Talk:Ganges/Archive 1

message: The Ganges is a watershed.  It is more or less circular.  It is isn't really belt-shaped.  There are hundreds of rivers involved.  McDogm--64.12.116.6 13:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganges Watershed 

message: The Ganges meets the Tibet River near Dhaka.  It is known as the Brahmaputra.  Tibet's civilization extends north to the Mongol, who are Tibetan Buddhists.  It is a double river system.  As the Ganges dominates South Asian thought, this double body of water could be said to extend from the Indian Ocean to Lake Baikal and farther north.  Given the Mongol dominination of everything from Hokkaido to Hungary, this page is much bigger than a geography page.  McDogm--64.12.116.6 13:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganges And Yarlung Zangbo 

message: Is it possible to have a map here showing the source and distributaries of the Ganges river? Right now the article focuses more on the religious issues (which it definitely should discuss, given its importance) than geographic information. A map would show the start of the Ganges and its location in South Asia, and that would enhance the article a lot. Thanks. --Ragib 05:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The source of the new values are:
http://www.himalmag.com/2003/september/review_2.htm for Ganga's statistics.--Raghu 09:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganga Statistics 

message: I think we should fork the page into a "Ganga (goddess)" and a "Ganges River" page. Right now, if anyone comes to this page, she'd see a big confusion over whether this article is about a river or religion. I do appreciate the significance of Ganga in religion, but this article, with the title "Ganges River", should deal with a physical river. 
So here is my proposal.
*Create an article on Ganga, the goddess, move all mythological/religious stuff from here to there, have a disambig note at the top pointing to the River page
*Add a disambig note at the top of the river page saying to learn about mythology/religious significance, go to the Goddess page
*Have both items listed in Ganga the main disambig page.
Thanks. --Ragib 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is correct, its better we do this --vineeth 16:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth vs. Geography 

message: I propose renaming this article to Ganga River. The word "Ganges" was used by British colonial historians and is archaic. Do give your comments on this.Babub 09:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the term "Ganges" is widely used in English, and should be used in the English wikipedia (not that I like it, but that's the norm). --Ragib 18:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is Ganges still used? It's an old name, a bit like Cawnpore. deeptrivia (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, leading Indian newspapers use "Ganges" to this day. For example, The Statesman ( August 4 issue "Ganges erosion"). Same goes for newspapers of Bangladesh. --Ragib 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming to Ganga River 

message: "The Ganga remains an economically important waterway and polluting it remains economically advantageous"
Uh.. no. It is just easier and for the individuals on the short-term it is advantegeous, but it's important to specify this. --A Sunshade Lust 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pollution economically advantageous? 

message: I hope it's OK that I put a disamb link in. Since Ganges already redirects here, it means the other meanings of Ganges are a bit hidden if there's no other reference to them. I hope this is the right policy to apply here but I am sure that if it is not you'll explain what is! :) 138.37.199.206 16:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favor of naming rivers using rivers, districts using the word districts, and other clarifying language that helps us (non Indians) through all these names. We want to understand but it is difficult with the inconsistency in term use. Mattisse(talk) 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this is how it should be for Indians and non-Indians alike.  Hangovers like Nile will no doubt be changed soon. Mukerjee (Talk) 13:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I know this request comes up every few months.  However, 
the name Ganges is being steadily overtaken by Ganga in English usage. A (English only) search on google reveals 2.79 mn references to Ganga and 2.67 mn to Ganges. Last time it was discussed, User:Ragib had felt that "the term "Ganges" is widely used in English, and should be used in the English wikipedia." He had cited a newspaper. However, it seems current content such as newspapers are using Ganga at an even higher rate - Google news shows 535 hits for Ganga and 265 for Ganges. Users past 30 (including myself) may have grown up with Ganges, but the next generation is already increasingly using Ganga in English.  The old order needs to yield. I move we change the lead title, and keep Ganges as a link. Mukerjee (Talk) 13:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then propose the move at WP:RM. -- SigPig \SEND - OVER 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has this been done? The article itself is quite inconsistent, sometimes 'Ganga' is used, and sometimes 'Ganges'. Wiki-uk 15:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Title should be Ganga 

message: The article should be called Ganges, not Ganges River.--WoodElf 06:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Ganges 

message: It would be great if someone could add geological information about the ganges. From what caused her formation and when it happened. Did the course of the ganges change if so when and how etc.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.159.162 (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geology 

message: "The river, held sacred by Hindus, is worshipped as the personified form of the goddess Ganga after whom the river is named."
This sentence is ridiculous. First off, it is the river that is personified, not the goddess. The goddess is the personification of the river, and not vice versa. And the river is not named after the goddess. Rather the goddess is named after the river. There was always a river before the vedic hindus came along and made it a goddess!!!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.159.200 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganga, the Hindu Goddess 

message: Why was the article moved? I see the explanation provided in edit summary as "Commonwealth naming", but if I recall correctly, I never saw much of "river x" when describing Bangladeshi rivers. In fact, "Ganges River" seem to be more popular than "River ganges". So, I'm curious, what's the more prevalent form in use in India? At least in Bangladesh, the other form is vastly more popular. Thanks. --Ragib 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've mostly been taught using the form River Ganges, and this seems to be prevalent in Commonwealth English.  Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming seems to hold this true. See also a Times of India article where they use River Ganga. Many seem to have the opinion that Ganges should be the river title name. I suppose that would be more neutral. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok, I guess the style is prevalent in India. It's quite interesting that "Padma River" or "Meghna River" is more commonly used in Bangladeshi English language books/news papers. Perhaps the style has evolved differently in Bangladesh. So, River Ganges is fine, I guess. I agree with the term Ganges. --Ragib 09:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Ganga" might have more google hits, but that is also partly due to other meanings of the term, e.g., Darren Ganga, etc. I would not recommend using google test for this. Encarta and Britannica both use Ganges. deeptrivia (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: We normally only have disambiguations when there's something to disambiguate. Like the Orinoco, "Ganges" can only mean the river in most contexts, so there is no reason to call it "river". Likewise, most language articles are "X language", but not Latin or Esperanto. —kwami (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I guess since I've always called it "gangA nadee" (ganga river) in my native tongue, I figured the word linkage held constant through English as well.- ellusion - (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with "the River Ganges"; besides being completely unambiguous, it sounds rather formal, and to my ear quite pleasant. I'd support a move to that title if people wanted it, but there's no pressing need to move it. — kwami (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  River Ganges? 

message: Nichalp, these links fulfill points 3 and 4 in What_should_be_linked. They provide either academic or visual content directly related to Ganga. --Jan
*Sacred Ganga
*Bibliography on Water Resources and International Law.
*Toxin-Phage Bacteriocide as an Antibiotic Therapy
*Friends of Ganges
*Gomukh to Ganga Sagar, Virtual Tour with all Details
*Ganga Arati Video Quicktime streaming video of worship of the Ganges in Hardwar (15 minutes)
*Mother Ganga: A journey along the sacred Ganges River a movie (a free trailer download) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.208.2.214 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: That section mentioned absolutely nothing about the ecology of the Ganga in any case, and only discussed issues related to pollution. So renaming it as such. If someone wants to write about the ecology (as in flora and fauna, there's enough of biological species typical to or only found in the Gangetic region), then they're welcome to do so. The articles on the Sundarbans, Ganges_River_Dolphin, etc etc could be used and linked to, if you want.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is not solely on pollution. It also deals with other environmental issues. --Ragib 05:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, that one little sentence hidden there about the "glaciers melting" bit, huh? Heh, in any case, looks like you flunked both General Science and English in pre-school. Go look up "ecology" in a dictionary, kid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.2.107 (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If global warming or some other cause did cause the Ganges to go dry, would its water still be regarded as holy when it began flowing again? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renamed section on ecology 

message: Note:  Project Banner with Uttarakhand workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article  falls under :Category:Uttarakhand or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article  --  TinuCherian     (Wanna Talk?)   - 13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:INDIA]] Banner/Uttarakhand workgroup Addition 

message: I am here by accident. Could somebody from India verify the height of the source of Ganga? Is it really more than 7500 above sea level? The Gangotri Glacier doesn't extend that high (see Wikipedia) and I doubt if liquid water can flow that high. Pomimo (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of Ganga 

message: This section has again become too large. I had forked it into a separate article Ganges in Hinduism, some time ago. However, seems that a lot of new content have been introduced to *this* article rather than that one. As a result, this article focuses more on the religious aspects than the river itself. --Ragib (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It should be pruned and room made for a geology section that shows the connection between the Ganges and the Gangetic plain.  In other words, the Himalayan rivers (Indus, Gandaki, Ganges) predate the creation of the Himalayas as a consequence of the subduction of the Indian plate under the Eurasian plate.  The trough that was formed as a result of the subduction, was gradually filled up by the silt (from the rising Himalayas) deposited by these rivers.  That is why all the Himalayan river valleys are so deep. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious significance section 

message: Please be consistent with the capitalization of "river" after Ganges. It is inconsistent throughout the article. Please decide on if it should be capitalized or not. :) Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.232.91 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganges River vs Ganges river 

message: :I have now organized the images (added some more) in three galleries that follow in their sequence the sequence of towns and cities along the river.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galleries 

message: I'm sure the degradation of the Ganges through human impact is a jaw dropping spectacle, but is it such an ecological deadzone that no one can provide information on its endemic species and general flora/fauna? Surely its not completely devoid of life.. yet? Being a river of great cultural and historical significance (past?/present), im surprised wiki science hasnt weighed in on the biological dimensions of the system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas84 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly needs work.  As for the fauna, off the top of my head, there is the mahseer (the "Indian salmon") of its Himalayan waters, and, of course, the Ganges river dolphin.  There is also the gharial, the beautiful narrow snouted fresh water crocodile, which, according to the recent Romulus Whitaker documentary I watched, can reach up to 16 ft in length.  Among the smaller species, there is Vibrio Cholerae, which is endemic to the Ganges delta, and the causative agent of Cholera and of the great Cholera pandemics of history, all of which began somewhere along the Ganges.  That itself has a fascinating biology; it lives in a dormant state on the backs and intestines of plankton in the Ganges estuary.  Every so often, however, for reasons still not clear, it comes alive and quits its plankton host.   If the Sundarbans delta ecoregion is considered part of the Ganges, then a wider range of species opens up, including the Bengal Tiger.  If flood plains of a river can be included as well, then other land mammals will show up.  Will look for academic sources later in the day; have to run now.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology 

message: I have redirected Ganges to Ganga which is the true name of the river. However, this edit is being reverted by somebody else? Why is this happening? I have clearly mentioned the reason for my edits, however they seem to be reverted without reason.
Viddhu (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to get a consensus on this. The name of the river is *Ganges* in the *English language*, and hence the title reflects the commonly used English language spelling. Ganga is definitely the name of the river in Indian languages. But in English, the language of *this wikipedia*, the most commonly used spelling is the Ganges. We have discussed this before. Without getting a consensus, please refrain from unilaterally moving the article to your preferred title. --Ragib (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Place-names certainly can and do differ by language (for example, Russia and China are रूस and चीन in Hindi; the country known natively as Nippon, is more commonly known as Japan; Deutschland is called Germany; München is Munich in English etc. Comparing the issue with modern personal names is not really useful or relevant. As for the discussion about this article name, see the discussion above: Ganga vs Ganges. Abecedare (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: As another example, let's consider the name of the poet Rabindranath Tagore. His last name is pronounced "Thakur" in Bengali, yet the commonly used English language spelling is Tagore. If you met Tagore and asked him about his name in English, he'd have replied Tagore whereas if you asked his name in Bengali, you'd have got "Thakur" as a reply. Hope this helps. --Ragib (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganges needs to be redirected to Ganga 

message: Can someone (not me) add an expert contribution on the role of glaciers in feeding the Ganges and other rivers in the region?  As a layman, I find it puzzling that glaciers are claimed to have a major role.  Over an annual cycle, with glaciers in a steady state, the flow of water from a glaciated region must be approximately equal to annual precipitation (minus some loss by evaporation).  Part of that precipitation accumulates as snow and ice during the winter, and an equivalent amount of water is released by melting in the summer.  Part of the meltwater comes from recent snowfall, and part from melting at the base and advancing front of the glacier, but in steady state the total melted must balance the snowfall received. If the glacier is growing, the melting is less than the snowfall, while if it is shrinking, the melting is greater, but unless climate change is very rapid these net effects must be marginal in comparison to the seasonal turnover. It is not obvious that global warming would make any significant difference to the annual flow of water (unless of course total precipitation changes).  It is not even obvious that there would be any major change to the seasonal pattern of flow.  Even if all permanent glaciers were to disappear, snow might still accumulate in the winter and melt in the spring or summer, as it does (for example) in the Scottish Highlands.  If someone has made a serious analysis of the effect of climate change on water supplies (as distinct from scare-mongering), could this be described and referenced?  If no serious analysis has been made, this should also be stated.86.179.195.139 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate Change 

message: I have moved quite a large number of photos from other sections to the Photo Gallery as they did not seem particularly appropriate to the sections they were in. I have also moved the Phot Gallery to near the end of the article, which seems more appropriate. However, the Photo Gallery is now swollen with too many photos but I don't know how best to cull them to keep a good representative collection without overloading the page. Would some other brave soul please undertake this difficult task? Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Gallery 

message: The Times of India the worlds largest selling English newspager and also the largest selling paper written in the Roman script uses the spelling Ganga for the word. That editor Kwami is a reliable source . Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. Who ever said otherwise? And it's not a different "spelling", it's a different form of the name, like Mumbai vs. Bombay. like  As I said, provide a RS that Ganga is the most common form of the name internationally. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not like Mumbai x Bombay, it is like Pune x Poona. The world's largest English and Roman script news paper uses it and many others. Am I required to find a source that says "Ganga is the most common form of the name internationally" may I editor Kwami request you to do so for the spelling Ganges? Wouldn't the many instances that I have given above work? 471 results on the 
Asia Development Bank site. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you editor can read between the lines about the statement that the world's largest English paper is published from Mumbai, you would understand one point of this editor quite easily. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyways that is just one point of my argument another is  wp:engvar and the English spellings for Chinese names based on pinyin. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganga not Ganges the correct spelling 

message: I'm adding back the  tag removed by User:RegentsPark because the following words from Indian English are already used in the article.
ghats
maha smashanam
Kumbh Mela
mahima
jyotirlingams
gangajal
devatas
Shivalingam
abhishek
prayashchit
triveni sangam
Zuggernaut (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a misunderstanding of the tag; these tags are intended to mark spellings and phrasings which distinguish one brand of English from another, like color/colour. But these words indicate that India is the subject of the article, and nothing about dialect; ghat is the word for a ghat anywhere in the English-speaking world, whenever Americans or Australians or Trinidadese have occasion to write about India. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the examples are not exact, but this tag means to convey that Indian spellings and diction and meanings will be used, we will write petrol and not gas here, and will know what corruption means, or what a flat is, or what a strike is, and that a restaurant is called a hotel, snacks are metaphhorically called tiffin, and that picnic is an excursion. That is what the tag stands for. Indian English is a dialect in its own right, with millions of users.  Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indian English is the dialect in which the words largest circulating English newspaper is written. It is not some kind of minority use, on the other hand it predominates other dialects in the above instance. Many articles concerning India carry the tag, this article concerns India, the tag makes perfect sense. Please discuss before taking it offYogesh Khandke (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The worlds largest circulating English newspaper which uses both names: Ganges and Ganga. Flamarande (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Got it. But even by that definition, this template/tag will help an American contributor understand that he or she needs to use 'colour' instead of 'color' when they edit this article. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It does use Ganges  I agree, move the article to Ganga and then write that Ganga is the Indian Romanisation, and Ganges is the traditional UK/US way of writing it. With the region specifier on India, Ganga gave ten times more ghits than Ganges. As I said there is no rule that Ganga be used, it is used by choice, an overwhelming choice. And the term is clearly understood across the world. For those who don't there can be a prominently place explanation and a redirect Ganges to Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The word is clearly not understood across the world, as evidenced by the people coming here who have never heard it before. It's a regional term, not a universal one. Ganges, on the other hand, is used even by the Indian govt, and so is universal. Your refusal to understand that is starting to appear dishonest. — kwami (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the discussion above, it is not one man ranting but even stevens. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I like to be honest so here it goes: we saw and keep on seeing this trend here and there in the English wiki (it's nothing new). The English wiki is supposed to be written for the majority/average of English-speakers, many of which are not native English-speakers at all, having learnt American or British English at school. The logical names are therefore those used in American and/or British English. Die-hard "patriots" want to impose 'their names' upon the English wiki (which the average user all but ignores) at the expense of the most common names. Their weapons of choice are political correctness, npov and "fairness". I will even go further: they want nothing less than to virtually 'balkanize' the English wikipedia along national/cultural lines. All of you are free to agree with them or not: just vote according to your conscience. Flamarande (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian English 

message: We have three threads running, that discuss the proper naming convention for Ganga, it makes it a little tedious. Since I was the original proposer, I wonder whether it would make sense to withdraw the proposal here and discuss it out at one place wp:COMMONNAME, with the condition that what passes through there would be accepted here. I wish to take permission of those who opposed and those who supported the move.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You proposed it, you can withdraw it. Having multiple threads on one topic can be considered disruptive, so it may be a good idea. However, an admin can still come here and close it as 'no consensus', in which case continuing to push your POV, even in a different thread, could also be considered disruptive. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I would leave it as it is, Yogesh: this discussion here on this page is properly about whether or not to move the article (and present consensus is leaning against the move). The RfC discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Ganga really addresses a different question: whether Ganga/Ganges is a good example to give at Wikipedia:Article_titles#National_varieties_of_English. Given that there is 1/3 support for moving to Ganga here on this page, the guideline shouldn't perhaps use Ganges as an example of when definitely not to move to a local English variant. So we could try and find a more clear-cut example to mention in the guideline, where the two English terms in local use are more evenly matched, and one of them really does not occur outside the country. This would allow the move to Ganga at some future time, if and when community consensus changes. JN466 02:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That example of Ganga vs. Ganges was only posted a couple of months ago, and until or if we get definitive consensus on the article's name, it does not appear to be an appropriate example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We've long had consensus on this name. The proposal has been made before, only to be rejected. I think it was included in the guideline specifically because it keeps coming up. — kwami (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, the long pole in the Ganges tent, looks like the inaccurate, baseless and incorrect comment on wp:commonname, that Ganga - Ganges is divided locally, kick it and that brings the tent down. On the other hand, as long as it is there the move would not materialise. You see it is a clear guideline. (Which I learnt after the propose). A clear guideline should not be violated. This discussion needs to be taken there. Please suggest.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) it is divided locally, as we've demonstrated numerous times. (2) even without that, it would still be local usage which is unintelligible to the rest of the English-speaking world. Your jingoistic attitude that India = the world is ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kwami, I have likewise demonstrated that Western media outlets like CNN, BBC, and UK national papers have begun to use the term Ganga. To say that Indian editors are jingoistic for wanting their national river to be known by its national name in Wikipedia bespeaks an unconscious bias. Indian editors on this page are asking for nothing more than what US or UK editors are taking for granted: that articles on a key feature of their country's geography be based on the official name said feature has in their country. For foreigners to dictate to them that the name used in Wikipedia should be the one predominantly used by them is inequitable. The redirect argument works both ways: US, UK, Australian, etc. schoolkids who enter "Ganges" in the search field will be redirected here, to Ganga, and in the first line of that article it will say, "The Ganga, or Ganges, is ..." And in the process these schoolkids will have learnt something about the world. Indian schoolkids on the other hand who enter "Ganga" and are redirected to "Ganges" will only learn one thing: that Wikipedia treats them as second-class citizens, who don't even have the right to call their national, and holy, river by its proper name in Wikipedia. I don't think that's what we mean when we say we want to bring free education to the kids of the world. --JN466 12:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayen466, your assumption that Indian school kids will think that wikipedia treats them as second-class citizens if they see Ganges instead of Ganga on the article title is incorrect. Ganges is a recognized English version of Ganga in India and, except perhaps for a few right wing hindi zealots, the same people who believe that all civilization originated in India, no one is offended by the term. In fact, Ganges is used quite freely in Indian scholarly publications (this list from JSTOR has 179 articles from the Economic and Political Weekly, an Indian journal published in Mumbai, that use Ganges in the article). There may be good reasons to use Ganga over Ganges, but your rationale about Ganges being offensive to Indians is not one of them. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore the Times of India, published in India and the most widely read English-language newspaper in the world, uses Ganga and Ganges. You just have to go to its site and type 'Ganges' in the search-field and hit enter. The rationale that the use of Ganges is somehow offensive to Indians seems to be mistaken (or is someone going to defend that that newspaper wants to offend its Indian readers and make them feel like second-class citizens?). Flamarande (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you both have a point there. --JN466 06:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Political and Economic Weekly is not for school children.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Jayen466, you've demonstrate that Western media has begun to use the term Ganga (but the use is still occasional). However Ganges is (still) the most common name as far as the majority of the English-speaking world is concerned. Kwami never wrote that all Indian editors are jingoistic. He clearly wrote and meant that Yogesh Khandke holds a jingoistic attitude (I can only agree). So please do not twist Kwami words along your own POV. What you and Yogesh Khandke are always avoiding is the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of non-native English speakers (from Europe, Latin America, Africa and I dare say from the rest of Asia (minus the Indian subcontinent) are learning either British or American but not Indian English. Furthermore the name Ganga is virtually unknown outside of the Indian subcontinent. In other words: it is unknown to the majority of the English-speaking world. Stuff this PC bullshit and this pitiful whinnying about how Wikipedia treats Indian schoolchildren as second-class citizens. I swear to you all: Wikipedia (and the whole world) is becoming more and more a hostage of political PC-lawyers every day. The  use of the name 'Ganga' can (and should) easily be explained in the lead of the article itself. There is no logical reason to use 'Ganga' instead of 'Ganges' which is the common name for this subject. Flamarande (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

text: It was the same editor too who, one day prior, added the example to the NCGN guideline which he then cited in that edit summary: . This seems to go back to this discussion. --JN466 13:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I started my English education in 1972, my geography books always called the river Ganga, as they do now. I would consider corruption of names and continued use even after correction very offensive. Ganges is an exonym, just as Eskimo, Lapp, Gypsy, Coolie, Negro, Kaffar are. English has decided to grow up and allow users to call themselves as they would. Indians by an overwhelming majority prefer to call the river Ganga in English and not in Gujarati or Tamil. The continuing refusal to do so is derogatory, offensive, insensitive and racist. One reason has been given that wikipedia would follow, US/ UK, Britannica, is Wikipedia designed to be the eternal follower? The UN acknowleges that it is necessary to give Giving priority to domestic name forms, endonyms, means that both the need for unambiguity and respect for the cultural-historical values embodied in names are respected., which is clear and unambiguous enough move Ganges to Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparing Ganges to Lapp, Gypsy, Coolie, Negro, Kaffar and arguing that "English has decided to grow up and allow users to call themselves as they would" is unwise. Your argument that: "The continuing refusal to do so is derogatory, offensive, insensitive and racist" was proven wrong already (read above) and is simply pitiful. Then you decide to use the UN, a political organization, in this debate? Sir, I believe that you are over-reacting in face of the opinion of your fellow users, who simply don't agree with you in this matter. If I were you, Sir, I would take a very deep breath and cool down. Flamarande (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Withdraw the proposal for the moment?
 

message: http://india.gov.in/knowindia/rivers.php
No offense intended --SpArC (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please it is easy to get excited. But the best approach is to stick to the rules and to the point. And to ensure that every contribution can be backed up by wp:rs, even on talk pages. It is better to ignore insults and snide remarks, and refrain from passing them. Sorry for unsolicited advice, I know it is easy to get exasperated. I request you to strike out the angry comments please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. If you want to ditch Western Imperialism, how about dropping English as an official language? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: बिल्कुल सही. हम ब्रिटिश साम्राज्य बिना कहाँ होगा?  (by your request, Seb.)It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 14:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be no discussion about this 

message: As I mentioned earlier, many placenames have been anglicised and are generally accepted in English - eg. Rome for Roma, Athens for Athena, and so on (and this same process also happens in the reverse many other languages - eg. Londres for London in Spanish). While we are at it - why can't we insist that the French change their use of Anglais for English, and the Spanish change Inglés to the "proper" name for this language? 
This sort of naturally-occuring process does not usually seem to cause much angst as far as I am aware. However, in this case it appears that some people feel very strongly that Ganga should be accepted in English in place of the well-established and well-recognised name in English (and other languages), Ganges. If so, the process should then be carried over into other languages as well, eg. Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Danish, Swedish German and Latin - to name a few, where it is written Ganges; Italian and French where it is written Gange, etc. So, one can see that to establish Ganga internationally will be a massive (and probably, impossible, job). And what about the poor Bengalis (who, after all, are probably even more dependent on the river than anyone else}, who write it (in romanised form) as Gônga? 
There are at least two additional reasons for not using Ganga: first, most English speakers seeing the word "Ganga" would immediately associate it with the drug cannabis (and pronounce in "ganja"}. Secondly, and more importantly, if Ganga did become established it would mean that English speakers (and those of numerous other languages) would have to be aware of both usages or they would not recognise references to the river in earlier writings. 
No, I think this whole arguement is a case of misguided and futile nationalism and should be abandoned immediately before things become even more confusing. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect logic. (1)The point is not about international establishment in all the languages that use the Roman script, the point is whether it is appropriate to use the Romanisation  in an Indian English article. Hypothetically if lots of Indians start using Spanish, and prefer to use the Romanisation Ganga, then that would reflect on the Spanish Romanisation too. (2)Gônga is not a romanisation it is pronunciation help, using phonetic script. See all the results for Gônga  (3)A person acquainted with Indian English is unlikely to associate Ganga(Ganga) with ganja. Plus one decides by context, bed has many meanings bed of roses, bed in brick laying, bed to sleep on, bed as a metaphor for copulation and so on, there would be no catastrophe, there is always the context to confirm the meaning. (4)See the result for "Ganga drug", they generate the comment Showing results for ganja drug. Search instead for ganga drug, also searching for "Ganga drug" again gives a mixed bag, and not just ganja or Cannabis, obviously a small minority associates Ganga with ganja in that Ganga is a slang for ganja, however their number can only be measured in ppm, the use of a word as slang cannot confuse its meaning, perhaps the spelling Ganga for ganja could also be related to the fact that Ganga is an Indian river and ganja an Indian product, and the etymology of the spelling has been influenced by the river apart from the obvious confusion with the G sound, Kwami referred to Rastafarian origins of Ganga as the basis for bringing the slang to English. However the Wikipedia article on Rastafarian movement uses the spelling Ganja, there is no confusion.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I must admit that the spelling ganga for ganja was new to me prior to this conversation, so speaking for myself, it is not something that would have confused me. But I grant you that there may be others for whom it may be an issue. Also please note #Google_books above. --JN466 06:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Continuing on confusion, the word Indian is confusing, half the time it means native Americans the other half the times it means Indians from India. That must be very confusing to Americans. Does John Hill suggest changing the name to Bharat? That is how the country is described in English in the Indian constitution India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. No confusion great combination.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a whole separate issue; I suppose you've seen Native American name controversy? But I can say that Americans are rarely confused about what people are being referred to when the word "Indian" is used. Context makes it rapidly clear, and the contexts in which people talk about "American Indians" or "Asian Indians" are almost always very different and obvious.  Just saying. Pfly (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (1)No, I haven't seen Native American name controversy, Wikipedia is not my one-dish meal, and USA is not on the moon. An American of English-German parentage is married to my first cousin, another lives in, Calgary Canada, two of my cousins lived in Washington, my college room mate is in NJ, VP with Citibank, and our ex-driver's son is in NY, works in a lamination factory, and my college junior is a professor teaching Remote sensing, his web-site has a photo of him with Hillary, he was in Colorado and is now in NY, the son of my one of my Rotary colleagues is a medical doctor in Texas, another has her daughter in Chicago doing nursing, my family doctor has emigrated to the US, and his two daughters and their husbands are doctors, one lives in Wisconsin another in Georgia, my friend is married to a person doing post-doc research in San Jose, California, a school class mate's daughter is learning flying in Florida, all my co-students who specialised in Computers have spent some time in the US,... a very long and boring list, a telephone call to the US from India costs less than Rs. 0.75 per minute, in the plan I had. I hope you have got the point. I do not want to argue about the above, I just wish you ask yourself whether you have sincerely believe what you have written. (2)You state that the context is important and there would be no confusion. Exactly what I wish to convey.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm not sure I have gotten the point. I was just responding to "...must be very confusing to Americans" with admittedly anecdotal opinion. I did not mean to suggest anything at all about your use of Wikipedia or your relatives & acquaintances. Re, (2), I'm not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing! No matter though--this is all quite tangential to the Ganges/Ganga River. Pfly (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganga versus Ganges and the confusions it may cause 

message: Dear Yogesh: I certainly don't want to get in a slanging match with you but I cannot understand the first point you made above under the heading Incorrect logic. that this article is an "Indian English" article. This is an article on the English version of the Wikipedia which means it should (I contend) use "standard English" as far as possible. For such reasons (other than in exceptional circumstances) I would not use "roo" for "kangaroo", much less the "original" form of "gangarru", as this would likely be confusing to many, if not most, readers. Nor would I nromally use the slang term "Trini" for "Trinidadian" as it is unlikely to be recognised by most non-West Indians or cricket fans. 
I am happy to drop the Ganga/ganja confusion as it really doen't lead anywhere and seems to be just inflaming the discussion.
No, of course I do not advocate using Bharat for India because of the most unfortunate common use of "Indians" for many of the native peoples of the Americas. Firstly, "India" is used (as far as I am aware) ONLY for the country. Secondly the word "Indian" should, I believe, be generally understood to refer to people from India or of Indian descent, unless the context makes it clear that the people referred to are natives of the Americas. If this is not clear from the context, I believe it should be clearly specified. This is certainly an area where English has developed an extremely confusing and unfortunate situation. As a child growing up in Trinidad we often had to specify that we were talking about "East Indian West Indians"! Such is language - never a perfect vehicle, but certainly an essential tool which needs to be used as clearly and responsibly as possible. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (1)I am glad that you have stated that it is easy to know what a word means from its context. Little scope for confusion. (2)East Indian, West Indian etc like Ganges are exonyms. As you have shared from your experience, troublesome to put it most mildly. (3)Ganga is very much mainstream as the name of the river, it got more ghits than Ganges, won the Google fight with Ganges. (4)Ganga is also the endonym. Which the United Nations guides should be used when refering to a place. (5)This article carries the Indian English template. It means the language will have an Indian flavour. That is wikipedia policy too. There is no such thing as standard English, except perhaps Newspeak. (6) Ganga is how it is refered to in English in India it is not an Indian language word it is an Indian English word. (7)It is not slang. It is the official and popular name of the river. (8)I am also happy that we agree about Ganja (9)There are too many threads running. Will you please relocate this one. May I? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: as a general assessment of talk page, i see the consensus is seems to be towards Ganges. Yogesh is waging a losing fight and losing all his credibility along with. For the record, born and brought up in India, I have never known Ganga to be Ganges until late in life.  I see equally valid arguments on both sides of the issue. Like some have suggested, just waiting out for a few years is not going to change anything as Ganges is always known as Ganga in India and my parents wouldnt recognize what Ganges is if you told them. In other words, I just find it interesting that wikipedia has an article on one of the most popular and sacred rivers of India which an overwhelming majority of Indians wouldnt recognize if mentioned to. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --CarTick (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (1)Numbers do not make the case weak. All the points raised have been countered. (2)I don't know how a person can loose his credibility if a move does not materialise.  (3)The debate isn't dead, and the allusion to making a dead horse move, would be insulting to other editors too, esp. those who have spent hours finding evidence and presenting in a proper format. (4)Unless someone can come up with a new reason for not moving, the move should take place, though I don't know the nuts and bolts. (5)Note Flam. before my words fell on the floor, we have an editor who finds Ganges unrecognisable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just find it daft that the Wikimedia Foundation is about to open an office in India and we can't even see our way clear to using Indian English on an article like this. --JN466 16:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: “The community in India should lead and Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) will follow them.” Mr. Wales, Ibid. Though that is not evident here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read above. The arguments is not derogatoryness but Local over global, can we use Negro just because United Negro College Fund exists. IIT Powai calls itself IIT Bombay, should we change Mumbai to Bombay for that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I looked around but was unable to find anything about withdrawing a move-request. Is that even possible (I guess one could ask an administrator)? However the debate lasted for so long and got the votes of so many users that it is probably better to wait for the final decision. The process was started, ran for a long time already, we may as well wait for the final results. Afterwards you can freely appeal to whoever instances you wish to. No comments about your POV-suggestion. Flamarande (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is closed with the decision to remain "Ganges", I would recommend to those wishing to propose the move again in the future to write a short summary of the main points raised in this long discussion. Like that comparisons such as Vienna/Wein are not a valid reason to oppose. Pfly (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A summary is a good idea to avoid repetition of the same arguments again but I think it's better to have it in the form of a FAQ template at the top of the talk page. We should say in the FAQ that this issue has been discussed and the name remains Ganges due to a 2:1 vote. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Zuggernaut, I do not like the idea of looking at people's background, and assuming bias. If I have done so before, or if it came across that I was insinuating bias, I have retracted my statements. It does not and should not work that way. For example most work here has been done by Jayen, who is not an ethnic Indian. I would like to keep the discussion to the points that have been said, in favour and against the move. And then weigh the issue, to check in whose favour the move proposal goes Ganga or Ganges. On the other-hand we could engage all those who have opposed the move, for them to give the wikireason why the move should not happen, we need somebody uninvolved to do so, Pfly, you have been neutral, right from the beginning, will you arbitrate. This is how I propose. First you have to make a statement (1)If the move prospers can prove this then the move happens if not then it doesn't. (2)Both the parties should agree to the above statement which defines the rules of the game. (3)Then the game can start. (4)Your decision will then be binding, on both the parties. Any takers? I will leave a message on Kwami's page, for him to take a look. As a summary I draw attention of editors here to wp:NOTDEMOCRACY Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just provided the numbers in a summary, tabular form. I didn't mean anything personal about anyone. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Ragib, please do not call names, looking at infoboxes cannot be construed as snooping. Please participate in the debate on based on wikirules. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about, Yogesh? It appears to have nothing to do with this discussion. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm simply presenting the data in a matter-of-fact manner, there's nothing grave about - it is well documented in the FAQ for the NPOV policy. It's unfortunate that you find it distasteful. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comment 

message: I agree with CarTick's comments. Here are some specific comments about this debate based on information on this talk page and userboxes:
Geographical locations of editors who voted in the Ganga v. Ganges debate
Position          	Location	Number
Against Ganga (23)	India   	0
Against Ganga (23)	West    	13
Against Ganga (23)	Unknown 	10
Support Ganga (13)	India   	6
Support Ganga (13)	West    	2
Support Ganga (13)	Unknown 	5
Neutral (1)       	Unknown 	1
Total votes (36)  	        	36
I've assumed the definition of West as those who live in North America, EU and Australia. Of the two people from the West who voted in favor of Ganga, one is an Indian living in the UK.
This is a clear POV victory (assuming Yogesh will concede) for those from the West. This is nothing new and it is in fact a well known problem not too different from the experience I had at the FAR/C at British Empire. I came to the same conclusion there. As pointed out by CarTick, this debate may have run its course. Once Yogesh accepts that this debate/vote should now be closed, I will go ahead and initiate the next logical steps by taking it to the project setup to counter the bias to seek a solution to the problem. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked around but was unable to find anything about withdrawing a move-request. Is that even possible (I guess one could ask an administrator)? However the debate lasted for so long and got the votes of so many users that it is probably better to wait for the final decision. The process was started, ran for a long time already, we may as well wait for the final results. Afterwards you can freely appeal to whoever instances you wish to. No comments about your POV-suggestion. Flamarande (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is closed with the decision to remain "Ganges", I would recommend to those wishing to propose the move again in the future to write a short summary of the main points raised in this long discussion. Like that comparisons such as Vienna/Wein are not a valid reason to oppose. Pfly (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A summary is a good idea to avoid repetition of the same arguments again but I think it's better to have it in the form of a FAQ template at the top of the talk page. We should say in the FAQ that this issue has been discussed and the name remains Ganges due to a 2:1 vote. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Zuggernaut, I do not like the idea of looking at people's background, and assuming bias. If I have done so before, or if it came across that I was insinuating bias, I have retracted my statements. It does not and should not work that way. For example most work here has been done by Jayen, who is not an ethnic Indian. I would like to keep the discussion to the points that have been said, in favour and against the move. And then weigh the issue, to check in whose favour the move proposal goes Ganga or Ganges. On the other-hand we could engage all those who have opposed the move, for them to give the wikireason why the move should not happen, we need somebody uninvolved to do so, Pfly, you have been neutral, right from the beginning, will you arbitrate. This is how I propose. First you have to make a statement (1)If the move prospers can prove this then the move happens if not then it doesn't. (2)Both the parties should agree to the above statement which defines the rules of the game. (3)Then the game can start. (4)Your decision will then be binding, on both the parties. Any takers? I will leave a message on Kwami's page, for him to take a look. As a summary I draw attention of editors here to wp:NOTDEMOCRACY Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just provided the numbers in a summary, tabular form. I didn't mean anything personal about anyone. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Ragib, please do not call names, looking at infoboxes cannot be construed as snooping. Please participate in the debate on based on wikirules. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about, Yogesh? It appears to have nothing to do with this discussion. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm simply presenting the data in a matter-of-fact manner, there's nothing grave about - it is well documented in the FAQ for the NPOV policy. It's unfortunate that you find it distasteful. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: From general to specific comments

message: The example making an exception for Ganga on wp:COMMONNAME, is no longer there. Editors above who have based their opinion on wp:COMMONNAME are requested to put in their views a fresh. Of-course, one has to wait for the stability of the particular edit on wp:COMMONNAME regarding Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is back. We should wait for the matter to settle down.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's gone again. --SpArC (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello editors 

message: Making out that moving Ganges to Ganga would be the same as moving Vienna to Wien, or Finland to Suomi, is a strawman argument, and I would respectfully request that editors stop making it, because it degrades the quality of the debate. No one is advocating such moves; I certainly am not. 
The difference between Ganga and Wien, or Suomi, is that Ganga is an established English usage. As I have shown above, modern English writings about this river are more frequently titled "... Ganga ..." than "... Ganges ...". Could we please discuss that, and how it bears on this discussion. Thanks. --JN466 13:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply to Flamarande (Numbers in parenthesis, are points as numbered by Flamarande.)(1) I am sorry for the misspelling, I have corrected it. My point is proved by your reaction. You are so sensitive about proper representation of a username, but you deny the same for a river. I wish you would explain that. (2) I had left a link, to make clear what I was referring to. (3) (4)and (5) My mistake, it looks bad, it reads Flamarande is opposing the move, so he is racist. Which is allusive. it has been struck out, and apologies.  How do I present this, when we went to school, and our books had pictures of an igloo, a house of ice, built by Eskimos, we too used the word, we did not mean it to be a slur, today it is considered pejorative in Canada and Greenland. I wish to convey that Ganges carries the same connotations. A few years ago we had a Finnish GSE team, visit our club, all white Europeans, I introduced Finland to our club, and mentioned the Sami people and their language. Later one of them came over and said he was pleased that I did not use the word Lapp. I hope what I mean to say is conveyed, that the usage is painful is an understatement, quite a few editors apart from me who have contributed to this page find it racist, derogatory usw, please check the archives. (6)I pass that, someone should write to the ToI, refer to this discussion, share links of statistics and get them answer the question. (7)Gosh! UN is a very good source, a very reliable source, which is there to be quoted, as evidence, to prove a point. Why do you make it look like I am dragging it into a dung-heap. However the move is not proposed on the basis of the fact that Ganges is derogatory, but on the fact that Wikipedia prefers endonymsYogesh Khandke (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You link to WP:ENGVAR which does not mention endonyms; ENGVAR concerns things like how to handle ize/ise or airplane/aeroplane. The guideline concerning article titles is WP:COMMONNAME which is essentially  Scanning the refs/links in Ganges does not support the suggestion to rename as Ganga. It is not the role of Wikipedia to promote a particular name, we simply need to wait until the general English-speaking world adopts a different name. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the summary of google books and google scholar results above. Ganga occurs more often in titles of English-language sources than Ganges. --JN466 05:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: As far as cited sources are concerned (there are only 17), they seem to be pretty evenly split (see analysis below). --JN466 18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Strawmen

message: I've added a FAQ template at the top of the page and populated it with two items. Please continue adding the summary of the move discussion to that template in a FAQ format. Having as many direct links to the discussion we just had will help avoiding getting in to the same arguments over and over again in the near or medium-term future. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQ template