Talk:Bangalore/Archive 1

message: I was surprised to see that a shopping section does not exist for Bangalore. With the rise of the Mall culture in India, Bangalore is becoming one of the major shopping hubs in India. If no one has a problem, I don't mind starting a section on this topic.
Nitin.
:A section for shopping will not be appropriate here.  Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities or Mumbai, on the sections needed for Indian cities. Info about shopping can probably go under culture. Right now, there is an urban life section, which needs to be merged with culture. You can expand more on Bangalore's shopping centres at Wikitravel's [Bangalore page].
Pamri • Talk 04:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shopping in Bangalore?? 

message: I would like everyone to look into some house rules as far as monikers and nicknames go. We've seen many nicknames for Bangalore like City of Lakes, London of Asia, Fashion Capital of India and now Pensioners Paradise, and so on. I think it makes sense to consider just a couple of nicknames, since, even on a national scale no one really equates them to mean Bangalore straight off the bat. Silicon Valley of India is now an "established" nickname and Garden City is what Bangalore was historically called. I can't think of any reason to keep adding nicknames. They contribute little to the overall understanding of the city itself and are often very misleading. Furthermore, they may not necessarilly be accepted by everyone in the region, let alone the nation. Comments welcome. AreJay 02:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  House rules for nicknames 

message: I will be moving all of "famous people from Bangalore" to another page. This page is huge and looks disorganized. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not meant to be a links repository. It is a free content encylopedia. Please visit the India page to get an idea of how I plan to organize links on this page. The "Related Topics" heading in that entry seems a better organized way to structure Bangalore related articles on this page. AreJay 15:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: Englpiesh -- I think this is a made-up word. Could not find a reference to this on any website except wikipedia and its derived websites. Jay 17:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Englpiesh 

message: Would the person who deleted the "Don't get Bangalored" paragraph please explain why?  RickK 06:09, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Right, please, put it back. Being a european, I learnt about that stuff in this article. So I consider that it should be left, so everybody knows about such a paranoid american reaction and american hate of other peoples. I consider it also as an hommage in disguise for Bangalore's success. Hoping that many Bangalores will emerge on all continents, for the sake of the world economic development, I suggest as a motto for the world "Let us fill the world with Bangalores" --Pgreenfinch 08:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangalored 

message: Should temporal Information (final paragraph in  "infrastructural woes")  be included in a WikiPedia article? Not that "infrastructural woes" is temporal, but the paragraph  seems to cover the recent happenings in Bangalore. And  opinions such as "These events have apparently been consequences of Karnataka's new Chief Minister's -- N Dharm Singh's -- irreverence to the city's infrastructure." makes it look like a news column rather than an encyclopedia article ;)
--  Sanjeeth
: Yes, that ought to be either removed or at least reworded. -- Sundar 10:15, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
: This section should not be removed as it represents an important chapter in the evolution of this city from a small town to a large city housing big industries. It could be reworded of course but removing it is like erasing away a part of it's reality which made it most famous all over the world. --manik
Have removed temporal POV - "Most of the initial excitement over Bangalore recovering from its infrastructural woes has now died down. It is suspected that Bangalore will lose out to competition from Chennai and Hyderabad. Bangalore may be Bangalored is the phrase invented to described the above" Will the anon who added this please clarify? --Ambar 09:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infrastructural woes 

message: Dividing the population in the info box by the area stated gives a density of over 16,500 rather than below 3,000 as listed. CalJW 00:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something is wrong with the population density number 

message: Someone needs to fix it.
It's officialy Bengaluru now.
http://www.centralchronicle.com/20051226/2612305.htm
:: No, it's not! The article says the name will come into effect November 1, 2006. AreJay 02:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officially Bengaluru 

message: Hi
Please wait till the name of Bangalore is officially changed - later this year. The native_name field in the infobox refers to the name as documented in government gazettes, which is Bangalore as of today both in Karnataka and Indian government gazattes. Once the name is official, the head title can change. Till then, it would be proper to refer to any other names only in the actual text of article.
Pizzadeliveryboy 17:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think anyone was comparing the proportion of minorities in Bangalore to those of Hyderabad or Mumbai. All that statement did was to assert that the city did have a significant proportion of minorities, which should come as no surprise anyway, given the population of the city. AreJay 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well are jay,i have vsisted many cities and in a cosmopolitan city like bangalore,the evidence of large populace of minorites is not visible and atleast not evident in the culture and potrayal of the city.the areas i have listed are the only significant areas where minorities live,and those areas are very small and underdeveloped.and i am sorry you are misunderstood,my statement never asserts or is trying to assert that minority population is large in Bangalore.--Jayanthv86 19:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  native name 

message: Can anyone please verify jayanthv's edits?
Pizzadeliveryboy 19:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  veracity of edits 

message: re. the edit reverses in Bangalore:
'Bangalore has significant proportions of groups that would otherwise be considered minorities in India, including Muslims, Christians and Anglo-Indians.'
The section in bold should go since it kind of sounds parochial and abrasive. I think it kind of suggests that minorities need to continuously reminded that they are indeed minorities. just mentioning that specific communities also live in BLR should be enough.
The rest can remain. Please enlighten.
Pizzadeliveryboy 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit reverses 

message: Adding every college/school in BLR will only make the section unreadable and unweildly after some time.
It would be a better idea to stick to some really well known (internationally, if possible) institutes like IISc in the article, and give a link to a seperate article on a list of colleges.
Any thoughts???!!!
Pizzadeliveryboy 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This also holds true for the list of companies and (until recently) the list of religious festivals...we need to stick with just 3 or 4 entries in each list. There's a difference between trying to accentuate a point and just overloading an idea with bajillion entries in each list. AreJay 16:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who decides which of the names to top the list and which ones to be ommitted and referred in the specific article?????
Pizzadeliveryboy 17:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know? Perhaps someone who knows enough about the topic can provide the names of two or three of the most common/popular entries associated with that list. I'm kinda against "lists" per se given the nature of Wikipedia — people are going to keep coming and adding entries to the list and it just becomes hard to manage.  AreJay 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: well are jay,i have vsisted many cities and in a cosmopolitan city like bangalore,the evidence of large populace of minorites is not visible and atleast not evident in the culture and potrayal of the city.the areas i have listed are the only significant areas where minorities live,and those areas are very small and underdeveloped.and i am sorry you are misunderstood,my statement never asserts or is trying to assert that minority population is large in Bangalore.--Jayanthv86 19:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Jayanthv86 — according to Wikipedia, the definition of "cosmopolitan" is "cosmopolitan describes something influenced by many cultures from around the world". By definition therefore, does it not imply, if we are to refer to Bangalore as a cosmopolitan city, that the culture of the city is characterized by various strains of cultures including that of the majority culture?  If the presence of other cultures in Bangalore is not evident, as you say, is the city cosmopolitan at all? Any thoughts? AreJay 03:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities are a good place to follow, if you have any doubts about style/content. --Pamri • Talk 05:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List getting longer 

message: ...silver coins of Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius have been excavated in and around present-day Bangalore, but have not revealed much about its contemporaneous inhabitants.
Can the person who added this clarify its validity and / or cite the source? I am not a historian, but for some reason doubt the validity of the statement. Are we saying there was contact between Ancient Rome and India? AreJay 17:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's hilarious! :-) AreJay 19:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City History 

message: A recent trend in the urban development of Bangalore is the ghettoization of the city's IT and knowledge economy workforce into self-contained gated communities. Moreover, a bulk of the IT and knowledge economy workers are not domiciled within the state of Karnataka. This has led to a general perception in state level political circles (who derive a bulk of their political power from rural Karnataka) that Bangalore is not a potential vote block during elections, and hence infrastructure development activities within the city do not carry high political weight.
Can someone who understand what this paragraph was intended to convey reword it so that it makes sense? I can't seem to understand what the idea behind the paragraph is. What is a "self-contained gated community"?? AreJay 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghettoization 

message: Would it amount to advertising if we gave the citi taxi phone numbers ? With so many unconnected citi taxi operators, (each mostly operating in one area of Bangalore) it may be worthwhile to give some numbers but then, the list may grow too long. Hmm... Wikicheng 05:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  City Taxi numbers 

message: *Ideological clashes between the city's IT moguls, who demand an addressal of the infrastructural problems of the city, and the traditionally bureaucratic state governments, whose electoral base is primarily rural Karnataka's agricultural workers, are aplenty. In July 2004 Wipro CEO Azim Premji threatened to pull his company out of the city, stating, "We do not see the situation (state of Bangalore's infrastructure) improving in the near future." [29]. The Hosur Road, which connects Bangalore to the Electronics City, is a heavily congested road in the city. The road is also part of the National Highway (NH7) and therefore witnesses heavy truck traffic as well.'
:the above lines have nothing to do with Economy.  also, this issue has been written about ad nauseum in the 'Infrastructure in Bangalore' fork. deleting it.
::Of course this has to do with Economy.  The fact that similar information may appear in another article does not make it inappropriate for this article.  Restoring.  --BostonMA 17:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: Hi! I have the following suggestions. Please take them as constructive criticism from someone who loves Bangalore.
I have compared the current Bangalore site to the Wikipedia site about London so that we can take the better points from the latter and incorporate it into our cities site.
a) The formatting of the Bangalore page is terrible. Everything is lumped together and is incoherent. We need to re-aarange the contentso that it falls into proper place. If you see the London site, you will notice that after every 4 - 5 lines the para ends and a new one begins. In our case it is just the opposite. 
b) I tried to rearrange the content recently. I did not delete anything but tried to add headlines. Some zealous administrator reversed what I had done and told me that the format that I had used went against Wikipedia's policy. This is why I am comparing the Bangalore layout to that of London. I ask everyone.............let's have an open mind so that we get a great format in for our great city.
c) There is a lot that is missing. For example, I was astounded to find that Daly Memorial Hall was not featured at all! It is a landmark building with a great history. Luckily I had taken a recent pic which had come out well, and a bit of research led to the creation of the page. Can we create a list of landmark buildings and incorporate them into the site?
d) I would like to devote some time every day to the upgrading of this site. Maybe we can start with a list of things that need to be added. My forte is phtographs and I shall be happy to contribute whatever imagery is needed.
My email ID is prksh1@gmail.com. I'd love to hear from like minded people and set about rearranging the website.
Regards,
Prakash
:The formatting is per Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities and the guidelines linked to from WP:MoS, which the London article doesn't follow. And Bangalore is a Featured article, while the London article is not even close. Also, much of the discussion happens on the talk page. But of course, feel free to add/edit in areas, you feel this article is missing. --Pamri • Talk 00:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prakash's Suggestions to improve the current Bangalore site 

message: The following is a list of items that need to be done to improve the quality of the article, per the standards set by Wikiproject Indian cities
* Consolidate the History section into 4 or 5 paragraphs. Most of this section has already been copied over to the History of Bangalore article.
* Consolidate the Economy section into 4-5 paragraphs. The information currently contained in the article needs to be moved to a new "Economy of Bangalore" article
* Consolidate the Current Concerns section into 4-5 paragraphs. The information currently contained in this section needs to be moved to a new "Infrastructural Issues in Bangalore" article (or one with a similar title). 
* Spellcheck, and include standardized units of measurements (lakh, kilometer), etc
* Consolidate the never ending entries for lists.  Perhaps restrict the list to those entries that actually have links to Wikipedia articles. If an entry is important enough to make a list, it probably has a Wikipedia article about it. 
* Add a section on the demographics of the city including literacy rates, population by religion, population by language, population by occupation, income levels, etc.
* Update citations and references
Updated 2/9/2005
Once we have effectively addressed the above items, we should be in pretty good shape to push the Bangalore article to featured status. I urge regular contributors to help improve the quality of this article and add any suggestions, as necessary.  Other suggestions, to-do lists welcome within this discussion. AreJay 16:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do list 

message: Hi, I'll be listing my suggestions/questions here below. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the points put forth by Sundar. In addition, there are some minor nitpicks:
* As far as possible, avoid using See also inside sections. Use either the main article/the see also template.
* The Main article/See articles should point to articles, which are directly related to Bangalore. For instance, under Media,the main article points to  "Mass media in India", which is misleading.
* The 2nd para in the lead could be arranged chronologically.
Once this is done, you have my vote as well. --Pamri • Talk 08:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This statistic is from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics from the Govt. of Karnataka. I have used this as a reference document for some of the other facts stated in the article but I should probably directly reference that quote...one more item to my to-do list today. I am sure that is a purchasing power parity (PPP) based value and not nominal GDP. I will reference that in my edits. India's GDP PPP is over US$ 3 trillion, so US$ 59.1 billion appears plausible. Thanks. AreJay 15:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review before FAC 

message: Proper nouns should be wikified. Since it creates unaesthetic red links, I usually stub those links, thereby adding more content to wikipedia. It usually does not take more than 3-4 hrs to accomplish this. See Sikkim, Flag of India and geography of  India. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper nouns 

message: Wow..great to see an article on my hometown as a FA. All credit to Arejay for his effort. --Pamri • Talk 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA 

message: According to this web page which cites official census, there are 6.1 lakhs Urdu speakers in Bangalore.  I will add Urdu to the list of languages spoken.  --BostonMA 01:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: I just rv'ed  61.95.205.198's edits on real estate (for now). I agree, a summary of these contributions needs to be incorporated into the article. However, the recent edits should be presented in Wikipedia:Summary style, remove POV sentences and opinions, cite appropriate references and be added within one of the existing sections of the article. Thanks AreJay 14:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Estate rv 

message: In the 60th year of Indian independence another moment to cherish and remember for. Even though it has taken sixty years to rename the city, the IT capital has got its original name Bengaluru.
News channels has started to make the changes.
Chanakyathegreat 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bengalore to Bengaluru 

message: This pertains to the area of Bangalore mentioned in the article as 1280 sq. km. However, the area for Mumbai states it is about 498 sq. km. If this is so, why is Bangalore ranked smaller in size than Mumbai? Am I missing something? -  Vayu 12:25, 28 Apr 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The definition of large and small is with regards to population, not city area size. AreJay 13:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area 

message: This article claims that Bangalore has the second highest literacy of 80-odd% after Mumbai, and the article on Mumbai says the literacy rate there is 77%. Could we have a source for Bangalore's literacy rate and for the fact that it is the second highest in the country?
Cribananda 03:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to fix it.  --Blacksun 14:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The data for literacy in the Bangalore article was taken from here, which itself is sourced from the 2001 Census of India. The map shows Mumbai's literacy rate to be 86.4% and Mumbai (Suburban) to be 86.9%. It also shows Bangalore's literacy rate to be 83%. Appropriate modifications to the Mumbai article may be needed. I will look into that some later today. AreJay 14:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent information on literacy rate 

message: The population rank shows up with the population density. I'm not sure how to change this. - Cribananda 07:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you'd want to remove that. But, if one has to do that you need to remove the line "population_metro_rank = 5th |" from the article text. The code at  roughly reads like "if the rank is available, display it there". I can do it if you tell why you'd want to change that. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Thanks. - Cribananda 08:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population rank 

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

message: It is written in the article that the rivers Arkavati and Kaveri cross paths at Nandi Hills, which is to the north of Bangalore. Kaveri nowhere appears north of Bangalore. It is far down south. Arkavati beings in the Nandi hills and I believe it joins Kaveri somewhere near Kokkrebellur.
:: You're right. Kaveri dosen't flow anywhere near Bangalore. This has been corrected in the article now. Thanks AreJay 14:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaveri to the north of Bangalore?

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

message: Is such a detailed description about the history of cantonment required in History section?. It makes the history section very long. I suppose that can be moved to a seperate article. Sumanthk 11:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to the recent addition to the history section, let me inform that I've reverted the copyright violation. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 11:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cantonment in History Section 

message: A statesman does not have to be a politician, academician or someone with great educational
degrees. A statesman can be someone who brings the masses together for a unique cause while maintaining a clean image about himself. But eventually, it depends on how one views the word statesman. In this case to me it simply means "A Man who is undoubtedly the Pride of the State".
Dinesh Kannambadi
He was an actor; if all actors all listed as statesmen, it would be one big list!--Fishysushi 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Raj Kumar a Statesman? 

message: I have removed following Links
indiaroads.mapunity.org
bangalore-city.blogspot.com Bangalore City Blog 
hosuronline.com/update/weather/changelocation.asp?code=INXX0012
The purpose of External Links is to provide sources and other points of reference related to the topic. None of the listed above websites do so, they are all adverts for the individual websites. Fail to see how these are usefell in informing people about Bangalore. Pastor Linu 05:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link clean Up 

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

message: Is Deccan herald the largest circulated newspaper in Bangalore ?? I doubt it. As per the most recent surveys, TOI emerges as the newspaper with the largest circulation.  Aditi.
: Can you provide (preferably non-TOI) sources supporting this claim?  We can then effectively make changes to the mass media section.  Thanks AreJay 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass media

message: I Think the government is planning to name Bangalore to Bengalooru ,(not Bengaluru),in accordance with the pronounciation in Kannada.Akshay
:If you have a citation which supports this, please provide. As per the current citation added in the article, it is Bengaluru. - KNM  Talk -  Contribs 15:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Isn't it Bengalooru

message: Let's move on with the official changes. It's Bengaluru in English as well. Please read the link . I don't think we need to world to tell us what is right and wrong when it's already official. Once it goes on Wikipedia, the users will accept it anyway. Let's us not forget that this voting business is bogus, leaving out the common man on the streets with no access to Wikipedia whose wishes have been fulfilled. We don't need people from all over the world to tell us if Bangaluru is right or wrong. Isn't the whole idea of changing the name meant to send a signal to the world we are asserting our identity?  Dineshkannambadi 14:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not official yet. Still 45 days to go. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 16:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: I think "on" is better.  But maybe Indian English is different US English, where implement is used to mean "start" in such contexts.
Since people are still moving this, I'd like to point out that not even the Indian media are using "Bengaluru." The Hindu has used both "Bangalore" and "Gulbarga" in the last few days   . So does the Times of India . Same with Business Standard . As for the foreign media, Forbes  and Reuters . Meanwhile, let's all keep in mind that the name change hasn't even been implemented yet . --Xiaopo (Talk) 17:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bengaluru 

message: The History section is quite large. Since the article is already at 49 Kb, I was thinking of keeping just a summary of the history in this article and moving the details to a separate article. I will wait to hear opinions from other editors before making any big changes. --ashwatha 10:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the History section as it stands as of now is actually a summary of the History of Bangalore article.  The History of Bangalore article was initially a part of the Bangalore article.  To conform to Wikipedia:Summary style requirements during WP:FAC, the history section was condenced and brought to its current state and a separate "History of Bangalore" article was created with the original material. AreJay 18:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it could easily be summarized more tightly; most such summaries are a paragraph or two. Does Garden City of India belong in this article, for example? Septentrionalis 18:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Right, but I think we need to be very careful as to what to retain and what to move to the other article.  Personally, I think this is as concise a summary as I think I've come up with without having to leave out important historical information.  For example, the Garden City of India is important because prior to Bangalore becoming what it is today to the rest of the country, it was famously referred to as the Garden City.  It is part of Bangalore's history and the moniker is still popular among locals and folks from other parts of the country.  AreJay 21:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, ok..yesterday, I saw the link to the non-existent History of Bengaluru as the main article in the history section of this article. So I assumed that a separate article did not exist. My bad... I see that someone has corrcted this link in the article too. Thanks! --ashwatha 03:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  The citation for the statement that the Marathas sold Bengaluru to Chikkadevaraja in 1687 is: "The Mughal Throne", Abraham Eraly, Phoenix, London, Great Britain, 2004 (), Incidental Data, page 538.  Will someone please record it in the edit I have just made to the text?  Thanks. Kanchanamala 06:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the citation. In the future you can do the same by enclosing the citation between  and . Please see WP:CITE for further info. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks.Kanchanamala 22:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  history section 

message: See articles: 
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8148630
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=8139874<Br>
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8345066
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/off_cuff/10087162.html
The Economist has adopted the name Bengalooru: "The capital of the state of Karnataka, home to Wipro and Infosys among others, has changed its name to Bengalooru, following the lead set by Mumbai (Bombay), Kolkata (Calcutta) and Chennai (Madras)." "They have every right to do so, of course, and it seems discourteous not to use their new names if they expressly ask you to. That is why The Economist adopts Myanmar, Côte d'Ivoire, Kyrgyzstan, Timor-Leste and <B>now Bengalooru</b> (see article) too. But it rankles, for several reasons." 
Yet some other newspapers claim it's Bengaluru.
So is it Bengalooru or Bengaluru?  This is ridiculous. Why don't people know for sure? --128.135.36.150 21:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought on WP:INB we all supported a move to Bengalooru.Bakaman 04:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only 'correct' as Bengalooru if you assume that 'oo' is consistently the long 'u' sound in English, which it is not (e.g. door, food, poor). If it is written Bengalooru you can be certain that many non-Indian English speakers, and most speakers of other languages written in Latin characters will pronounce it with the long 'o', instead of the long 'u'. At least with Bengaluru, the main problem will be with the length of the vowel. BTW, Google indicates that Bengaluru is more widely used than Bengalooru. Imc 10:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't it Bengalooru? 

message: Now that the name change is completed and official, there is little reason not to move the page. Hope there is a consensus this time. 155.69.5.234 20:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - its official.Bakaman 01:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

text: I support the proposal to rename Bangalore and move the page to Bengaluru.Kanchanamala 04:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been discussed already. Please see  Name updates for cities of Karnataka.The change will be done once the new name is widely used. Sumanth 06:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If the change of name is complete and official, why wait for the new name to be widely used?  It should be quite proper to move the page to Bengaluru ASAP.Kanchanamala 07:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read in Times of India that the state govt is waiting for the central govt to approve the rename. Hence the rename is not yet completely official -- WikiCheng | Talk 08:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: WikiCheng, as soon as the new name officially replaces the old name, and if you come to know of it before any one of us does, please let us know.Kanchanamala 03:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I will. I depend on the newspapers anyway. It is unlikely that I will come to know of it before any of you do :-) -- WikiCheng | Talk 03:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I've seen online, the major newspapers still seem to be using Bangalore. =\ deejaylobo 12:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold your horses, will ya?Kanchanamala 07:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: At your feet, your highness...now, what was your bloody point anyway? You don't seem to have changed anything Cribananda 07:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ....which is also incorrect and in contravention of Wikipedia policy, as was moving the Calcutta page to "Kolkata". If what a city or country is called were decided by elected governments we would have "Köln" and not "Cologne", "München" and not Munich, "Torino" and not "Turin", "Deutschland" and not Germany. Bangalore is called Bangalore because that is how the English version of the Kannada name evolved - it was never imposed by Government diktat. Call it whatever you like in Kannada - in English it will be Bangalore until English-speakers switch to "Bengaluru", and even in India I don't see that happening any time soon. Sikandarji 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sigh. Calm down, Kanchanamala. This has nothing to do with rights; as far as I know, anybody has the right to call any city whatever they want, regardless of what country they live in. The issue is what name the Wikipedia article is going to use. There is a guideline on this, and it's not "use official names," it's "use common names." We're supposed to use the title that the average person would type into Google, not whichever title the local government declares official. This, for example, is why we have the article under Czech Republic instead of Czechia, despite the fact that the latter is promoted by the Czech government as the official English name. Any official pronouncement by the Karnataka government is only relevant insofar as it influences common usage. --Xiaopo (Talk) 06:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is the page from the prominent daily Deccan Herald dated 24th Jan 2007 which clearly says that Bengalooru (or Bengalūru for that matter) is not yet official. Let us wait for it to be official -- WikiCheng | Talk 11:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. I will. I don't think DH has anything newer than what I mentioned earlier -- WikiCheng | Talk 03:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name change is not yet official as on 18th April 07, according to http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/apr182007/state234902007417.asp -- WikiCheng | Talk 14:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Page 

message: How about moving lot of information from here to History of Bangalore and have few sentences here. It is too big now. If everybody agrees, I will do that. Mlpkr 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of bangalore 

message: Hi,
The picture shows Kerala. Can someone please correct it?
Thanks,
Anand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anand chandru (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was some vandal, I suppose. It has been corrected -- WikiCheng | Talk 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerala 

message: The article mentions the per capita income as Rs 2.9 lakh. I think this is only for a particular section of the population. 
The per capita income in Bangalore Statistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore_statistics is US$ 1,110.03
--Neohacks 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Per Capita Income 

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was A parallel poll was held at the same time, see below. Duja► 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support It's official. Bangalore now has a new name. It is time we update to reflect this new name. I saw on a debate as to what to name Venice. In India, Indian cities are the same for any language, whether you speak Hindi, Tamil, or English. So, I support renaming the "Bangalore" page to Bengalooru. We should also replace words stating "Bangalore" to "Bengalooru." And Bangalore should only be mentioned as a refernce to the city's former name. amitroy5 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments:
Hi, the discussion has already been going on in Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_India-related_topics#Article_name_updates_for_some_Cities_of_Karnataka as, this is not just applicable for Bangalore/Bengaluru alone, but also for several other cities of Karnataka. 
Please participate in the discussion here - KNM  Talk 08:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For more discussion on this, which took place during this "Requested move" debate, see the sections "Bengaluru" and "Move Page" on this talk-page -- Lonewolf BC 08:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  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.
===Aftermath===
OK, here is what happened: the poll above was opened after a wider poll on renaming was held here. I closed that poll as "move all", with an appropriate edit summary pointing to that poll. Since the entire moving job was fairly exhaustive, I probably missed this poll as well and it seems to have remained opened, and I unlisted it from the WP:RM page routinely. Apparently, people were lazy to check out what happened (and my move summary) and simply moved it back, and several other articles likewise in an avalanche fashion.
Now, since the dust apparently didn't settle, I think the only viable option is to close whatever polls were left around and start afresh; continuing 3-months old polls is a fairly bad idea. I invite anyone interesting to start a new, fresh, WP:RM so that consensus can be determined (and I won't touch it with a pole). Duja► 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly: I wasn't even aware about this poll at the time. Now, the "other" poll was a close call as well (somewhere between "move" and "no consensus"). This article ended up, one way or another, at "Bangalore" so there's no need to exercise WP:BURO and mess with poll results post mortem. Since "no consensus" is apparently demonstrated at least by frequent moving back and forth, I guess it's best to leave the things as they are at the moment. Duja► 07:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: (Note: All opinions on this from throughout the talk-page that have been posted since the "Requested move" opened on 1 Nov 2006 have been consolidated here by copying them from wherever they were originally placed -- mostly the "Move Page" section. -- Lonewolf BC 09:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support It's official. Bangalore now has a new name. It is time we update to reflect this new name. I saw on a debate as to what to name Venice. In India, Indian cities are the same for any language, whether you speak Hindi, Tamil, or English. So, I support renaming the "Bangalore" page to Bengalooru. We should also replace words stating "Bangalore" to "Bengalooru." And Bangalore should only be mentioned as a refernce to the city's former name. amitroy5 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support It's official. Bangalore now has a new name. It is time we update to reflect this new name. I saw on a debate as to what to name Venice. In India, Indian cities are the same for any language, whether you speak Hindi, Tamil, or English. So, I support renaming the "Bangalore" page to Bengalooru. We should also replace words stating "Bangalore" to "Bengalooru." And Bangalore should only be mentioned as a refernce to the city's former name. amitroy5 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: # Oppose Not yet. The question is, by WP:NAME, which name is most readily used and recognized by the whole English-speaking world, including India. Let's see what happens. Septentrionalis 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: OK, here is what happened: the poll above was opened after a wider poll on renaming was held here. I closed that poll as "move all", with an appropriate edit summary pointing to that poll. Since the entire moving job was fairly exhaustive, I probably missed this poll as well and it seems to have remained opened, and I unlisted it from the WP:RM page routinely. Apparently, people were lazy to check out what happened (and my move summary) and simply moved it back, and several other articles likewise in an avalanche fashion.
Now, since the dust apparently didn't settle, I think the only viable option is to close whatever polls were left around and start afresh; continuing 3-months old polls is a fairly bad idea. I invite anyone interesting to start a new, fresh, WP:RM so that consensus can be determined (and I won't touch it with a pole). Duja► 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly: I wasn't even aware about this poll at the time. Now, the "other" poll was a close call as well (somewhere between "move" and "no consensus"). This article ended up, one way or another, at "Bangalore" so there's no need to exercise WP:BURO and mess with poll results post mortem. Since "no consensus" is apparently demonstrated at least by frequent moving back and forth, I guess it's best to leave the things as they are at the moment. Duja► 07:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aftermath

message: I just rv'ed an edit that changed the lead text  from "proposed to be renamed to Bengaluru" to "Renamed to Bengaluru". My understanding is that there is still a process under way that requires the Central Government to accept Karnataka's proposal to rename the city; until such time, the city's name officially remains Bangalore.  However, if this is incorrect, please rv back to the other version and provide appropriate in-line citations supporting the change.  Thanks AreJay 01:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit RV 

message: I feel I must explain some of the recent edits on my part to new users and regular contributors alike; Bangalore is a Featured Article and one of the first among a line of steadily growing Indian city featured articles.  As such, Indian city featured articles are required to follow convention outlined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities.  This includes maintaining sections in Wikipedia:Summary style format and refraining from using "Fair Use" images unless absolutely necessary.  My recent edits included reverting the Economy and Tranport sections to bring them in conformity with Wikipedia's Summary style and Wikipedia Indian Cities project guidelines as well as removing where possible, images that were not in public domain or licensed under CreativeCommons.  Comments welcome. AreJay 03:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Hello Bangalorians. I need one of you to do me favor. I work on wikitravel  and we need to districtify Bangalore, i.e. split it up into 5-9 districts. If any one of you could help me, I'd be extremely grateful. The district names should sound natural and cover the entire city. You can contact me at any of the following -
*upamanyu.mallik@gmail.com
*upamanyu_mallik2000@yahoo.co.in
*My wikipedia user talk page 
*My wikitravel user talk page 
*The Bangalore talk page on wikitravel 
Thanks — Upamanyuwiki 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help needed to districtify

message: I have added following links to the external links, some anonymous author is repeatedly removing this links..Are the following topics not relevant to this page on Bangalore?
*Bangalore Rainfall  	 
*Bangalore at a glance 	 
*Planning & Development Laws covering Bangalore Metropolitan Area —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sasinfo (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Private blogs are inappropriate on wikipedia.  Sarvagnya 18:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou, this link is purely for information and reference and for want of good interactive visualization. There are many notes / references linking to many sources outside, they are considered legitimate, why not this? (Sasinfo 19:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because personal blogs are not reliable sources.  Otherwise, we both could open our own blogs, write whatever we want and cite it on wikipedia.  Or if we had our own blogs, we could piggyback on wikipedia's popularity and get some free publicity for our blog.   Also see wikipedia's policy on external links.  Sarvagnya 19:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what is the disdain over blogs. Should we reject just because the reference is a blog? The same information written in a non-blog website is acceptable? Should we not check the data if its reliable and make that's only criteria. What about the wrong Bangalore Area displayed in infobox, is that not a unreliable information? Sasinfo 16:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not disdain over blogs.  Even 'unreliable' websites are a strict no-no.  And to decide which source is reliable and which is not, we follow the guidelines set down in WP:RS.  Please read it in its entirety atleast once.  And then, for external links, we have WP:EL.  Read that one also. If you think that any of these rules/policy/guidelines are flawed, bring it up at the village pump.  If people agree with you, you can get the policy changed.  Sarvagnya 16:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this external link in the main page not a self promotion..why is this link not edited? Sasinfo 20:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is unreliable source for information ?according to patent office Sasinfo 19:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, you are welcome to argue all you want, but unfortunately, this is Wikipedia policy and all Sarvagnya has done is to ensure that it is properly applied on this page.  He has also provided various links to Wikipedia's policies in his reply above; please take the time to read them carefully.  Despite this, if you believe the policy/policies to be unfair, please contribute by debating on WP:PUMP.  Arguing on this talk page will help very little.  Thanks AreJay 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did not argue here, wikians were helpful to clarify certain things for which i am grateful. I did read all the links quoted in this regard. My understanding in this regard where necessary, the info if it's reliable it can be quoted. Nobody proved the links i posted are unreliable. Instead the links i posted were giving a synoptic view of the City's demography.  By not doing anything to check the wrong Bangalore 'area' quoted in info box, we seems to be validating the 'unreliable' news. Also i don't understand  why this external link is not self promotion. Sasinfo 19:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this inappropriate? 

message: The area of Bangalore in the article seems to be incorrect. 2190 sq km is the area of entire Bangalore district . The article should include the area of the city only. --(Sumanth|Talk) 09:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of Bangalore city

message: This page is very messy when it comes to pictures. The india portal (or Indian cities or something like that) rules state that most/ all of the pics should be on the right. And there should be at most 3 per section. This is a featured article and should not remain in this state. Also, the relevance of images is essential. The Public Utility Building does not relate to the economy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikkul (talk • contribs) 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please give correct reference for the picture guidelines, Please don't remove the pictures arbitrarly. Sasinfo 22:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks far better than messy New Delhi Page photo placements . Sasinfo 22:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a featured article. New Delhi is far far away from being one. Please read all the rules in Wikiproject Indian cities 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cities
and Wikiproject India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_India 
Please become familiar with established procedures. Nikkul 01:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Bangalore needs an introductory image of either a famous landmark or a skyline. Most other cities have these in their infoboxes. A snapshot of UB city would be great.Nikkul 14:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory ["skyline"] Image 

message: The culture, media and education sections have 1 citation between them. 
Also I do not think Bangalore Institute of Technology, Dayananda Sagar College of Engineering, and Sir M. Visvesvaraya Institute of Technology have a good enough reputation to be mentioned in the article (after all, this is an article on Bangalore, not technical education in Bangalore). 
In 1991 plans for a large-scale Bangalore International Airport were conceived; however, the project was repeatedly delayed due to red tape and friction between the private companies involved and the state government. How on earth did unreferenced random statements like that make it to a featured article? Red tape and friction... Seriously? 
I honestly think this article needs to be reviewed for its FA status Tommy Stardust 18:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: IMHO, no college should be mentioned in the article except the top three: IIM, IISc and NLSIU. Any other addition will lead to a deluge of alumni trying to push in their colleges into the list. Please provide opinions on this issues, else I am removing the list of colleges one week from now -- Amarrg 08:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If you start adding names, then there would be no end, and we'd end up having each and every "Galli" college on this list. The most well known are IIM, IISc, NLSIU, BMC (2nd best in India), IIIT-B and some other older, more renowned (or at least a deeply ingrained part of the cityscape) colleges. Sniperz11 13:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of colleges

message: # Removed one line which was tagged citation needed from lead-in. There was no citation I found to validate that moreover the Finance Ministry of India in its presentation of Outcome budget of 2007-08 has specifically mentioned the name as 'Bengaluru' as can be seen here thereby indicating that the name is prevalent in the Indian Government as well. 
# Removed first line from History section since the same has been explained in detail in the Etymology section 
# Trimmed the history section by removing irrelevant references like that to Miss World and KFC - -- Amarrg 14:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes made to the article

message: Notice that many numbers are based on 2001 census. We are in year 2007 and Bangalore itself with other cities in India have grown enormously. Shouldnt this data be removed ....i mean though we might not have new data available ...this 2001 data is clearly incorrect.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.185.137 (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2001 Census