Talk:Bangalore/Archive 2

message: :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====
# 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: # 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)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: # 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)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Opening line 

message: 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:
* The section was uncited
* It does not conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cities and I feel that a complete section on Urban layout is unwarranted in this article.
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)
thread_title:  Changes suggested by [[:User:SBC-YPR]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Technical help requested 

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

message: User:AreJay reverted an edit 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)
thread_title:  User:AreJay's Uncivil Edit 

message: 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)
Expand to view excerpts
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each...[a]n article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
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):
Expand to view excerpts
While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged. It is also a good idea to check the discussion page before making an edit, because someone may have thought of it before, or discussed something that sheds more light on the subject. Otherwise "be bold"; ultimately, improving articles is what Wikipedia is all about.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Images & Lead 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Business 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Random Image Generator

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Nikkul's Suggestion

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  User:AreJay's Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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.  AreJay (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be nice to have a few more choices of images in the table below.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Public Utility Building