Talk:Calcutta/Vote

Untitled

 * Please add comments in the Move discussion section not in the Reasons or Votes sections. Sign and date all comments, using the Wikipedia special form "~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically.

Reasons
This has been discussed here several times without coming to a clear consensus. Although it has been suggested that this be brought up on Requested moves, it does not appear that it ever has been. I think it's time this was discussed at RM, and with the new system of placing discussion on the talk page, I hope that there will be enough participation to reach a clear consensus (hope I'm doing this right, by the way). Reasons for moving are as follows: Kolkata is the currently official name, changed in 2001 I believe. Bombay has already been moved to Mumbai and Madras to Chennai. Several sources support the usage of "Kolkata", such as the CIA World Factbook, the United Nations Cartographic Department (note this is a PDF file), the Encyclopaedia Britannica (not sure if this refers to the city as "Calcutta" in other places, though), and Encarta. I tried checking CNN.com but got mixed results. Reasons not to move include that "Kolkata" is not as well-known as "Calcutta" (while "Mumbai" and "Chennai" are relatively well known), and we should be using the most commonly-known term. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 07:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note that there was a fairly conclusive poll at Naming policy poll which specifically concerned this article, and the outcome of this poll was that this article should stay at "Calcutta" until it can be demonstrated that the majority of contemporary English language usage is "Kolkata". Nohat 03:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC). There is a FAQ explaining the rationale behind the current policy at Naming policy poll/FAQ. Nohat 20:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "which specifically concerned this article"? I've read it and it seems to be a general poll, not about this specific article, although Calcutta/Kolkata was discussed at length in it. Elf-friend 22:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * * Has anybody noticed that, by that poll's own rules "(Q: What is the basis that distinguishes the list of "Affected articles" versus "Not clear-cut enough"? A: It is based on whether or not the Google hit ratio is greater than 2 to 1 or not.)", Kolkata/Calcutta has in the meanwhile moved from the category "Affected articles" to "Not clear-cut enough"? (1,950,000 Google hits for Calcutta and 1,060,000 for Kolkata, giving a ratio of about 1.83 - if the search is restricted to English.)
 * * How do we determine "the majority of contemporary English language usage"? I think that using (only) Google to determine this is open to many objections, including the Internet's systemic bias. Elf-friend 23:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some more compelling reasons for a support vote: Consistency in wikipedia. Here's why... Why would we refer Burma with the new name Myanmar in wikipedia... Why is Peking called Beijing, why is Rangoon called Yangôn (i didnt even know its new name, many people I spoke to think so too), why is Canton now Guangzhou. These are called so, since they are the offical names. Wikipedia reflects the new names in these cases and the older names are redirected to the new name. Not doing this would be technically incorrect. The old name redirecting to the new name addresses the needs of those who havent switched to the new name. Wikipedia should reflect the official English name chosen by the city. Accuracy is essential for an encyclopedia like wikipedia. Arunram 16:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voting

 * Please number, sign and date votes with: #~

edit Support section

Support
edit Oppose section
 * 1) Desai 11:25, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ragib 18:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Urnonav 08:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Soman 10:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Arunram 18:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Nichalp 18:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Jonathunder 00:43, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
 * 8) gadfium 01:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Blank Verse   &empty;  08:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Madhavim 10:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Courtland 18:45, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
 * 12) kaal 06:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) The bellman 15:28, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * 14) --ALargeElk | Talk 16:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Jooler 16:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) (changed my vote).
 * 16) Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 16:49, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * 17) Alai 03:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) I think Calcutta and Kolkata are merely different English spellings of the same name.  Going with the Indians' chosen transliteration shows respect for their self-determination.  Michael Z. 2005-03-6 16:32 Z
 * 19) Curps 18:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) *If Kolkata is good enough for The Economist and the Times of India, it's good enough for me...
 * 21) Pradipta 14:04, 6 Mar 2005 (EST)
 * 22) --SPUI (talk) 01:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Spundun 01:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) *I suggest putting the text near the top of the article that states "In 2001, indian government changed the official english spelling of the city to Kolkata. A lot of english speaking people still refere to it as Culcutta." or something like that.
 * 25) Kolkata is its English name. Wikipedia should reflect the fact, not the supposition of the ignorant.Dr Zen 03:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) While others know me for my established history of voting in favor of traditional, imperialist English names, English is the second official language of India.  This move is consistent with our naming conventions for other Indian cities, such as Mumbai and Chennai.  A.D.H. (t&m) 06:42, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) The city has changed its name to Kolkata in English, and this is the English Wikipedia. SlimVirgin 07:25, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Demi 08:15, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
 * 29) Vanderesch 08:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) If Mumbai and Chennai are there to stay than "Kolkata" must have it's change. As a redirect from "Calcutta"
 * 30) One Salient Oversight 22:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) Even if it could be demonstrated that Calcutta is more popular, the fact is that Kolkata is far more likely to be used as time passes. Let's get with the future.
 * 31) Calcutta is historical name. Calling Kolkata as Calcutta is like insisting that Istanbul be moved to Constantinople. utcursch | talk 12:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) jguk 21:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) I note that, with one exception, all WPians from the subcontinent support the change.
 * 33) Elf-friend 14:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC). Since when has Google been the final authority on common usage of a term/word? There's a whole world out there that is not linked to Google! Besides, since English is an official language of India and there are probably more English speakers in India than all of the other English-speaking countries combined, I would say that in terms of common usage "Kolkata" wins hands down. Certainly a country should have the right to rename legacies of its colonial past? And for those voting "Oppose" - could you please explain to me why article titles such as Luftwaffe, Unsere Besten, De Grootste Nederlander and Suuret Suomalaiset have been allowed? Afterthought: isn't Wikipedia usurping India's national sovereignty by not changing the article title? :-)
 * 34) Dewet 14:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC). Name according to own country's standards. Tough luck that the rest of the world got it wrong.
 * 35) Dmcdevit 23:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) With a redirect, it is no hardship for a Westerner who doesn't know the less common name to find it. Plus, could any of the opposers please explain why New York is named "New York" in the Danish, German, Finnish, French, Dutch, Swedish, etc. Wikipedias (That would be the most popular WP's with a similar alphabet)? I see it as the same principle--Dmcdevit 23:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Anuragjain 09:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Srs 22:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Like it or not, Wikipedia should use the current, correct, official name.
 * 38) pamri 06:19, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) QuartierLatin1968 19:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC). Ditto Dmcdevit and Elf-friend. Hope it's not too late to cast a vote.
 * 40) Tobias Conradi 02:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) we should not look for most common usage. That is a little bit like to state nonsens if this nonsens is widespread. Do not be shy, we can educate the readers.
 * 41) Lochaber 18:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) As long as Calcutta redirects to Kolkata and says "formarly known as Calcutta" what's the big deal, ppl will still be able to find it? There is already precedent with Mumbai and Chennai. Besides it'll help people notice that they have chosen an official spelling.
 * 42) We at Kolkata pronounce and write it Kolkata and I demand that you respect our right to be called by our chosen name. I believe that calling a person by a nickname is done only by his closest friends and when done by anyone else it's considered disrespectful. By the way, when are you going to finish and count and then carry out the decision. Going by the current trend, Oppose will never win, only lose by more.

Oppose

 * Jooler 17:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) changed my vote.
 * Wizzy 11:39, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC) common usage have been convinced otherwise
 * 1) RickK 07:11, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Cburnett 07:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Necrothesp 12:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:53, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Susvolans (pigs can fly) 18:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) violet/riga (t) 19:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * john k 21:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) I'm not sure anymore. I don't think I'll vote for a move, but I'm thinking that my reasons for opposing aren't really valid. john k 05:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Nohat 03:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Karada 13:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) R yan!  |  Talk  14:13, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Rmhermen 14:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Waerth 14:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Tuf-Kat 14:32, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 15:03, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) &rarr;Raul654 15:55, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC) - blatant attempt to violate policy with this move
 * 9) Dpbsmith (talk) 16:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Lou I 18:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) &mdash; Matt Crypto  18:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Common usage still looks like it favors Calcutta. That may change in the near future, however. --mav 19:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Zundark 19:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) ugen 64  00:08, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Nunh-huh 00:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Chris 73 Talk 10:28, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) Currently Calcutta seems still to be more common.
 * 17) James F. (talk) 17:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) (But Polls are evil.)
 * 18) Neutralitytalk 18:47, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC) - use common names
 * 19) ALoan (Talk) 19:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) (and also move Mumbai back to Bombay and Chennai to Madras. Being such a dyed-in-the-wool reactionary, I'd probably rather have Beijing at Peking too...)
 * 20) Arvindn 22:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) I hope wikipedia will reflect common usage rather than bend over backwards to the whims of lowlife scumbag politicians.
 * 21) Eugene van der Pijll 22:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) Use most common name.
 * 22) Calcutta remains the most recognised English form, even though there's now a different official transliteration. Something to review in a few years. Jamesday 08:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Audiovideo 14:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) When English has perectly reasonable names, use them in the English Wikipedia. Norwich and Leominster are not pronounced locally as they are written, but nobody suggests moving them to Noridj/Noritch or Lemsta
 * 24) Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 15:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC). If in doubt, consult the BBC: