Talk:Kolkata/Archive 3

Naming of title
When did this get moved to "Calcutta" from "Kolkata"? Was there a vote and/or a record of consensus? WhisperToMe 00:59, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) Never mind - it has. WhisperToMe 01:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought we had settled on Calcutta. What happened? john k 09:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Where and how was this settled? Gzornenplatz 12:00, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Gzornenplatz, unfortunately I was a part of the discussion. I cited the fact that Kolkata has not only become the official name in the last few years, but it is the name that has been used by Bengalis, the majority populace in Bengal (gee big wonder) and that it in fact predates "Calcutta" in usage since both names stem from the name "Kalikata" (which is still used in books). Even prominent figures of Kolkata like Satyajit Ray and Rabindranath Tagore, who worked primarily in Bengali, called the city Kolkata in Bengali; they did, however, in English, use the name Calcutta. With all these variations in naming, I was informed that since this is an English wikipedia it caters to 'predominant' English usage and gauges like "Google Hits" reveal that Calcutta is more used than Kolkata. This is not the case with Mumbai and Bombay: the Google search turns up more hits for the former. Thus, it has been necessary to give an intro on it. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:20, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not that simple. It was renamed only in 2001, and many of the Google hits will date from before that time. So it doesn't prove anything if Calcutta gets more hits than Kolkata. Has there been a vote, or how was this "settled"? I think it should definitely be at Kolkata. Gzornenplatz 15:27, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Not only does this apply to all pre-2001 websites, but logically all historical references to the city found on google would refer to 'calcutta'. Thus the google-hits-estimation is greatly overrated as a popularity measure. --Soman 05:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was at Kolkata, there was a lengthy discussion. Something of a majority seemed to favor Calcutta. It was moved to Calcutta. Nobody objected for several months...that's about as settled as it gets, in my opinion, and people shouldn't just move it back without any discussion. That said, I would be happy to discuss the question again, but I don't like it when issues that have been discussed at length are brought up again due to someone's unilateral action without any discussion. john k 18:42, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't see "something of a majority" favouring Calcutta in the discussion on this page, the only tally I see shows 5-4 for Kolkata. So it seems as if the move to Calcutta was unilateral. Gzornenplatz 21:50, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

There was discussion on a poll page somewhere. I don't recall the location of the page, unfortunately. At any rate, that move was made in the midst of a lengthy discussion. People like Surya, who believed it should remain at Kolkata, accepted the move at the time. As such, even if the move itself was unilateral (and I'm not sure who moved it - I know I did not), the move was made in the public eye while a lot of people were talking about the article, and nobody objected to it. As such, people should attempt to open discussion again rather than moving it back without any discussion at all. That is to say, I'm not saying that the article should necessarily remain at Calcutta. Merely that it's bad form to move a page over which there's been discussion before without attempting any discussion beforehand. john k 22:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem is, Gzornenplatz, the criteria for naming the article page are extremely narrowly-defined and rather 'quantitative.' They don't take into account, for example, how long webpages have been up, whether or not they're updated to reflect recent understandings of nomenclature, etc. Thus, with things like Google hits, "Calcutta" easily outstrips "Kolkata". When one speaks of international acceptance of an official name, the history of the name itself (it's not, in this case, a new concoction but a historically old name, one that was actually bastardized into Calcutta), they say that one is being POV or is catering to 'ideal forms', normative values of what should be, and not representing fact (that of predominant usage). Speaking of the insulting nature of imposing foreign names on native cities doesn't apply, since much that is Indian has British influence and many people use the Western names, through force of habit, in preference to the native ones, primarily when speaking in English.
 * That brings me to the last point: this is an English encyclopaedia. At this point, the only way you'll succeed in changing the article name is to convince a large enough number of active Wikipedians that the current standard for naming is wrong and should be entirely changed or at least emended for specific situations (i.e. country names) at which point I forsee others speaking of the slippery slope: what about other 'exceptional' cases in encyclopaedic reporting? You've got a task. I gave up four months ago :,(  --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:23, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Since it's Mumbai and Chennai now, instead of Bombay and Madras, and Wikipedia uses those former two names, it's probably time to be consistent and use Kolkata here instead of Calcutta. -- Curps 21:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I don't quite understand this. In Wikipedia we use Cologne instead of Köln, Florence instead of Firenze, Venice instead of Venezia, Moscow instead of Moskva, because they're the standard names for these cities in the English-speaking world and this is an English language encyclopaedia. Why should Indian cities be special cases? Most people outside India (and, I believe, many people inside as well) still call them Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. Most historical articles, to avoid being anachronistic, will (and should) use those names. Most links will be to those names. That should therefore be our default usage. -- Necrothesp 13:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * English is not among the official languages of Germany, Italy, or Russia. Such is not the case for India, where English is the second official language and de facto lingua franca, and when speaking English in India the name is "Kolkata."  In the Wikipedia we title articles under their current names, and reference  them accordingly: I might write "the British established their colonial capital at Calcutta, now Kolkata ," for instance.  ADH (t&m) 12:29, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * "In the Wikipedia we title articles under their current names". No we don't. Actually we usually use the commonly used name, which is still Calcutta, probably in India as well as elsewhere. I quote from Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". And that, I'm afraid, is definitely Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. -- Necrothesp 13:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, a majority of unenlightened English speakers world would recognise the name. (PS This statement is generalised and not directed to any person). A redirect from Calcutta to Kolkata would certainly give the reader factual information on the current name. Nichalp 20:20, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree that most people would search for "Calcutta". So from that point of view I would favor it to stay under that name. All the same the solution proposed by Nichalp seems acceptable to me. So people find it all the same under Calcutta but at the same time learn it has been renamed. Vanderesch 08:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta, Kolkata in Bengali letters
I am removing the Bengali writing of Kolkata from the parantheses of "Calcutta" and placing it next to Kolkata. The reason is that Bengali is a phonetic language (largely) and the Bengali given spells "kol-kaataa". Nothing else. There is no other possibility. In order to spell out Calcutta I would have to use a completely different spelling Bengali. However, I would also oppose putting that in the page because noone who speaks or writes Bengali has ever called it "Calcutta" while working in the Bengali language. That is why writing "Calcutta" in Bengali is an exercise in phonetics, not the writing of a word in Bengali. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:20, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia now uses Mumbai and Chennai instead of Bombay and Madras (the latter are redirects). For consistency, it's time to use Kolkata here instead of Calcutta.

Yes, this has been discussed before, but I note that all the news reports about the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake talk about Chennai and not Madras. This is an indication that the "new" names are here to stay, and Kolkata is one of them. So I'm "being bold".

-- Curps 21:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Drastic cleanup required
Does anyone watch this page? Firstly the name does not keep in pace with Mumbai and Chennai. Either we have Calcutta, Bombay and Madras or Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai. Next, the page is in a pitiable state. Lots of matter, ridiculously brief heading content, unnecessary text on the page and a poor writing style. Urgent work is required. Nichalp 20:36, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't watching this page until today, when I made a weak attempt at beginning the cleanup process. I started by correcting a few egregious spelling errors, then wound up rewriting a few neighboring sentences, and like you quickly came to realize how bad the page really was.  I'm afraid I barely made a dent, lacking the time required for a serious cleanup effort, but hope to come back to it soon.  ADH (t&m) 12:43, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * The page is really bad and seems to be more of a list of peoples names. I wish I could commit myself, but I have pledged to do a lot of pending articles. The names should go first. Also be sure to use British spellings to maintain consistency as per Wikipedia guidelines.


 * I'd have to argue for Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras...I would, however, note that Kolkata is much rarer outside India than Mumbai - there was much go round about this. Don't remember if Chennai/Madras was addressed at that time. john k 14:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Consistency should be the key. It may be still known as Calcutta, but keeping with the name change and to keep up with Mumbai and Chennai, it should be Kolkatta. Nichalp 18:33, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Added three images on Howrah Bridge, Victoria Memorial and Eden Gardens. Nichalp 18:33, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could put the whole business up for a vote at Requested moves? Propose either moving Chennai and Mumbai to Madras and Bombay or moving Calcutta to Kolkata. john k 22:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes that would be better. However as far as the international popularity of the new name is concerned, the World Book and MS Windows XP are already using the new names. Nichalp 18:05, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Merge from City of Palaces
(Copied from Talk:City of Palaces. Someone had already added all the material from City of Palaces, so I just turned the page into a redirect. 68.81.231.127 03:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC))

From VfD:

Assuming that this isn't a copyvio, merge into Calcutta. RickK 19:38, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * hm. We have pages for Second city and the Big Apple; on one hand this would seem to be a parallel, on the other I don't see anything here that wouldn't be better off in the main article.  If there was something a bit more notable about the phrase or its history (as there is for Big Apple) I'd vote keep; as it stands I abstain.  Jgm 19:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Information is of some value but I agree with Rick. It should be merged into Calcutta. Arevich 21:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into Calcutta. - Kenwarren 21:37, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I just copy-pasted into the "City of Palaces" subsection that was waiting at Calcuuta and it seems fine. Edit it there and delete this orphan stub. Wetman 21:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) comment moved off main vfd page. Rossami
 * Keep it separate. Link it to Calcutta. anon comment moved off main vfd page. Rossami
 * If merging, use the City Of Palaces page as a redirect though    - Master Of Ninja 21:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in its present form, just link it to Calcutta. No need to make the reader search Calcutta for the info. A tag line like "City of Palaces" or "The Windy City" or what-have-you serves as a nice point of departure for an article about the city proper. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;obviously enough information to discuss nickname in its own right. Postdlf 13:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion