert wars for the last couple of weeks, but sadly, could never find the time to chime in. Nikkul is grossly mistaken with his understanding of Bangalore's geography and economics. Quickly, Whitefield is NOT bangalore and IT is NOT the be all and end all of Bangalore's economy. Bangalore was an economic hub BEFORE I.T happened and it is an economic hub now. More later. Sarvagnya 20:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Business

I observed recent reverts regarding, "one of the best places to do the business". As such, it appears to be only the opinion of CNNMoney.com so mentioning it as the fact may not be a good idea, but attributing it to the source explicitly is more suitable here; like "according to CNNMoney.com". If the same opinion is shared by multiple reliable sources, then it could be considered as a fact based on reliable sources. My 2 cents. - KNM Talk 16:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually quite happy not even having that text in there. The point of the lead is to summarize the sections below, so bringing in something specific like a CNNMoney.com article runs contrary to WP:LEAD. I only left it there and rephrased it yesterday because I wasn't sure what the intent of the editor who added it was...it looked like "one of the best places to do business" was being stated as if it were a fact and I therefore cleaned it up to at least appear like it was someone's opinion. However, I am more than happy not even having that sentence in there since it is a media outlet's POV. AreJay (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Images for Economy section

All, over the last few days the conflict on which images should be used in Economy section of this article. Here by I am starting a discussion thread, for building the consensus. I request all the editors especially the contributors to this article, to provide their opinions, suggestions and comments. Also, while this discussion is in progress, let us avoid the revert war that has been going on for sometime. For this reason, only for now, I will be removing all the images from this section. I am also going to provide my proposal on the images to be used, and similarly would be interested in seeing other proposals with supporting comments.

  • First of all, there is a need for consensus on how many images to be used. Keeping all other sections in mind, it looks highly inconsistent using more than 2 images in any of the sections. For this reason, I propose we use only 2 images in this section.
  • I propose the image of Image:Bangalore_UtilityBuilding.jpg and an image of ITPL or a group of IT companies or an image from Bangalore IT.COM event. The idea is to have a generic image instead of an image specific to a company like Infosys or Iflex. While Software exports is the major contributor for the city's (and there by its state's and nation's) present economical growth, we will also need to consider other economical hubs, an important one being the public utility building. - KNM Talk 20:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Small update: Found another image of utility building: Image:Bangalore_Skyscraper.jpg. However, this one is not as much clear as the one mentioned above, as the earlier one is having higher resolution and a better view, IMO. - KNM Talk 20:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Let us put the different images here and do a sort of poll to bring this issue to an end. What better way to bring about agreement.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)



The UB City image shows an upcoming very very important zone in Bangalore. It is literally downtown Bangalore. UB City is already operational. UB City is not just a commerial shopping area; it houses the headquarters to large groups and has office space for other companies. And UB City also houses commercial offices, banks, high-end retail stores, a five star hotel, serviced apartments, restaurants, food courts.

Whitefield is an important hub for IT services. Read this from the whitefield, india page: Whitefield was a small village which was a retirement colony for Anglo-Indians. It has since become a major hub for the Indian technology industry. The Export Promotion Industrial Park (EPIP) at Whitefield of one of the country's first information technology parks - International Tech Park, Bangalore (ITPB) which houses offices of many IT and ITES companies. The EPIP zone also has offices of other IT and R&D giants like Symbian (Symbian India Ltd.), GE (John F. Welch Technology Center), Wipro- GE Medical Systems, iGate Global Solutions, Sapient_(company), Manhattan Associates, SAP AG, Perot Systems, Dell, IBM, Intel and Oracle,TATA Elxsi,Geometric Software. An Intel Xeon processor code named Whitefield was being developed (but was scrapped later) in Intel's ITPB campus (Intel has since moved its campus from ITPB).

The Public Utility Building doesnt show economy. I dont think it should be used.

AreJay's Response

I agree with KNM's approach. I will present some of the images that I think would make sense below, but basically I think two images are sufficient for the Economy section. As far as what sectors to represent, certainly, I think IT should be represented. I think, however, that it is hard to include a "generic image" of IT (I'm not sure we currently have such an image in Commons either). For that reason, I think it's perfectly alright to include an image of the HQs of say, Infosys or Wipro.

As far as the "other sector" to represent, I don't know how valuable the Public Utility building is. From my understanding, the Public Utility building has a mish-mash of shops and officies — while it definitely is a landmark of Bangalore, I don't know if it is the first thing that springs to mind when we think of Bangalore's economy. I would ideally like to see a PSU represented since that has been the backbone that has driven Bangalore's growth immediately before and after independence (notwithstanding the recent growth of IT). Finding good PSU images is a problem though because public sector enterprise isn't exactly glamorous. As in the case of IT, it is hard to conceptualize PSU services into images — for this reason, I recommend the SU-30MKI India.jpg image or the PD image in PSLV that was developed by ISRO. This article has a nice synopsis of Bangalore's economy, not just related to the growth of PSUs and IT, but also private sector enterprise like MICO and WIDIA.

Additionally, I've been working offline on code that can randomize images on Wikipedia articles. For the time being, we can narrow down the search to two images, but if the code works as intended, we will be able to shortlist 5-10 images and ensure that at least two of them appear each time an article is refereshed. Thanks AreJay (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea of a rotation, if possible. And yes, we need to provide some diversity in the image selection for the economy section rather than sterotype Bangalore's image. I dont agree with the notion that the Sukhoi image is just an "airplane". It is about a century of technological advancements in Bangalore. The HAL was first commissioned under the guidance of Sir M.V and Sir Mirza Ismail, the then Diwan's of Mysore, working with the likes of JRD Tata. It has taken the minds of many brillian people to bring Bangalore to where it is today; the "tech capital of India". Eventually, these scientific advancements have progressed into developments in IT sector. But the knowledge pool originated from the scientific advancements of the 50's thru 80's and should be represented.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Dinesh. I think it is critical to fairly represent the diversity of Bangalore's economy, both from a historical and present point of view. I'm OK with using the image of the Sukhoi. It is India's flagship fighter aircraft and is a dual-threat fighter jet, along the lines of the F/A-18 Hornet. By many accounts, the SU-30MKI "Flanker" is the most powerful operational fighter jet used by the world's armed forces. And unlike the Jaguar or Mirage 2000, HAL manufactures the "Flanker" under a knowledge transfer agreement with Sukhoi — this is a matter of notability and pride, not just for Bangalore but for India.
In line with Sarvagnya's reasoning, I continue to strongly oppose any use of the UB city and Whitefield iFlex images in relation to the Economy section. AreJay (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps on rotation (in pairs): one image each representing IT (Bangalore's pride-Infosys?), Aerospace, Bio-tech?. Perhaps an image representing the construction boom which invariable is connected to the economy and happen to be sky scrapers? (I got the idea from an article on a Chinese city in a magazine). May I tentatively suggest that we include one image from the traditional economy, if available(commerce)? thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Random Image Generator

Gentlemen — the prototype for the random image generator is ready. Please take a look at User:AreJay/rotation and provide your thoughts. Just FYI, I've loaded dummy images into the generator..these are not the images that I am proposing we use in the article. The image to the top right of the page will change every 14 minutes, while the image at the bottom right will change every 8 hours Both images rotate hourly. Obviously, these values can be tweaked as necessary. Thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks AreJay (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


There is already a image rotation in place on the india culture section. That seems to be working fine. I think we need to decide on decent images that show bangalore's economy. i really dont feel that an airplane will show bangalore's economy. A pic of HAL's site would make more sense. Nikkul (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of its use in the India article — the logic of the one I developed is similar to the one in the India article and is structured to accomodate the relatively small number of images we're trying to shortlist. AreJay (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul's Suggestion

{{Bangalore Image Rotation|economy}}

I have made a rotation template for the bangalore economy. You can find the code,which uses parser functions, at template:bangalore image rotation. I suggest that we have one rotation of all the IT images like infosys and whitefield image and one rotation for the other sections like retail and PSU's. This seems better than a "random image generator". Since this code has been tried and has succeeded on the india culture section, this seems to be the optimal answer. Nikkul (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the exact same type of template that I'm using with Parser functions. The logic is essentially the same, while I call it a "random image generator", it's being called "rotation template" on the India article. Also, please do not make any more edits by way of inserting image or image template content into the Bangalore article until consensus is reached here. I have done the same and would like you to do so as well. Not doing so does disservice to KNM's constructive attempts at building consensus and solving the edit war. Thanks AreJay (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Dec282007/realty2007122743396.asp
  2. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1672524.cms

User:AreJay's Edits

User:AreJay has been consistently adamant about his point of view. I have discussed his opinions with him above, and he has consistently derided my efforts and has passed sarcastic comments that do not help make his point any clearer. If he doesnt have his way, he has threatened me with an edit war.

AreJay would like to add an image of an airplane, which apparently shows Bangalore's economy. I would like to point out that the images that were on the Bangalore page have been there for a very long time. For this reason, and also because there is a difference of opinion on which images should go on the page, I asked AreJay to discuss the issue on the talk page. His "discussion" has often included sarcastic remarks and unreasonable claims.

User:AreJay feels that he does not need consensus and that he must have his way. If he doesnt have his way, he has said that he is ready for an edit war. I would like to point out that this attitude is not one that will help wikipedia and that being adamant does not help anyone.

User:AreJay has brought evidence that suggests that PSU's apparently contribute 24 billion dollars to Bangalore's economy. Now, when I read his references, some did not mention Bangalore at all, and instead mentioned New Delhi. And the total of the claimed revenues did not add up to 24 billion. Nikkul (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Look Nikkul stop harping on about this. I sent you a link that showed ITI to be headquartered in Bangalore, but you refuse to click on the link. If you have such doubts about the veracity of my sources, please ask any of the Bangalore-based editors on this talk page where ITI is headquartered. I have said (and provided links) a thousand times of financial statements from the Department of Public Enterprise, which manages India's PSUs. If they tell me the revenues add up to 24 billion, I believe them. DPE is part of the Govt. of India, and I have no reason to doubt their claims. They are a verifiable resource. You're claiming that I am adament, after I've provided sources all you did was personally attack me asking me to take a trip to Bangalore, etc. If I was sarcastic it was because you couldn't just stick to the editorial content and decided to get personal. I would like to point out that this attitude is not one that will help wikipedia and that being adamant does not help anyone. I'm glad you feel this way, because this is precisely the attitude you have been demonstrating right through this "discussion". In addition, you violated 3RR today and though I had every right to report you, I didn't. So drop this attitude and involve yourself in the discussion that User:KNM has started above. AreJay (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Public Utility Building

A common source of mystery, the Public Utility Building seems like it falls under the category of civic administration (public utilities). Others have suggested that this building is a center of commerce. What really goes on in this place? Who works there...the government or the private sector? Nikkul (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It houses retail shops, offices, etc. It is located on MG road which is an important retail and shopping area of the city. It is surrounded by Symphony theater, restraurants, shops and the like. The name "Public Utility" is misleading...here's a list of shops, offices, etc that are on the first few levels of the Public Utility building...though not verifiable, it should at least give you an idea of what kinds of business are housed there. [19] AreJay (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Would be nice to have a few more choices of images in the table below.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with AreJay regarding waiting for concensus. We should get more people to come in and vote, not just 4 or 5 of us. Perhaps a post on a frequently visited page would help to bring in more users.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Images poll

Based on the discussion initiated by User:KNM yesterday, I've taken the liberty of creating the table below for us to keep track of the support and opposition for various images being debated. Please add your name in the columns "Support" or "Oppose". I've taken the liberty of adding some names based on the discussion above; if this is not accurate, please feel free to add your name in the appropriate column. Please update the tally count after your vote. Thanks.

Image:Bangalore UtilityBuilding.jpg
PUB
Image:Bagmane Tech Park, CV Raman Nagar, Bengaluru, India (2007).jpg
Image:BangaloreInfosys.jpg
File:Downtown Bangalore.jpg
Image:Downtown Bangalore.jpg
Image:SU-30MKI India.jpg
File:Bangalore HAL.jpg
Image:Bangalore HAL.jpg
Adding a new image to the poll

To add a new image to the poll, please use the code below (making changes where appropriate) and insert it on the line that preceeds the text <!-- ** END OF TABLE ** -->

|-
|[[:Image:<!-- Insert Image name here -->]]
|| <!-- Insert image description here -->
|| <!-- Insert name of proposal sponsor -->
|| <!-- Insert users supporting image -->
|| <!-- Insert users opposing image -->

Image Description Proposed by Support Object Tally (Support/Object)
Bangalore UtilityBuilding.jpg Utility Building User:KNM User:Nikkul User:KNM
user:Dineshkannambadi
User:Indiandefender2		 User:AreJay
 3/2
Bagmane Tech Park, CV Raman Nagar, Bengaluru, India (2007).jpg iFlex building, Whitefield User:Nikkul User:Nikkul
User:Indiandefender2		 User:AreJay
User:Dineshkannambadi
User:Sarvagnya		 2/3
Image:BangaloreInfosys.jpg Infosys HQ User:Nikkul User:Nikkul
User:AreJay
User:Dineshkannambadi
User:Indiandefender2		 User:KNM 4/1
Image:Downtown Bangalore.jpg UB City downtown User:Nikkul User:Nikkul
User:Indiandefender2		 User:AreJay
User:KNM
User:Dineshkannambadi
User:Sarvagnya		 2/4
Image:SU-30MKI India.jpg Sukhoi SU-30MKI Flanker User:AreJay User:AreJay
User:Dineshkannambadi
User:Sarvagnya		 User:Nikkul
User:Indiandefender2		 3/2
Image:Bangalore HAL.jpg HAL Airport User:AreJay User:AreJay User:Nikkul
User:Sarvagnya
User:Indiandefender2		 1/3


Comments

  • The Whitefield picture shows an important economic zone in Bangalore. This is one of the main centers in Bangalore, and I think it deserves mention.
  • Infosys image has been there for years. It should def. stay because Infosys is a major contributor.
  • UB City is a major economic zone in Bangalore, headquarters of a huge brewery group. Industries in UB city include Brewery, Alcoholic Beverage, Airline, Chemicals & Fertilizers, Information Technology, Pharmaceuticals. This image shows Bangalore's traditional economy-- retail and commerce.
  • An image of an airplane doesnt show the economy of Bangalore! I do not see how this could ever make sense. There is no proof that this airplane was made by HAL and it was definitely not designed by HAL
  • A photgraph of a poster does that says "Welcome to Bangalore" does not mean anything! This image would be very irrelevant and subject to copyright since its a posterNikkul (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've shared my thoughts on the first three bullet points, so I'll just stick with the last two:
    • HAL signed a knowledge sharing agreement with Sukhoi worth over $4 billion to indegenously manufacture SU-30MKIs in 2000[20]. HAL is the only manufacturer of fighter aircraft in India, it's a virtual monopoly and a well known fact...additionally the "MKI" in SU-30MKI stands for "Multi-role combat India"! No other country has a SU-30MKI...Russia has SU-30 and China SU-30MK/SU-27. That, in itself, is proof that the aircraft was manufactured by HAL.
    • Regarding using an aircraft to represent a company, I sort of agree, but it is the same difficultly you face when you use an image of a building (like the Infosys HQ) to represent the IT sector. Infosys isn't a construction company — it produces software and provides IT services, which are intangible. HAL's contribution — fighter aircraft — is available for all to see given that it is a tangible product. That was the reasoning behind that particular photo. AreJay (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I would just like to say that I agree with Nikkul for the most part, although I can see where AreJay is coming from. I believe that the pictures depict Bangalore's economy well, at least to a foreigner. Although I do concede that the PSU's have historically had a huge presence in Bangalore's economy, they no longer have as big a role and they do not represent the Bangalore that we know today. The Bangalore we know today is the "Silicon Valley of India," thus the picture of the Infosys campus works well to portray Bangalore. The picture of UB City also fits the section well as it also represents the new Bangalore her retail sector. UB city is located in the middle of what the closest thing to a business district is in Bangalore. It also represents the headquarters of the UB group which is one of the largest industries nationwide. The picture of the iflex picture also matches well with the article about Bangalore's economy. Again, although the PSU's have had a significant impact on Bangalore, I must say that the pictures AreJay has put up do not depict that at all, especially the one with the billboard saying "Welcome to Bangalore." That is the picture outside of HAL airport and does not well depict the PSU industry. The picture of the SU-30MKI also does not depict the PSU industry well. Perhaps if you had an aerial image of a plant, it might work well, but the current 3 pictures that Nikkul has put up in the Economy of Bangalore section work well. I must admit though that the picture of the Hesaraghatta Lake is rather bland and could be replaced with a picture of perhaps an aerial view of bangalore, showing her green zones? Knowing that neither one of you will back down prematurely, I thus propose that we keep the pictures of UB city and the Infosys headquarters in the section Bangalore's economy. I also suggest however that an aerial view of one of the PSU's in Bangalore be put up and that the picture of the Hesaraghatta Lake be replaced with something a little more scenic perhaps? This way both of you win. What do you guys say? Indiandefender2 (Indiandefender2) 19:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your comments. I think you'll find from the financial data presented above that PSUs continue to play a huge role in Bangalore's economy, a larger role in fact, than does IT. I don't think the UB City image fits or represents Bangalore's economy in any way — it, if anything, represents a very miniscule segment of Bangalore's consumer market, which was my point all along — that the image was WP:UNDUE. Additionally, the iFlex image doesn't represent IT in Bangalore, simply because Whitefield isn't in Bangalore. I have no qualms with the IT industry, I'm actually an IT auditor and like nothing more than seeing my industry well represented. However, facts and financial data show that other industries are about as important to the economy of Bangalore as is IT. Unfortunately, PSUs just aren't "sexy" like IT is today, so monikers like "Silicon Valley of India" were never conjured up.
Incidently, let's wait for consensus to be built on this talk page before new or existing images are added to the Economy section. KNM has started a process for building consensus to which regular editors are contributing, and I'd like this process to be given a chance before any image-related edits are made to the section. Thanks AreJay (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That picture isnt in Whitefield. The address is

i-flex Park C/o Embassy Business Park C.V Raman Nagar Bangalore - 560 093 karnataka India [21]

Hence, that image is perfectly qualified for inclusion. Sorry for the mixup Nikkul (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangalore/Archive_2&oldid=1222831209"