Talk:Kolkata/Archive 9

Trivia merge

 * The ugly box at the top of the page, linking to a trivia page which was marked as a merger candidate over 6 months ago seems rather useless with no reasoning given behind the initial merger proposal. --Stalfur (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea it would be good if it was merged AriS (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a FA article. Trivia does not belong here.  This has already been discussed in the past.  I am going to go ahead and remove the proposal. --Blacksun (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on images
Hi! I am partially copy-pasting an argument in favor of inclusion of two particular images in the article, from the talk page of User:Nikkul who is opposed to the inclusion of this and this images.

Regarding the slum image, you tell that slums do not represent all of Kolkata demographics. Yes, I agree that it does not represent all of Kolkata demographics. For that matter, there is no single image that represent all of the demographics of any city. As the article says, "1.5 million people, who constitute about a third of the city's population, live in 2,011 registered and 3,500 unregistered (occupied by squatters) slums." So, the slum image does represent almost one third of the dwellings. So, it is not merely ornamental in that article.

Regarding the flower vendors image, you say "flower vendors have little to do with economy". Well, it could be vendor of any other kind, like fruit vendor, grocery vendor, or, other hawkers. I am not argumenting in favour of flower vendors only. What I wanna say is, vendors are a part of informal sector of economy, which, according to the article, "until recently ... comprised more than 40% of the labour force." For example, "roadside hawkers generated business worth Rs. 8,772 crore (around 2 billion U.S. dollars) in 2005" (I admit I do not have recent data though). The economy section of the article, so, will be very much representative of the city economy if there are two images—one from IT sector (the booming sector of the day), and one vendor (or any other informal sector image), which has traditionally been a major part of the economy of the city.

Moreover, if you see the FAC of the article, you will see that these two images were particularly praised for giving ,"...an almost tangible understanding of the city to the page" by an uninvolved reviewer. So, I don't see any reason not including those 2 images. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with both the points that these two pictures conveys the intended information. However, image of flower vendors can be replaced by roadside cloth vendors, whom I see as more prominent (and probably they generated a large chunk of that 8772 crore), if such an image is available. On the slum image, earlier, I had some minor objection against the usage of the word 'slum' here, not against the picture and what it represents. In many areas of Calcutta, there are houses like that belonging to families in lower income strata, who were never able to upgrade their household conditions. But, that's what 'slum' means. --GDibyendu (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * User: Nikkul is removing images added by others, probably because he wants to prove that majority of the images in this page has been added by him (as shown in his user page). It seems from his talk page that he does similar image removal from the other pages, where he had added images. I think the current images on this page are fine, unless better alternatives are found. Any views? GDibyendu (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Images in a section that intrude into the next section should not be there (especially in a featured article). So, if needed, images may need to be removed. Now, the question is, which ones to remove. In the "sports" section, for example, there is no need to give 3 images. This is over-crowding. Eden gardens or saltlake stadium is enough, in my opinion. In "culture" section, I would personally like to remove the Dakshineswar temple image and the Jagaddhatri image, and add one Durgapuja image instead. In "Transport" too, there is crowding, 3 images are not needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first point that some images can be removed. My suggestion is to remove Mohun Bagan AC ground image, and to keep the other two: Eden Gardens and Salt Lake Stadium. About culture section, I agree with your suggestion. Personally, I never heard about the 4th image before. In Transport section, I would suggest removing 'Howrah Bridge at night', already there is another pic of Howrah Bridge (in Climate Section). Also, replacing the 3rd image (minibuses in Howrah Station) by some image of metro rail would be better I guess.GDibyendu (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the image on Demographics section
Thanks Nikkul for uploading the pie chart of distribution of religion in Kolkata. Graphs or maps are quite suitable for demographics section, especially when there is no images significantly representing the demographics of the city/state/country in question.

However, the slum image does significantly represent the demographics of Kolkata, becasue:

1. "...about a third of the city's population, live in 2,011 registered and 3,500 unregistered (occupied by squatters) slums", as mentioned in the article. And a third of population of a city is definitely significant.

2. The adequacy and appropriateness of the image had been established in the FAC of the article. No editors (whether directly involved in the article or not) questioned the image's appropriateness. Rather, as I have mentioned earlier, one uninvolved editor particularly praised this (and another image) for "tremendous quality and interest", and, giving "an almost tangible understanding of the city to the page".

While the pie chart of religion is a very good one, and does represent significantly the demographics, it is nothing extra-ordinary (a graphical representation of numerical data already present in the text adds no additional value). Since we have something extra-ordinary in the slum image (almost tangible understanding), the pie chart should be replaced by the image.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The slum image DOES NOT represent the demographics of Kolkata when 66 percent of people DO NOT live in slums. It is understandable to have an image of the slum if 70 percent of people lived in slums, but this is not the case in Kolkata. Every city has slums, Kolkata is not the only one. If you feel that a third of the population is significant, than 2/3 is more "significant" and hence the image should not be there.

The image is pointless. It doesnt even show on full hut. It shows a roof, which is irrelevant to the section. Nikkul (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So, your objection to this image has two aspects. First, according to your opinion, the image does not represent demography of Kolkata, as a third (and not the majority) of the population lives in slum. As I have previously described, it is difficult, if not impossible, to portray/represent the demography (or, for that matter, any aspect such as culture, sports, or, education) of any city of the world in one or two images. Indeed, one-third of population's usual dwelling quite ably represent a part of demography—this is my point of view.
 * Second, you are telling that the image does not even wholly present a single hut. Indeed, in slums, it is tough to find a solitary hut. Usually huts are sticking to one another. Moreover, the image portrays portions of several huts.
 * In any case, you are telling that the image is not appropriate and of inferior quality. Contrary to your opinion, the editors in the FAC of the article not only considered the image appropriate, but one editor even particularly praised it. So, the consensus is, the image is ok in the article.
 * Wikipedia honours consensus. So, if you feel the image is not appropriate, I request you to bring the article for Featured article review. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you agree it is difficult to describe the demography of Kolkata, then how can you say the slum image represents the city when 66 percent of the population doesnt live in slums? Wouldnt it be more appropriate to add a picture of non-slum housing as it would be more appropriate for the demography section? And the editors of the FAC praised the article itself not the slum image. The article includes text, references and other images. So there is no real consensus about this particular image. And I dont think the article needs a featured article review because the text and the article itself is first class. The slum image, though, is very inappropriate for the article. Nikkul (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the deletion of this image. It reflects a significant aspect of the city and its population. Kolkata, for all of its qualities, has slums in which large numbers of its citizens reside. Excluding the image and the living conditions it represents would diminish the balance of the article and its representation of its topic. It should stay. -- KenWalker | Talk 22:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To Nikkul: One of Featured article criteria (criterion 3) is "It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status". In the FAC of Kolkata article, nobody objected to the inclusion of this slum image. So, the consensus was this image can be included. In addition, one reviewer (Giano) praised the image.
 * Since you have the opinion that this image is not appropriate, so you are going against the consensus. But first you have to refute the previous consensus, because you (or I, or anybody else) do not own the article. That is why I told that you are free to bring the article to FAR citing the reason that the article do not satisfy criterion 3. If you think it is not enough reason to bring the article to FAR, you are welcome, and the image stays. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There was never consensus to keep the image specifically. There was just no opposition against it. Fortunately, Wikipedia is a dynamic website, which means that even after an article becomes featured, images and content can be changed. I am not going against any consensus because There was never consensus to keep the Image. To say that an article must be kept untouched after it becomes featured is ridiculious! If I add an image of a house, wouldnt it mean it was more appropriate than the image of a slum since more people live in houses than in slums? Nikkul (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have said correctly that there was no opposition to the image. And to answer you, there was never a consensus to delete the image. In featured article candidacies, we see opposition against inclusion of certain images, because of various reasons, such as inapropriateness, or, inadequacy of copyright status. But in this case, there was no opposition. Since this image did not recieve any oppostion for inappropriateness or inadequate copyright status, the image can be inferred to have appropriately included with adeuate copyright status (in the FAC consensus). However, your opinion is the image was inappropriate. So you have to build a consensus that the image is inappropriate and replace the image with a more appropriate image (more appropriate by consensus, not only your own judgement).
 * Of course you can replace this image/add one image of a house (or anything else), whether the cconcerned article is a featured article or not, if that image is cosidered more appropriate by consensus. That's what I am telling. Please give the proof of a consensus against this image, and in fvour of another image, and then remove this image. Meanwhile, this image stays (since nobody opposed this image's inclusion in the FAC or afterwards, except you, and you do not own wikipedia). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Under this topic, "Discussion on the image on Demographics section", Nikkul has objected to what he considers the overly-squalid-looking slum image, and under "City of Palaces" someone has objected to what he considers the overly-affluent-sounding "City of Palaces" epithet. Do a one-sided epithet and a one-sided image perhaps balance each other out?

D.achyuta (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

City of Palaces
Calcutta, was often called the city of places, between about 1780 to 1840, because parts of the city consisted of mile upon mile of mansions built by employees of the East India Company. 90% of these imposing buildings either no longer exsist or are in a terribly ramshackle condition, moreover, in the last 70 or 80 years, I would strongly argue that there has been very little noteworthy construction in Calcutta - not even a very tall office building, let alone a new "palace". To call modern Kolkata a "city of palaces" is quite rediculous, indeed it's a mockery of the urban poor, but the article says that modern Kolkata is often described as such. This is made up. I have never heard modern Kolkata described as a city of places, the term in fact means such a cluster of palaces in one area, that they constitute a city unto themselves. So where is this cluster of palaces in Kolkata?

TB


 * Under this topic, "City of Palaces", TB has objected to what he considers the overly-affluent-sounding "City of Palaces" epithet, and under "Discussion on the image on Demographics section" someone has objected to what he considers the overly-squalid-looking slum image. Do a one-sided epithet and a one-sided image perhaps balance each other out?


 * Actually, "City of Palaces" occurs twice on the Kolkata page, once under the History section –


 * Richard Wellesley, the Governor General between 1797–1805, was largely responsible for the growth of the city and its public architecture which led to the description of Kolkata as "The City of Palaces"


 * and once under the Culture section –


 * The "City of Palaces", as Kolkata is often called, is dotted with colonial buildings.


 * Presumably TB has no objection to the first occurrence.


 * D.achyuta (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's good catch. "city of palaces" now removed from the culture section, but retained in History. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

India Images
Nikkul, I enjoyed browsing the images of India that you have collected. Valuable work! Thanks for doing it. I have some I took myself earlier this year which I have stored at hq23 that I could upload to Wikimedia commons if any of them might be useful. -- KenWalker | Talk 23:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sister Cities
Can anyone please add the list of sisiter cities of kol? Rohitom (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sister Cities
Can anyone please add the list of sisiter cities of kol? Rohitom (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rationalizing Kolkata sites
There is a Wikipedia article at wiki/Kolkata_Municipal_Corporation. According to its name it should logically be the Wikipedia's most in-depth article about the KMC, but it is very short and says less about the KMC's political structure, for example, than does the "Civic administration" section of this Kolkata article.

Then there is an article at wiki/Kolkata_district. It contains only four sentences, the first of which is "Kolkata is an administrative district of the Indian state of West Bengal" and the last of which is "The area is under the administration of Kolkata Municipal Corporation." Readers may wonder, "If Kolkata is an administrative district, why does it need to be under the administration of a municipal corporation?" It should be explained that the district is "under" the KMC in terms of civic infrastructure only.

Then there is an article at wiki/Neighbourhoods_in_Kolkata. By "neighbourhoods", it means municipal areas which are part of the Kolkata Metropolitan Area – for example, Barasat Municipality. But in this present Kolkata article, "neighbourhoods" is used as follows: "A characteristic feature of Kolkata is the para or neighbourhoods having a strong sense of community. Typically, every para has its own community club with a clubroom and often, a playing field . . ." The Neighbourhoods in Kolkata article could perhaps be merged into this Kolkata article, but in fact is not even linked to from this article, except in a footnote.

There may well be an existing Wikipedia term for the kind of coordination of different pages whose need I have pointed out here, but I don't know what that term is, so I have used the term "rationalization" of different sites.

There are also the sites wiki/History_of_Kolkata and wiki/Kolkata_Police.

D.achyuta (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to explain that Wikipedia is a free to edit encyclopedia, which grows from the voluntary contribution of lakhs of people round the globe. If you feel there is a need to add or delete something to an article, go ahead and do it yourself. Do ask me if you need any help. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  01:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Now Akhandadarshana has proposed moving material from the Civic administration section of the Kolkata article to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation article. This will help to rationalize things. So let him finish his work, then I will see what more appears to need rearrangement. D.achyuta (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Now thanks to the recent work by Akhandadarshana and Dwaipayan, I think most of the rationalizing problems have been solved. Following up their work, I have so far only touched up the Kolkata_district page to solve the problem I mentioned above. I did only the minimum. Regarding other pages, the only thing that remains from my list above is to think about merging the Neighbourhoods in Kolkata article into the Kolkata article. This would mean that Neighbourhoods in Kolkata would cease to exist.

The following text is now duplicated in the Kolkata page and the KMC page, but maybe there's no harm:

...divided into 141 administrative wards that are grouped into 15 boroughs.... The corporation as the apex body discharges its function through the Mayor-in-Council, consisting of a mayor, a deputy mayor, and ten other elected members. As of 2008, the CPI(M) led Left Front holds the power in KMC. The city also has an apolitical titular post, that of the Sheriff of Kolkata.

D.achyuta (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed map for Civic administration
I have prepared a rough map that illustrates and I think clarifies the "adjacent areas" and also other matters of boundary and jurisdiction as posted in the Civic administration section by me and others. I would like to post a more polished version of this map in the Civic administration section. However, getting a map done professionally would involve some time and expense, so I would like to "test the waters" first – I would like to get some degree of assurance that such a map would not be quickly removed by someone. So before I proceed further, I would like to get the feedback of other editors regarding this rough map. (To view it clearly, you may need to download it and view it with your own software.)

These boundary matters may be of more importance to Kolkata residents than to the average Wikipedia reader, but at least we should not give the reader any wrong impression, and it's hard to avoid giving a wrong impression regarding all the jurisdictions without spelling things out in detail.



Sources:

Lists of police-station areas under the Kolkata Police and under the South 24 Parganas Police are provided by the Ganashakti Ready Reckoner 2005.

National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, Administrative Map of Calcutta, Plate 15, 2nd Edition, 1988, Reg. No. 2844 E/57 – 5002'SS.

National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, District Planning Map Series: Kolkata District, 2001, 2nd printing 2006.

National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, District Planning Map Series: South 24 Parganas District, Reg. No. 106-NA/DP-2000-2000, 1st Edition 2nd printing 2008.

National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation, Dept. of Science & Technology, Govt. of India, District Planning Map Series: North 24 Parganas District, Reg. No. 066-NA/DP-5000-98, First Edition 1998.

Akhandadarshana (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The addition and info that you have provided is correct and highly essential in terms of understanding Kolkata which have a complex civic administration. However as this article is a Featured article and follows Summary style and need to maintain high standards, we cannot accomodate the whole addition into the main article and will rather request you to create a sub article Civic administration of Kolkata and put the gist into the main article. Thanks for your contributions. Amartyabag   TALK2ME  01:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article called "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" which, as has been pointed out on this page, is sketchy in its content. So I think the most logical approach would be to rename that article "Kolkata Municipal Corporation and the Civic Administration of Kolkata" (or, if that title is too long, simply "Civic Administration of Kolkata") and to transfer most of the present Civic administration section of the Kolkata page to that article. However, I'm not sure whether it's possible to rename an article – could you please guide me to instructions as to how to do it?

In transferring material to that article, I think it would be most logical to transfer not only the paragraphs that I added to the Civic administration section in mid-June, but also much of the material that existed in that section prior to any of my edits. Do you think this would be okay?

Akhandadarshana (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest using Kolkata metropolitan area article to place this map. Kolkata Municipal Corporation should be artcile for MC only as it is. --GDibyendu (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have now created an article called Civic Administration of Kolkata. So there are now eight Kolkata articles that I know of:

Kolkata Kolkata_Municipal_Corporation Kolkata_district Neighbourhoods_in_Kolkata History_of_Kolkata Kolkata_Police Kolkata Metropolitan Area Civic Administration of Kolkata

What I have put in the new article and what further I have done:

1. Copied everything from the Civic Administration section of the "Kolkata" article to the new "Civic Administration of Kolkata" article, and placed my map in that new article. (Sorry, the map is still rough -- accurate, to the best of my knowledge, but rough artistically. To get the map redone professionally might be expensive. Does anyone reading this page have the skills to improve it?)

I copied everything to the new "Civic Administration of Kolkata", that is, except:

"The city is divided into 141 administrative wards that are grouped into 15 boroughs. Each of these wards elects a councillor to the KMC. Each borough has a committee consisting of the councillors elected from the respective wards of the borough. The Corporation, through the borough committees, maintains government-aided schools, hospitals and municipal markets and partakes in urban planning and road maintenance. The corporation as the apex body discharges its function through the Mayor-in-Council, consisting of a mayor, assisted by a deputy mayor, and ten other elected members of the KMC. The mayor is responsible for the overall functioning of the KMC and has a tenure of five years. At present, the CPI(M)-led Left Front holds the power in the KMC."

Regarding the placement of the above, see 4. below.

GDibyendu had suggested using the "Kolkata Metropolitan Area" article to place the map. But the area that the map pertains to is that of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Meanwhile, GDibyendu had said, "Kolkata Municipal Corporation should be artcile for MC only as it is." So using this new page for the map seemed like the best solution.

This new page contains links to "Kolkata", "Kolkata Metropolitan Area", "Kolkata Municipal Corporation", "Kolkata District" and "Kolkata Police".

2. Reduced the Civic administration section of the "Kolkata" article down to an outline, and created a link to the new article, where the previous material of this section will now be found.

3. In the "Kolkata Police", "Kolkata Municipal Corporation", and "Kolkata District" pages, also, created links to the new article, and links to each other.

4. Copied to the "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" article the following:

"The city is divided into 141 administrative wards that are grouped into 15 boroughs. Each of these wards elects a councillor to the KMC. Each borough has a committee consisting of the councillors elected from the respective wards of the borough. The Corporation, through the borough committees, maintains government-aided schools, hospitals and municipal markets and partakes in urban planning and road maintenance. The corporation as the apex body discharges its function through the Mayor-in-Council, consisting of a mayor, assisted by a deputy mayor, and ten other elected members of the KMC. The mayor is responsible for the overall functioning of the KMC and has a tenure of five years. At present, the CPI(M)-led Left Front holds the power in the KMC.

"The city also has an apolitical titular post, that of the Sheriff of Kolkata. The Sheriff presides over various city-related functions and conferences. Another ancillary civic body is the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) responsible for the statutory planning and development of the Kolkata Metropolitan Area (KMA). The KMA includes a large suburban hinterland around the urban centres of Kolkata."

Besides copying material from the "Kolkata" article, I also added to the "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" article the following:

"The jurisdiction of the KMC covers the area covered by the Kolkata Police (which in turn covers the area of Kolkata District), but covers an adjacent area as well. See Civic Administration of Kolkata."

5. Added to the Kolkata District article the following:

"Kolkata District is bordered by Howrah District, North 24 Parganas District and South 24 Parganas District."

-- and --

"The jurisdiction of the Kolkata Collector, that is, of Kolkata District, does not include the entire area covered by the Kolkata Police, nor the entire area covered by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. See Civic Administration of Kolkata."

6. Copied to the Kolkata Police article the following --

"The Kolkata Police's entire area comprises eighty-six wards of the KMC in their entirety, plus most of another six KMC wards. "

and added --

"The jurisdiction of the Kolkata Police covers the area of Kolkata District and an adjacent area as well. That adjacent area, like Kolkata District, is within the boundaries of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. . . . But it does not cover the entire KMC area. See Civic Administration of Kolkata."

Akhandadarshana (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Akhandadrshana for the awesome job!! I have tried to tidy up the civic administration article a little bit. Thanks a lot. The Kolkata article probably needs some more copyedit, will try later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * An edit was done to the Civic administration section of the Kolkata article by 220.225.84.122 at 10:57, 24 July 2008. That edit seems to have been in line with what Akhandadarshana says under his point 2 above. So maybe that edit was actually done by Akhandadarshana. Maybe he forgot to log in. Maybe Akhandadarshana could confirm this?


 * That edit was quickly undone by Docku. But maybe it should basically be restored, because it mostly involved moving text to the new article. So if it is not restored, a lot of text is duplicated: in the new article and in the Civic administration section of the Kolkata article. It appears that no text was lost, it was just moved.


 * As part of that edit by 220.225.84.122, there was a link to the new article.


 * Dwaipayan, since you are thinking about copyedit to the Kolkata article, please see that edit of 10:57, 24 July 2008.


 * D.achyuta (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks D.achyuta for bringing this to attention. Yes, I shall consult that edit.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

First, to D.Achyuta: Confirmed. I didn't exactly forget, I logged in and worked on six pages, the next-to-last being "Kolkata" (Civic administration section) and last being this Discussion page. Somehow I became logged out after the fourth page. I realized it after saving the sixth page, so logged in again and corrected that page. But there seemed to be reason to think that no earlier page had been affected.

As you will see above, Amartyabag once wrote:

"The addition and info that you have provided is correct and highly essential in terms of understanding Kolkata which have a complex civic administration. However as this article is a Featured article and follows Summary style and need to maintain high standards, we cannot accomodate the whole addition into the main article and will rather request you to create a sub article Civic administration of Kolkata and put the gist into the main article."

I adopted his suggestion, and on July 24 moved material from "Kolkata" (Civic administration section) to the new "Civic Administration of Kolkata", leaving only a "gist", as requested by Amartyabag, in the section.

Docku soon undid that version of the "Kolkata" article. But I think two of his reasons may have been: 1) I did not appear to have logged in, and 2) he thought that material had been deleted completely from the Wikipedia.

Now that I am logged in and now that I have explained that no material was deleted, but rather it was moved (mostly to the new page, but some to "Kolkata Municipal Corporation"); and now that it is clear that this was all at Amartyabag's request -- perhaps Docku will not object.

Explaining why, under the "Kolkata" page's

Civic administration

heading, there should now appear --


 * Main Article: Civic administration of Kolkata

-- and not --


 * Main Article: Kolkata Municipal Corporation --

The new "Civic administration of Kolkata" article is intended as the full coverage of the topic of the "Kolkata" article's Civic administration section. Information about the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is a subset of information about the civic administration (the civic administration includes all the various authorities involved, not only the KMC). In the "Civic administration of Kolkata" article, there is a link to the "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" article.

I did not combine all the information in the "Kolkata Municipal Corporation" article with the information in the "Civic administration of Kolkata" article, as one article, because GDibyendu had written (above): "Kolkata Municipal Corporation should be artcile for MC only as it is."

So all editors please consider the new organization as a whole and consider accepting it all (generally accepting the new organization, that is, while continuing to refine the information within it).

To Dwaipayan: Yes, your opening sentence has more gravity. Thanks!

Akhandadarshana (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

bottom of the article is messed up.
-- gp pande  «talk»  11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me what you are pointing to?? Amartyabag   TALK2ME  01:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Biggest City in the British Empire
Calcutta was the second biggest city (after London) of the British Empire (history's largest). I think this is an important and interesting fact, and should be worth half a line. Also I think half the information on Bose is just Indian patriotic bluster, most of it doesn't really link to the city. The line about the Bengal "As food stocks were being diverted to feed Allied troops, millions" ... would lead the casual and uninformed reader to conclude that this was the only cause of the famine. There were only a few hundred thousand British troops in India at that time (the millions of Indians in the armed services were Indian nationals who would have had to have been fed from the harvests of Mother India anyway) and even if all of these foreigners had been fed exclusively from Bengali food grains (which they were not), as the population of Bengal was (even back then) around 60 million, these extra foreign mouths would have robbed Bengal of about 0.25% of its food stocks, which can hardly have "killed millions" all by itself, indeed all historians agree that there was a set of problems which created the famine, some caused by the British, some caused by the Japanese and WWII, some caused by natural disasters - indeed even certain Indian administrators have also come in for criticism. I think this attempt to sum up the cause of this extremely complex topic in a one liner that squarely blames the British is somewhat too simplistic, and perhaps overtly anti-British. The article should be neutral, whereas that line gives a clear POV.--144.137.90.79 (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

History of administrative development
Recently Akhandadarshana created a new page, Civic administration of Kolkata, and moved to that page information about Kolkata's territorial extent and the complex administration thereof. But neither on that page nor in the History of Kolkata is there any clear information about how Kolkata's territorial boundaries expanded historically and how the complexities arose in the first place. Does Akhandadarshana or anyone else have such information, and if so could they add a little of that information to the History of Kolkata? D.achyuta (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine section
I believe that, as in Kolkata one can find one of the most diversified cuisine range and because in the previous version of the article, there was no separate cuisine section and very little information was given about the same within the Culture section of the article so, I felt the need of a separate section along with some details about the type of food and name of some of the old and famous retaurants. Therefore, I have created a separate cuisine section in the article and have merged the existing information on cuisine from the Culture section in this new section. -- Jsengupt (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I had recently created a section on Cuisines of Kolkata in this article which I felt make perfect sense as Kolkata is really famous for one of the most diversified cuisine in India. But unfortunately The post has been deleted. I would really be interested to know whether I have violated any norms of Wikipedia because of which my post has been deleted. Also I would appreciate if anyone kindly points out if my posting was irrelevent or wrong. As I am pretty new in Wikipedia it will be a learning for me. Thanks. -- Jsengupt (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Joydip, I just replied in your talk page, and then came to notice this posting in the article talk page. Hope the reply in your talk page helps. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Page name
no consensus to move. Much though I prefer Calcutta, the arguments in favor of Kolkata are stronger and it seems to have become the de facto name of the city in the English language. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Kolkata → Calcutta &mdash; The name of the place is Calcutta, and not Kolkata. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC) I was rather surprised to see the Kolkata page has content rather than being a redirect to Calcutta. I had expected that the Calcutta would have the text and Kolkata would be a redirect to that. The common English name for the city is, and has been for c. 300 years, Calcutta so surely we should call it Calcutta.

After we have a page for Cologne not Köln, Florence not Firenze, Manila not Lungsod ng Maynila, etc.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree, especially when Kolkata/Calcutta are not significantly different in their phonology. The examples are endless where we don't use the local name in common English parlance: Warsaw not Warszawa, Munich not Muenchen, etc... just because it represents some sort of reclamation for India to have their official English spelling as "Kolkata" does not mean that the general geographic traditions in English should jump to follow suit.203.97.98.36 (talk)

Right, and the article itself, in Kolkata, calls "Calcutta" the "anglicised name". What language Wikipedia is this? Oh, yeah, English. The article also says that the "official English name was changed from "Calcutta" to "Kolkata" in 2001." What does that mean? I didn't get that memo. Last time I checked, nobody had the power to "officially" change English at all. The article also says that "While news sources like the BBC have opted to call Bombay Mumbai, Kolkata remains Calcutta." Naming this article "Kolkata" is POV, and it should be "Calcutta". --Milkbreath (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose page name change. Wikipedia is not the only encyclopedia that calls the city Kolkata. Both Britannica and Encarta use the name Kolkata as the name of the city. Also, what was meant that the official English name was changed, it meant that the English name was be changed from Kolkata to Calcutta. It was not referring to changing the English language at all. Kolkata has other names in different languages that's why the statement about changing the English name was changed because only the English n name was changed and not the ones from other languages. News organizations, textbooks, maps and other information, at least in my area all and BBC as you stated refer the city as Kolkata. It seems more common that city is referred to as Kolkata. The city website (in English) also refers the city as Kolkata and not Calcutta since that's the old name. So it doesn't seem like a good idea to have the page name change. Isn't renaming Calcutta your own POV as well? Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not POV to want the English Wikipedia to use English. It might be POV to resent attempts to change the language by ukase, but I can live with that. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But Kolkata is an English name (so keeping Kolkata would still be using English), the name that is more accepted today. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 14:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose "Calcutta" is no longer the most common name of the city in English; the use in most English publications has changed to using "Kolatta". A google search test shows 64,300,000 hits for "Kolkatta", compared with 9,990,000 hits for "Calcutta", of which many hits use Kolkatta as well. These things change; Livorno in Tuscany was known in the 18th century by the anglicised version "Leghorn", but usage has since changed to match the Italian. YeshuaDavid • Talk  • 16:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Clicking on your links I get less than 22 million hits for Kolkata and more than 17 million for Calcutta. These kind of google tests are worthless.  We should look at what reliable sources say, not blind google tests, which are ridiculously inaccurate once you get to the number of results we're talking about here. john k (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose please note that English is one of the two official languages in India, with Hindi. Consequently, cities do have an official English name, as is the case with Kolkata, with this spelling since 2001. Even the BBC has accepted these names, and I cannot think of a higher authority to quote than that (not knowing how the Queen writes it): http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/forecast/145 .--Megustalastrufas (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the BBC does not use Kolkata universally. See and links from there.DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 04:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly, Strongly, Strongly Support (had to put all those stronglys in and italicize them to counteract everybody else's, the implication being twofold: that the opposers are too emotional about this, and that adverbs are weak) Let me state my position fully. It's been "Calcutta" all my life, and all the life of practically everybody else. The first time I saw "Kolkata" was when I stumbled across it here. We're being asked to change what we call the place, by whom I have no idea, but a few of them seem to be here now, and they seem to be on the case.


 * They cite Google, 21 million to 17 million, as if that settles it. Google, for one thing, only shows quite recent usage. To use Google and not the entire corpus of English writing is to ignore the bulk of the language and the part of it that is written mostly by literate people. Also, there is no way anyone is going to sort through all those hits to see how many are duplicates; much of the Internet is cut-and-paste. It could be that most of the "Calcutta" hits are legitimate, and most of the "Kolkata" hits are copies of this very article. The moral of that story is don't cite statistics unless you are willing to defend your methodology. This google-sampling is worthless, for more reasons than the two I've just mentioned.


 * The Indian government has decreed it to be "Kolkata". I have to ask why. We already say it wrong, apparently, and I don't see how a different spelling is going to help, especially one invented by a country with a 64% literacy rate and a couple of dozen recognized languages. I resist an English phonics lesson from folks who say things like "gunzervadive beeble" for "conservative people". Also, fewer than a quarter of a million people in India call English their first language, and all the rest is disparate dialect if not pidgin, so to say that India speaks English is misleading.


 * In a more general sense, this name change (from "Calcutta" to "Kolkata") looks a lot like similar changes that are being put forward by many countries of late. The motivation is political. They want to brush away the last tattered remnants of colonial rule or foreign domination or cultural submersion by asserting new spellings and sometimes new names for their stuff. That's all well and good, and I wish them all the best. They are free to call their places whatever they want, and I wouldn't dream of telling them not to. Thing is, they're being jerks by telling me how to speak my language. What if France decided to make a big issue of the English pronunciation of "Paris" and started insisting we call it "Paree"? For one thing, we wouldn't do it. For another, we'd think they were being insufferably dickish, and we'd be right. It would be just as bad the other way, if we refused to recognize any reference to "Londres" in French, insisting they make it "London", even though they wouldn't be able to pronounce it. The reason neither France not the English-speaking world has done such a thing is that we behave in a civilized manner with each other, all things considered. We're "friends", as far as countries can be. The countries that are jerking us around with name changes are not being friendly, and I don't want to go along like a good little chastised Ugly American. I have an enlightened world view, and they can kiss my ass, if you know what I mean. I mean, what if I started firing nasty letters off to the BBC for pronouncing "New York" in such a way that it's clear they are aware that there is an old one and the one in the United States is some johnny-come-lately not worthy of the respect due the venerable catherdral city? They'd think I was nuts, and they'd be right.


 * So, Wikipedia is being used by people with a political agenda to advance their cause, in this case by forcing changes of place-name on the world. This is counter to the non-POV, encyclopedic motif we're supposed to have here. The long-established name of the city is "Calcutta". In English. This is the English Wikipedia. The name is Calcutta in English. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * oppose — This has been discussed and voted on before: Talk:Kolkata/Archive_3, Talk:Kolkata/Archive_7. —  3 2 4 7    (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant; Consensus can change. If there was strong evidence of present usage at those discussions, please link to it - I see only weak evidence, but it's for Calcutta . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So just re-start a discussion until the most insistent party wins? …or until a move is triggered by chance, just to be reverted some months later? I don't see any evidence that consensus has changed and I don't see the point in copying everything from the archives; it's just a click away. But I do think that the arguments for Kolkata are still at least as valid as they were then. The archives even show that Kolkata gains more and more acceptance: In Talk:Kolkata/Archive_7, Google is quoted as giving 9 million results for Kalkutta and that this is half of the results for Calcutta (about 18 mio., then). Now, the very same searches yield 21 mio. for Kolkata and 9 mio. for Calcutta. —  3 2 4 7     (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The way to find out if consensus has changed is to ask. The first poll lsited was 57% for - not usually enough consensus to move; the second was both close and sparse. Someone who took no part in either is justified in checking whether things have changed; the issue is certainly still open. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And when it obtains full acceptance - if it does - it will be normal usage and the discussion will stop. If any case, those are reasons (although links to claimed Google results are better) which mere references to prior consensus are not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose When Madras changed its name to Chennai, Bombay to Mumbai and Benares changed to Varanasi adoption both locally and from the outside followed just as it has with Kolkata.  The only example I can think of in that part of the world where the change has been rejected is that of Burma to Myanmar. Even that change was accepted but the world seems to have shifted away as a protest of the legitimacy of the regime that made the change.  Insisting on the use of the former name won't preserve Calcutta as the name of this city, it will just make Wikipedia out of touch and disrespectful of the determination by those who are entitled to decide the name of their city.  -- KenWalker | Talk 15:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment India is an English speaking country, unlike several European countries which seem to have partisans that rename their city articles to weird foreign names, so I don't see any reason not to use it. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Probably best to leave it alone. I don't like the fact that an assortment of mouth-breathing nationalists have taken it upon themselves to dictate that we all stop calling Indian cities by the familiar names they've been called in English for hundreds of years and start using a different set of names for no good reason.  But those names seem to be generally adopted for formal use, and much as irritating nationalists annoy me, it's not really wikipedia's job to cater to my dislike of the new names.  We should always use the older names in any historical context, though. I'll add that the one lengthy "support" comment loses my sympathy with Milk Breath's decision to mock the way Indian people speak English.  Not cool. john k (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I figured somebody would take that there. I merely speak the truth, and the comment wasn't mocking (I rather like the Hindi accent), it was to say that their new spelling is unlikely to reflect any English pronunciation that will approximate the one they want given their apparent inability to form certain sounds that occur in English. If I were over at the Hindi Wikipedia giving them shit for pronouncing "Poughkeepsie" "Bug IB zee", then I'd be mocking, which is what they're doing here by changing the spelling on us, by the way. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Moderate and wistful support. I encourage other people to do the research below; but let me contribute my bit to test 5. Calcutta is certainly how I spell the city, and is likely to continue to be; I do not attack the choice of the Calcutta administration, but I think they may be confusing Bengali and English. Surely there are other loan-words the two languages both use and do not spell equivalently?


 * When this magic stroke fails to solve the city's problems, usage, now divided, is as likely to resolve on the old name as the new. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ENGVAR, is there any evidence to hand on which spelling is preferred in reliable Indian English sources? Knepflerle (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you could define or illustrate reliable Indian English sources, I'd be more than happy to look this up. As of today, the entire English language media in India uses Kolkata (which also happens to be the official name). Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting issue. Looking at what the city is called elsewhere, I see that Britannica, Encarta and Columbia all use "Kolkata" as the article name. Two of them give "Calcutta" as the former name, and Encarta gives it as an alternative. Google Books and Google Scholar searches both favour "Calcutta" by a lot, while Google News favours "Kolkata". Also, the Library of Congress Country Studies use "Calcutta", as do Cambridge Histories Online. Historical usage is obviously "Calcutta", and it seems to me that recent sources tend to use "Kolkata" increasingly often. Whether or not one is overwhelmingly more common currently is hard to say. Based on the currently presented evidence, I don't think it's been shown that the proposed title is sufficiently more common to warrant moving the page. Jafeluv (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose. The official name of the city in English is Kolkata and recognized as such by all and sundry including the US State Dept, Britannica etc and it's absurd for Wikipedia to use the old name in the title to assuage the sensibilities of some. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per data furnished by Jafeluv above. Also, Google searches seem to be quite fickle - Kolkata now shows 22.8 million and Calcutta shows 9.9 million. While Calcutta scores in book and Scholar searches, that could merely be a consequence of the name change only being effected eight years ago. Just as an aside, the city municipal corporation and the state government both use Kolkata. As pointed out earlier, the case for Calcutta fails to pass muster on the basis of available evidence. Going into the political and other reasons behind the name change is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose this reckless attempt at POV-pushing (and the above soapboxing) by . Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Current English news sources are using "Kolkata" nearly 4-1 (Google news search for "Kolkata" vs. "Calcutta"). The name has been changed, most sources (news, Britannica, U.S. State Dept., etc.) have/are accepting it, time to move on. Priyanath talk 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Data
Our naming convention on placenames offers six texts, if there is no reliable secondary statement on what English-speakers normally call the city:
 * 1) Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993).
 * 2) Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned  in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.
 * 3) *Always look at search results, don't just count them. For more, see the section on search engines below.
 * 4) Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for.
 * 5) Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted.
 * 6) Enter the proposed move at WP:RM. If it is the consensus that a given name is the English name, then it is presumably widely accepted. [Unlikely here, but wouldn't it be nice? Septentrionalis PMAnderson ]
 * 7) If a name is used in translating or explaining the official name,  especially in texts addressed to an English-speaking audience, it is probably widely accepted. (Are there ads saying "Come see Kolkata (Calcutta)"? That would be  a sign Kolkata doesn't communicate with anglophones. )

Enjoy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Name in the History section
I have no issue with the page title. But in the History section I think it disturbs the flow unnecessarily to have to parse “Kolkata (then Calcutta)” in a sentence about the early 1700s. I have changed several occurrences of Kolkata to Calcutta in that section only. I intend no political or cultural subtext; only to avoid awkwardness and anachronism. I think it reads clearly and smoothly since #History directly follows the explanation of the name change and current British usage. I had to choose a logical stopping point, so I picked India’s independence in 1950, following which I left all occurrences as Kolkata. MJ (t • c) 14:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it strange to have links to Calcutta in this article? I think the possible confusion of being redirected to the same page is worse than no link, so I'm removing the brackets from 2 occurrences. MJ (t • c) 14:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I may have been hasty in not reading through the archives of this page enough before making my change. I see the historical name issue was discussed at some length 4 years ago here. But I hope now that the page title is Kolkata instead of Calcutta my reasoning will make more sense. If not, that’s what reverts are for. MJ  (t • c) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. We have not merely sections but entire articles that talk about Byzantium and New Amsterdam. It might be equally reasonable to take it up to the official change of name - and talk about the political and social effects of the change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We should always use Calcutta in historical context. We should follows the usage of reliable sources, and works on the history of the British Raj, etc., are just about always going to use "Calcutta," and just about never going to use "Kolkata."  john k (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mosques in Kolkata
The article Mosques in Kolkata should be retained as a separate article. - Chandan Guha (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Kolkata Culture
The British were part and parcel of Calcutta's culture for over a quarter of a millennia, and yet they are hardly mentioned in the culture section. Their main contribution was (I think) India's first ever newspaper, printed in Calcutta. Not a small thing given the importance of the press in India, but nevertheless, not worth a mention it seems. The influential Asiatic Society (only mentioned in passing in the Eductaion section, but even then not linked to the British), which did so much to introduce Hindu culture, science & philosophy to the outside world, is again, unmentioned. What about Calcutta being the birtplace of William Makepeace Thackaray even? -- Not even worth a link? Obviously not.

But of course, why waste space with the above in the culture section (or anywhere else) when you can write: "Street foods such as beguni (fried battered eggplant slices), kati roll (flatbread roll with vegetable or chicken, mutton, or egg stuffing), phuchka (deep fried crêpe with tamarind and lentil sauce)[....]" etc.

But how stupid of me, obviously fried battered eggplant slices are far more important than anything I have mentioned or 250+ years of Anglo influence. For example, the only reason we don't read about Calcutta's discovery of the cause of the tropic's most virulent killer (malaria) is because it had too much whitey and not enough Bengali behind it.

Let's be adults about this and face facts. There's an anti-British bias to the article, if not in what has been written, then certainly in what has been left out, (smothered by tamarind and lentil sauce perhaps).

Tim / Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.119.118 (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me while I recover from that staggering display of an Aussie channeling scathing British sarcasm... Ahh, much better. Now, if I've missed some major physical disaster and Kolkata has been sucked into some time warp flinging it back 150 years - such that everything you mentioned is currently relevant to the day to day culture of the city - I will be sure to speak with my therapist and demand an increase in my medical dosage. Oh wait, I just checked, it seems my meds shall remain as they are since Kolkata appears to be firmly rooted in the 21st century. If I'm not very much mistaken, Kolkata is the capital West Bengal, not British India, and is now a center of Bengali culture specifically and Indian culture broadly - not British or even Anglo-Indian culture.

Since you seem to be such a dazzling maven of the British history and impact in Calcutta, why don't you provide your contributions to History of Kolkata, where I'm sure you will find very appropriate grounds to sow your seeds of knowledge.--Taajikhan (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mother Teresa
It is strange that Mother Teresa is not mentioned in this article - not just as perhaps Kolkata's most famous resident, but also in terms of the city's portrayal. I see in her article that she was criticised by Aroup Chatterjee for "promoting a negative image of his home city." She is mentioned, but not discussed, in History of Kolkata and List of people from Kolkata. It does seem this deserves a mention, maybe in a paragraph about perceptions of Kolkata. StAnselm (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kolkata Calcutta Debate
Calcutta was probably an ANGLICIZED version of "Kalikata" which was one of the fishing villages that the British forged their town of Calcutta out of (of course the fact that the British started Calcutta with three unconnected fishing villages is not mentioned in the article due to its anti-British bias, and if included, it might actually make it sound like the British founded Calcutta - which of course they did.) "Kolkata" is (ironically)probably a Bengalified version of "Calcutta" - as there was never any "Kolkata" prior to the British. Please meditate on this word: ANGLICIZED - that is to say, it was put into an English pronunciation. Hence the word CALCUTTA is English - period, no debate! So, .... a Communist led council in West Bengal in 2001, changes the ENGLISH name of a city into the Bengali name and then tells the world that English must be Bengali - and you people buy it??? Well, I still hear "Calcutta" on the BBC, and even the airline industry still calls it Calcutta, amongst many examples I could give, because almost everybody knows that it's still Calcutta (in English) - but not Wikipedia it seems. But of course the Indians are free to call it whatever they like. So a Marxist regime in Calcutta, makes a ruling that an ANGLICIZED word is no longer English and 300+ years of common English usage must change. Yeah right!!!! It amazes me that there is even a debate whether the article should be called Kolkata, - and yet there is, and it has been. The entire article is just a biased Bengali and nationalistic travel brochure for "Kolkata". There is no neutral historic overview. No mention of outside cultural influence. Any criticism of the city over the last sixty years is minimal, and even the name has been hijacked. I do not want to see the city's modern reputation degraded here, nor do I want to see the British 257 year tenure "window dressed" - but what we have here is the complete opposite, the British 257 year tenure is degraded, and modern "Kolkata" "window dressed" - how about just a bit of neutrality and honesty? The name would be a good place to start.

Tim Barrett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.47.24 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please go through this failed move request which happened about nine months ago, this earlier move request (which also failed), and this discussion for context. The consensus reached, each time, has been to retain the name as Kolkata. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The obvious problem is not the priority given to the new name but that the old name is not next to it in brackets. Why not Calcutta (Kolkata) or vice versa?  If people want their city to sound like pet food that's up to them, but this is an encyclopedia and is designed to inform quickly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.135.158 (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Economy of Kolkata
This section misses the part of the economic stagnation of the Kolkata during the 70's and the 80's. I think it will be good idea to include part the economic stagnation of Kolkata. Also this section only mentions the economy of Kolkata after 2001 but it does completely missed out the economy of the city prior to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anirbandasnet (talk • contribs) 15:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
The pictures on the Kolkata page are very pretty. However, they look absolutely nothing like what Kolkata actually looks like. I find it a little misleading that the pictures display Kolkata this way. Can we at least get a few pictures of what Kolkata looks like when it hasn't been photoshopped to American glory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.41.226 (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Change in description of Durga picture
Keeping in line with the West Bengal page where the same photo is used: I have changed the definition of the Durga picture from "an idol" to "a Murti (representation)" of Durga. It is common misconception that Hindus worship idols. Calling these representations idols is as incorrect as referring to the Cross or similar representations of Jesus in the same manner. Idolatry as defined in Wikipedia itself is "a term used in religion for the non-monotheism worship of cult images, termed idols." This is not what the image of Durga represents.

The word "idol" in English usage, especially in western countries, has a pagan connotation and is often used against religions that are viewed as polytheistic, which Hinduism is not. The complex nature of the representation of one God into many forms is not something that can be easily translated into one word. The word sculpture or statue may be a better fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.83.26 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.162.181 (talk)

Lead
A part of the lead reads : ' Once the centre of modern education, science, culture and politics in India, Kolkata witnessed economic stagnation in the years following India's independence in 1947. However, since the year 2000, an economic rejuvenation has led to an acceleration in the city's growth. Like other metropolitan cities of India, Kolkata continues to struggle with urbanisation problems like poverty, pollution and traffic congestion.' I can't find mention of this in the rest of the article. Can anyone revise the lead to reflect the rest of the article? Regards,  Yes Michael? •Talk 06:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Education
The Bengal Engineering and Science University is not a part of Kolkata. It is situated in Howrah, twin-city and has been mentioned therein. It needs to be removed. Rahulghose (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed BESU and it has been added to the Howrah page. Rahulghose (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

density
There is definitely something wrong: --Superzoulou (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC) That is wrong. I will correct it. Thanks for reporting!  Gui tar ist ( talk| contributions) June 29, 2024
 * population: 4,486,679
 * area: 1,480
 * density:24,252
 * Actually this population corresponds to the area administered by the Municipal corpn. But the area mentioned here is for the entire UA. Thanks for pointing out the error. -- Commander (Ping Me) 03:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

edit conflicts in the second introductory paragraph
There has been a recent moderate edit war between users User:Kkm010 and User:Iamgymman123, mostly regarding the content of the second paragraph of the introduction to the article (diff). In order to avoid further edit war I suggest that both users User:Kkm010 and User:Iamgymman123 discuss their differences in this talk page and reach Consensus. In the mean time I am reverting much of their recent disagreed edits (the second introductory paragraph) to the original contents of the article (Revision as of 14:28, 21 June 2011 - see this diff). Once User:Kkm010 and User:Iamgymman123 have agreed upon the changes to the second introductory paragraph, please feel free to put the agreed changes to the article. - Subh83 (talk &#124; contribs) 20:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Whats wrong with you, you're putting wrong and unsourced materials in the second para.--Kkm <font color="#008000">010 * <font color="#1034A6"> ۩ <font color="#FF00FF"> ۞ 04:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither did you cite any references in your edit (diff). I just restored to the version before the dispute. More importantly, you need to first familiarize yourself with Consensus, Dispute resolution and No personal attacks besides other Wikipedia policies before you make edits. - Subh83 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Move
Kolkata -> Calcutta

The most common English name must be used. --J4\/4 &lt;talk&gt; 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed multiple times in the past; the most recent discussion (September 2009) arrived at a consensus that Kolkata had become the most common name by then. Also read this failed move proposal (February 2006) and this debate (May 2007) for further details. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This proposal is downright POINTy. Please see Talk:Quebec for reference.  Favonian (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So what's the general policy? This article uses the official Bengali name, rather than the universally-used English name, while Quebec uses the universally-used English name rather than the official French name. --70.134.48.188 (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy is WP:COMMONNAME. Since Kolkata became the official name, also in English, it has become the name most commonly used in English media, similarly to Mumbai.  Canada is bilingual, and Quebec is the spelling used in official, English-language documents as well as the one most commonly used in the media.  Favonian (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The most commonly-used name, even though it isn't official, is Calcutta. --70.134.48.188 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when does the usage of english in another country decide over the usage in the mother countries of this language? Indians can propose, decide or legally change many things, but just because of that no british or american citizen has to change his world map. It's an "native" name and not something that came from the UK or US so in my eyes it's the same category as Moscow, Warszaw, Cologne, Munich, Rome and thousands of other cities where there is an official (native) naming convention and an english naming convention and both are not and will not and even do not NEED to be identical. Using some indian retconning out of this millenium is just the usual PC bullshit that haunts so much of our modern world, overcompensating the guilt complexes routed in hundreds of years of colonialism and imperialism. So the city got a new name in India? nice for it, but not relevant to an encyclopedic work other than in the short section of the article header stating how the natives say for it. Like with Cologne, Aix-la-chapelle, Prague, Rome, Milan... Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Greece, Japan... Nobody ever gave a shit about what's wrong with those. So why start with Calcutta, Bombay, Bejing? --92.50.94.35 (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on this. On the one hand, I think WP should recognize most common usage; on the other, English usage changes, and in periods of transition it's hard to know when you've passed the tipping point (I haven't heard Peking for Beijing for decades). So it does seem indicative of transition that the Associated Press changed its style to Kolkata last month, since the AP is pretty slow and conservative in matters of style. The New York Times stylebook just followed suit. These are indications that this name is undergoing a genuine and widespread transition within English, for whatever reasons, and it really isn't the business of WP to decide on the political validity of those reasons nor to act as a rearguard in an effort to preserve a traditional form. That said, I acknowledge the difficulties of determining "most common" based on data in motion, but it's probably healthy not to have an emotional attachment to a particular convention of orthography. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've known agencies like AP and BBC to be generally conservative. The English media in India widely uses Kolkata.  Yes Michael? •Talk 17:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Calcutta is still used in Calcutta, as in UNIVERSITY of CALCUTTA. Proper English is Calcutta. I think that the people at the University of Calcutta should know the proper English name of their own city, right? It is also a LIE that Calcutta is no longer used. How about the CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, you mean the judges in Calcutta do not know how to spell Calcutta? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clydeman (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Names do not belong to any language. The naming of the Cal HC is not exclusive to Kolkata. Most courts and univs have retained their old names, for example, IIT Bombay, IIT Madras, Bombay HC, Madras HC, NIT Calicut, etc.  Lynch 7  18:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page not moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 20:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Kolkata → Calcutta – While Kolkata may be the local Hindi name for the city, WP:ENGLISH says that the common English name should be used instead. --134.10.114.238 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly the common name as can be seen by this ngram. The usage of "Kolkata" has increased since 2000, "Calcutta" is still the clear common name in reliable sources. In fact, the usage of "Kolkata" has decreased since 2005. Jenks24 (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. According to Wikipedia's article traffic statistics Kolkata has been viewed much more than Calcutta. You can check out article traffic statistics of Kolkata and Calcutta. Regards. <font style="font-size:15px" color="#8B0000" face="Papyrus">Guitarist(talk 18:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. An old debate, but still a relevant one. Calcutta is still the commonly used name in the world, including by a majority in India itself. Wikipedia is not obliged to name its articles to reflect the official name, but the common name, and the common name is still clearly Calcutta. As to the statistics quoted above, bear in mind that if an internal link in Wikipedia is to Kolkata then that's what will register if someone follows that link. It's not really a reliable source as to what people are actually searching for directly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There has been a discussion above this. A large majority of Indian sources uses Kolkata. To my knowledge, only the BBC uses old names for all Indian cities.  Lynch 7  18:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Mike, and Google generates 130 mil results for KOLKATA and 42 mil for CALCUTTA. Clearly more common name is Kolkata. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Google News generates ~5000 results for Kolkata, but only around ~2000 for Calcutta. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Avenue X at Cicero, and because, according to the article, the name was officially changed to Kolkata. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The official name doesn't matter. --134.10.113.198 (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I have no idea what the name is in Hindi, it is irrelevant (the article gives a pronunciation something like "cholcha" which looks made-up).  India is very largely an English speaking country and Kolkata is the official name and is therefore widely used in English.  Sussexonian (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the evidence already presented at Talk:Kolkata/Archive 9. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spiff. usage of "Kolkata" in English sources now standard and widely prevalent --Sodabottle (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Many address the city as Kolkata. Also Calcutta is not an English name. -- Commander (Ping Me) 11:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Kolkata is more popular. <font style="font-size:15px" color="#8B0000" face="Papyrus">Guitarist(talk 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Nicknames of Kolkata
<font face="Tahoma"> Presently there are two nicknames on the article, but it actually has more: Source: www.iloveindia.com, Asia Times, AboutKolkata.com Note: These were present on the article but have been removed by some user recently. These were added long before but the user removed it recently which is not justified. Regards. <font style="font-size:15px" color="#8B0000" face="Papyrus">Guitarist(talk 11:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * City of Joy (Present on the article)
 * City of Palaces (Present on the article)
 * City of Stadiums (You may add it citing reliable source(s))
 * City of Bridges (You may add it citing reliable source(s))
 * The City of Football in India (Added)
 * Paris of the East (Added, Reference: Asia Times)
 * You are correct. I have read some books of Sunitikumar Chattopadhyay, Sukumar Sen etc. Kolkata has many nicknames. You can create different section "City's name history" describing origin of city's name (there are some opinions like the name Kolkata has come from Goddess Kali OR Kali & Keta etc etc and add a sub section Kolkata's nick names. You may need to visit National Library for this/you can check http://books.google.com (Filter full view books only) for this. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 11:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As a dedicated Calcuttan, I am also sure there are several nicknames of the city, and some of them truly noteworthy, like the much-used "City of Joy". I personally agree, Kolkata is the city of football :) However, ILoveIndia is far from a credible source, especially when citing in a Featured Article. So, we need much better, reliable and credible reference.
 * I just added "City of Football in India" as one of the nicknames in the article, citing an article from Outlook, where FIFA president Blatter is acknowledging the term. That source is definitely more credible that ILoveIndia, which appears to be one of the tens of travel-guide kind of websites on India.
 * As Titodutta says above, we need credible source to substantiate anything like this. I personally never heard "city of stadiums" for Kolkata, although kind of faintly remember someone calling our beloved city as the city of bridges.
 * I could not find any book source in the google book (in a rather quick and non-thorough search) stating the city of bridges or stadiums. If you can find some good source, you are more than welcome to add the references. Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I too don't think, City of Stadium is the nick name of Kolkata. And the source iamgymman123 has given, in that page unfortunately "city of stadium" is not mentioned (I used <Ctrl><F> and tried to find the word 'stadium' but got 0 result). But, the suggestion to work on Kolkata name etymology, name history and nick name is really appreciable. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 19:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I too didn’t find any except the iloveinda website, but it was present on the article before the removal so I just wanted to support the article. Regards. <font style="font-size:15px" color="#8B0000" face="Papyrus">Guitarist(talk 04:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting move, again
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page not moved per discussion. There is no consensus to move the page to the old title. Furthermore, there is much evidence presented below that in modern English-language usage - considering Indian English (as shown by Sodabottle) or English spoken in the west (as shown by Kauffner) - Kolkata is preferred. - GTBacchus(talk) 06:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Kolkata → Calcutta – Yes, I, request Kolkata to be moved to Calcutta. I know that I did oppose the move earlier, but have now realised that Calcutta is the more common name, even to Indians. First up, I checked the Google n-grams, and found that the use of Kolkata has decreased in 2005, merely 4 years after it was renamed, and Calcutta retains its place as the more common name. I expect to receive many oppose votes, some may even say that Kolkata should not be moved as it is the official name, but, on WP, we don't care about the official name. It is just the name that people use more often that we keep as our article title. Secondly, you may say here that Calcutta is used merely ~2000 times but Kolkata is used ~5000 times, but, as you may see, many times the media starts the news like this: KOLKATA: Lorem ipsum... and also, the media uses Calcutta in the text of the article, meaning that it is more common. Yes, I know that many discussions regarding this have been attempted but I would rather suggest that we take this as a fresh discussion with a blank mind and only the evidence above. If someone differs, I request him to quote evidence here and not link it. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: As nom. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support for the same reasons I supported last time. The ngram shows use of "Calcutta" has increased since 2005, while the use of "Kolkata" has decreased (and Calcutta was the clear common name before that anyway). To those who say we must follow the official name, WP:OFFICIALNAME is a good essay to read, as it clearly explains that is Wikipedia policy to follow the common, not the official, name. Jenks24 (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Kolkata is the choice of the 100s of millions of non-English speakers as well as for a growing number of the many English speakers in India. Calcutta is completely outmoded and from a different era. We need to keep in mind that our community of Wikipedians is sometimes biased due to our demographic profile. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would the "100s of millions of non-English speakers" be concerned as to what the article title is on the English Wikipedia? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Greg L (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If you'll notice the papers, the Indian ones, it is referred to as Kolkata in most places. I don't know if it is any different over there in the north, but the papers I read (TOI Blore, Deccan Herald, The Hindu) refer to Kolkata as Kolkata from ages. To my knowledge, only the BBC refers to Indian cities as Calcutta, plus some papers like Calcutta Telegraph. For instance, an extract from an article in the New York Times states: "Over at the popular Bengali-language site Desh-Bidesh, Nasim, a resident of Kolkata in her 60s, shares memories of the city in the years after India achieved independence in 1947.".  Lynch 7  04:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the Hon'ble High Court of the State refers to the city as Calcutta, the arguement that Indians refer to the city as "Kolkata" is nullified. Also, the state telephone board does the same. Even I do refer to the City of Joy as Calcutta and I know many who do the same. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Names of institutions are not changed due to operational problems. IIT Bombay, Bombay HC, Cal HC, IIM C, NIT Calicut, IIT Madras, Madras HC all use old names; and that is not reason enough to make a pagemove. Major media houses (except BBC) refer to the city as Kolkata.  Lynch 7  15:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I said that the Hon'ble High Court refers to the city as Calcutta. Its not about the name. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hon'ble High Court of the State does not refer to the city as Calcutta. It's official site says "The seat of the High Court is Kolkata". -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: Per nom. <font color="#004225">JonChapple <font color="#F28500">Talk 12:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Fascinating. For what it is worth, that ngram must be substantially reflecting Indian usage; it shows "Calcutta" as .060% of the total of the English corpus, whereas it is much rarer in the American English corpus (.018%) and the British English corpus (.040%). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As some confirmation, searching for Kolkata with "rupee" at Google books got some 3000 results; searching for Calcutta got over 13,000. The search key does seem to be hitting largely Indian English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Government of India seems to have no problem writing about Calcutta or Kolkata; one page even uses Calcutta and Chennai. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It is quite clear that the "official" name has not yet taken hold and Wikipedia should reflect common world-wide English usage. older ≠ wiser 16:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Per User:older ≠ wiser. The English-language version of Wikipedia should reflect most-common English-language practices. Greg L (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral. We spend too much time debating correctness (political, historical etc) and semantics. I dont know how many times this discussion has taken place!! Wish there were similar energy and man-hour spent in content development and refinement. Anyway, whatever the decision is, it will lead the reader to the same article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The Indian English media (which would decide the numbers argument) uses "Kolkata" much more than calcutta.
 * 1) The Hindu - Calcutta 13,000 Kolkata 68,200
 * 2) TOI group (Economic Times and Times of India)  - Calcutta 833,000 Kolkatta 3,800,000
 * 3) Hindustan Times - calcutta 8430 Kolkata 1,48,000
 * 4) Deccan Chronicle - calcutta 422 Kolkata 5190
 * 5) The Telegraph - calcutta 7,36,000 Kolkata 3,69,000
 * 6) Indian Express - calcutta 18,000 Kolkata 2,71,000
 * 7) New Indian Express - calcutta 176, Kolkata 2850
 * 8) Deccan Herald - calcutta 1730 Kolkata 57,300
 * 9) The pioneer - calcutta 5280 kolkata 50,500


 * These are the largest english newspapers in india in terms of circulation. As you can see, every paper except the Bengal based telegraph (irony alert!) prefers "Kolkata" over "Calcutta" by overwhelming margin.


 * Moving on to the TV media


 * 1) NDTV - Calcutta 8,810 Kolkata 2,30,000
 * 2) CNN IBN - Calcutta 4920 Kolkata 46,400
 * 3) Times Now - Calcutta 192 kolkata 2880


 * These are the big 3 in Indian English electronic media in terms of TRP. Again an overwhelming preference for "Kolkata" over "Calcutta".--Sodabottle (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I believe that the usage of Kolkata exceeds the usage of Calcutta in English language sources. Sodabottle has an exhaustive analysis above that is persuasive and I note that The New York Times uses Kolkata exclusively, without even a "formerly known as" explanation. --rgpk (comment) 05:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

<font color="#009900">undefined — Bill william compton <font color="#000000">Talk  06:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – For what it matters, my personal preference is Calcutta . If this was 2002–05 I might support, but now Kolkata is more common than Calcutta, at least in printed and electronic media.
 * Even BBC call it Kolkata.
 * Wall Street Journal (largest newspaper in the United States, by circulation) prefer "Kolkata", 6,440 3,100, excluding HC, IIM and CSE.
 * Comment: Just consider the ngrams above, they completely verify the fact that Calcutta is the more common name. As per Sodabottle, half your results include things like Latest Kolkata news, updates from the city of Kolkata. They cannot be present there for Calcutta because Kolkata is the official name! Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think n-grams is a reliable indicator in this situation. First, it is not clear whether Google books looks at the original publication date of the first edition of a book or at the date of the edition it examines. If the latter, then there will be a long standing bias in favor of Calcutta which won't necessarily reflect current usage. Second, since n-grams looks at the content of books, any reference to a prior publication with the term Calcutta in the title, or to a document that contains the word 'Calcutta', or a reference to the city in earlier times (for example, during the British Raj) will overweight the results in favor of Calcutta. Third, the data is normalized by the total number of books published in a given year (which is why both Calcutta as well as Kolkata have declined). Looking at media usage, as Sodabottle has done, is a much better indicator of current common usage. --rgpk (comment) 09:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But my point on the research still stands. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your research shows that Calcutta has been the historic name used in written English. Imc (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This has been discussed before. No new arguments except Google book search, which does not say much about current usage. Imc (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Simply do not see the point of this. A redirect is in place. I see Kolkata used frequently where I am (UK) & it is not often that it has something like "(the former Calcutta)" after it by way of explanation. - Sitush (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. New York Times announced in February that they are switching to "Kolkata". The Associated Press did the same in March. Wall Street Journal has made the switch as well. Reuters has been using "Kolkata" for some time. As far as other encyclopedias go, Britannica uses it, as does Columbia. Calcutta, it was nice to know you. But that's all over now. Kauffner (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I changed my vote (“!vote” in the Wikinese language) based on Kauffner’s argument. If we are going to keep it as “Kolkata”, let’s do it for the correct reasons. I found Sodabottle’s arguments based upon what English-language sources in India to be less compelling. The English-language version of Wikipedia has to follow the practices of publications originating in countries whose populations speak English as their first language. If we worried about honoring other countries’ practices as “being most correct,” I’d go to the Spanish-language version of Wikipedia and tell them they can’t spell it “Estados Unidos de América” because if is “properly ‘United States of America’” and for the Spanish-language version of Wikipedia deny that “United States” is the “proper” spelling is “hate language” and “racist” [yadda yadda, political correctness-run-amok, make the world a better place]. But the fact that a most-reliable English-language source like The New York Times is switching to “Kolkata” is a compelling argument that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia should keep it as “Kolkata.” Greg L (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A clarification - i wasnt saying Indian English media has weightage over English media in other countries. In a numbers game (as we go for the most widely used english term here in en wiki), the Indian english newspapers carry the most weight as the Indian English print media's circulation and readership numbers are much greater than north american or British papers. This is not political correctness, but a simple numbers game. (I have no personal preference for either kolkata or calcutta. As a native Tamil speaker, i use our own exonym "Kalkaththa"). And i have to differ on the "english speakers as first language". En wiki is not just about people who speak english as first language, it is for everyone who speaks english.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should a paper in New York get to decide the name of a city in India when India has larger circulation English-language dailies? Sounds pretty snooty, doesn't it? But that's the way it has worked for a long time. No one heard of pinyin before the Times adopted it in 1979. Six months later, it was everywhere. Kauffner (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OpposeKolkata - this name is passed and accepted by Government! Don't revert to an old name- --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Kauffner's and Sodabottle's arguments.  -- Redtigerxyz  Talk 07:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this repetitive move request. So we have official governmental sources within India, English language media sources within and outside India, governmental sources outside India (such as the US State Dept. etc) all accepting the name Kolkata as shown in the multiple prior move requests, but that's not to the liking of a few editors. That's not what move requests are for; sorry, but this is rather annoying, with the prior move request closing only about a month ago. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:ENGVAR As shown by others Kolkata is the predominant usage in Indian English. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.