Talk:Renaming of cities in India

Hyderabad as Bhagyanagaram
The page lists that there's a proposal to change Hyderabad's name to "Bhagyanagaram". Hyderabad was always called "Bhagyanagaram"; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.254 (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Firenze, Mockba and Wien
One thing that has never been quite clear to me is: why do we use the names "Florence", "Moscow" and "Vienna" to describe cities which are called no such thing by their inhabitants, (not to mention countries, i.e., Germany/Deutschland) but we can no longer use "Bombay" to refer to "Mumbai" in English? Sylvain1972 02:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One reason could be that many people in India have English as their native language. So, when the official names of the cities are changed, so are also the names in Indian English. India can't however decide if British English, American English, Australian English etc. should follow the change in Indian English. It's up to the people (and in some aspects the governments) of the UK, the US, Australia and of other English speaking countries. Btw Москва is written Moskva with Latin letters. --Boivie 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I had not thought of that. Sylvain1972 17:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Another reason: because Italy, Russia, and Austria don't want us to, whereas India has asked nicely. 69.140.12.199 08:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that Italy, Russia and Austria wouldn't prefer that we didn't make up our own names for their cities/countries. Sylvain1972 15:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason is misplaced post-colonial guilt: it isn't a good reason. It might be more pertinent for Western Governments to reduce tariff barriers for former colonies or pay for educational schemes, instead of which we salvage our consciences by heeding every spurious name-change by corrupt (and sometimes ultra-nationalist) post-colonial elites. 'Bombay' was renamed to 'Mumbai' (an invented name with no historical resonance) by the Shiv Sena-controlled Municipality, who are fascists and responsible for several pogroms against Muslims and Sikhs in the city: there is no way we should be paying attention to any of their renamings. With Madras and Calcutta it is different: these have always been Chennai and Kolkata in Tamil and Bengali respectively - but not in Indian English. Consequently Indians who are not Bengali or Tamil speakers mostly continue to use the original names. I would also like to make the point that there is a difference between re-naming a street, city or country with an overtly Imperialist name (Cecil Square, Salisbury, Rhodesia springs to mind) and attacking perfectly innocent corruptions of local names as overtly 'Imperialist'. 'Calcutta' is derived from the Bengali 'Kalikata', 'Bombay' from the Portuguese 'Bom Bahia', and Madras frm the Portuguese/Tamil 'Madraspatnam'. There is nothing particularly English about any of these names, any more than there was about 'Chowringhee' in Calcutta, which for some incomprehensible reason was renamed Jawaharlal Nehru Road. Does anyone use this name? Do they hell! Other names are English, but simply descriptive and politically neutral (such as Marine Drive in Bombay, now renamed after the controversial Indian Nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose by, you've guessed it, the Shiv Sena). Finally, frequently in cases where the name does have overtly imperialist overtones, a popular indigenisation has already taken place, e.g. 'Veetee' for 'Victoria Terminus'. So why not let the names evolve naturally? Because politicians always want to make their mark, make speeches, be present at unveilings, and this is a cheap and easy way of looking active and 'radical' whilst doing precisely 0 for your constituents, who have better things to do than worry about new road signs (ask a taxi-driver to take you to "Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Marg" in Bombay and you'll soon see what I mean). In the West we are terrified of accusations of post-colonial arrogance, so we never interrogate this issue in the way we should. Sikandarji 21:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"The renamings refer to English language usage, and it is not clear that Indian municipalities have the authority to enforce this, or that there was anything 'colonial' about the former mispronunciations and mis-spellings of local names which existed in English (as with the English 'Florence' and 'Venice', rather than the Italian Firenze and Venezia)." Except the english never invaded and renamed Italy. It's absolutely clear that the names were "colonial" seeing as the place was a colony, how much more colonial could it get. The apologetic Stockholm syndrome attitude of the yes massa brigade is exactly why the places were renamed. Now the mashup names associated with these places is at least homegrown and not decided by some viceroy. The above quoted section is not NPOV and makes a legal judgement without references or responsibility. 83.70.31.61 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "It's absolutely clear that the names were "colonial" seeing as the place was a colony, how much more colonial could it get." well, that's a circular argument if ever I heard one. By that definition ALL Indian place-names are "colonial", but clearly that is not the case. A perfectly good example has been given of comparable mis-spellings in a country which was never colonised, which is all the evidence that is needed to show that this is not a peculiarly colonial phenomenon. As for legal judgments - since when have municipalities had the power to legislate on English language usage? Perhaps they're the ones who need some references. It's not as if the British went around calling everywhere "Piccadilly Circus" (as they often did in Africa). There are a very few names of this type, mostly in Pakistan (Abbottabad, Lyallpur) but even in this they were just following the practice of the Mughals. There is nothing "colonial" about Madras, Bombay or Calcutta. These are cities which did not even exist before the British presence, so they cannot be said to have been "renamed", and in any case these names are quite plainly not English - no-one ever 'decided' upon them at all, they evolved. That's the point.Sikandarji 12:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism and Shiv Sena are themselves colonial constructions. So lets get rid of them too!!! There was no Hinduism before the British. Hinduism, India are British inventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.177.112 (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points. I'm not sure that British Europeans "have to" use these new names for Indian cities (or Chinese ones for that matter), but our (British) Media started using the new names - without bothering to say why. I can only assume that it is something that was insisted upon by the governments of those countries and our media has meeky complied to dictats from on high. Personally I prefer the old fashioned standard English names Bombay, Calcutta and Madras (and Peking and Canton), and Moscow and Rome and Vienna, Germany and Holland and Italy and Warsaw and ... etc, etc, (etc, ad infinitum ad nauseam) John2o2o2o (talk) 10:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

'starting in 2005'?
What do you mean 'starting in 2005'? Since when was it a only a controversy from that year and why? hydkat 07:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Further to this, the lead section of this article semms to suggest that the renaming started in 2005. However, for the big examples given at the end of the lead 1995, 1996 and 2001 are the dates given in their atricles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.103.77 (talk) 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Obscure"?
Quoth the article:

For example, Mumbai's Victoria Terminus railway station has been renamed Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus, for reasons which to many remain obscure, given the tenuous connection between this 17th century Maratha warrior and the coming of the railways to India.

The sentence sort of implies that the reasons for changing the name period are obscure, but I don't think the reason that you'd want to take Queen Victoria's name off of things would be all the obscure, honestly. Perhaps is this more in line with the intention?

''For example, Mumbai's Victoria Terminus railway station has been renamed Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus. The reasons behind the new name chosen remain obscure to many, given the tenuous connection between this 17th century Maratha warrior and the coming of the railways to India.''

Even so, the sentence seems a bit cantankerously POV. Must every railway station in the world be named after someone railway-related? Is the urge to name prominent public buildings after national heroes that mystifying? --Jfruh (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for more information
When was Bombay and Calcutta renamed? I don't see the information in this article nor in the Mumbai article. It should be made more prominent. --Ben Houston 22:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

POV
"Furthermore the politics of some of these name changes are questionable, those in Bombay being in response to the demands of the Hindu Nationalist Shiv Sena party. 'Mumbai' is probably derived from the temple of Mumba-Devi in Bombay, and although there is no evidence that it was the name of a settlement before the arrival of the Portuguese, who called it Boa Baía (good bay), it has long been the name of the city in Marathi and Gujarati, whilst Hindi-speakers called it Bambai.[1] However, some argue that as the renaming was part of the Shiv Sena's Bhumiputra (son of the soil) policy, it is an attempt to erase evidence of the city's cosmopolitanism and multi-lingual character.[2]" Loaded with POV. Allegations stated as fact.--Babub→ Talk 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's referenced, which is more than can be said for the rest of the article. What exactly is the objection here? That Bombay wasn't renamed by the Shiv Sena? That the latter is not a Hindu Nationalist Party? That they don't have a Bhumiputra Agenda? That this isn't part of it? Please be more specific rather than making sweeping objections. Sikandarji 05:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why the assumption that the politics of Hindu nationalism are questionable? "Furthermore the politics of some of these name changes are questionable" Wikipedia is not a propaganda site. You don't tell the readers what is questionable, notable etc. Let them decide.--Babub→ Talk 12:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let them decide, without giving them any indication of the issue they're deciding. Propaganda is not propaganda, I guess. 208.111.222.96 00:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Boa Bahía"
I have tagged this claim as dubious, on the grounds that it conflicts with the well-sourced statement on featured article Mumbai. Could someone with understanding of the subject reconcile the two please. DWaterson 22:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still to find a solid reference to this. In the "Enciclopédia Luso-Brazileira" I own, it's mentioned that Bombaím is named after the Indian goddess Mumba; in fact there is a phonetic similarity between Bombaím and "Bom Baía", but even so "bom" is a masculin adjective, whereas baía is a feminin noun, so it is very unlikely this is anywhere near truth. But I believe that if this was true and well documented, it would be on the encyclopedia - also because we could be happy about it! Muukalainen 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * José Pedro Machado's Dicionário Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa, one of the leading sources on onomastics and etimology in Portuguese, records the origin of the Portuguese toponym Bombaim as being the nema for the goddess Mumba (references can be found at the Mumbai article) and seems to reject the "Bom Bahia" alternative (which, by the way, doesn't make any sense whatsoever if you speak Portuguese). Gabbhh 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
Whatever is written about Bangalore under the Controversy sub-heading has no real relevance to a Controversy.deejaylobo 17:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Transliterations
Transliterations are not misspellings, and that other languages have different names for the same place is not indicative of one's being right. POV zzz 208.111.222.96 00:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

controversy section tag pov
the first paragraph is misleading, because the controversy is not to change the names how they are called in english but to change the way they're called in the indian languages wich is the way they are called in english--Andres rojas22 18:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Plain silly
A Scotsman, I do not mind Edinburgh, being Edimburgo in Italian and Spanish, Edinborg in Icelandic, Edinburgas in Lithuanian. likewise the Italians do not seem to mind their cities being known by English names, eg. Leghorn, Livorno; Florence, Firenze; Naples, Napoli etc. Why is it that there is such a problem with people referring to Bombay, Calcutta and Madras by their accepted and common names in the English language? By all means the use of the local vernacular name should be used when speaking the language, but not in English. When I go to the city in Sweden, I do not go to Goteborg, I go to Gothenburg. Brendandh 21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See the earlier thread about this, above. Sylvain1972 14:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs)


 * Please explain this to our Indian politicians, not us >>> Kensplanet (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chinese changed the name of Peking to Beijing. Ceylon became Sri Lanka. Burma became Myanmar. How come people don't have issues with that? I don't think the people of India care what somewhat in Iceland or Lithuania refers to - they merely changed the official name. In French, London is Londres, in Danish - India is Inde. You are free to call it whatever you want in your country - just as Indian should be free to call it whatever they want in theirs. DemolitionMan (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the correct Danish term for "India" is "Indien". Related words: "an Indian" = "en inder" (plural: "indere"); "Indian" (adjective) = "indisk") 83.89.16.138 (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the Indians have their own languages and they can call their cities whatever they want in their language. The issue is, when they try to use post colonial guilt to try to push their language and culture on the rest of us English speakers who had little to nothing to do with their colonialism.  BTW, I'm typing from a place nearby Saint Paul, MN, which would be San Pablo in Mexico, Sankt Paul in Dutch and Sao Paulo in Portuguese (Brazil be damned, hehe).  Keep the local names in the local languages and let the international speakers name it whatever they want.   They're named the names they have in the respective languages because it's hard for non-native speakers to pronounce the names of those towns.ColdRedRain (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * U are absolutely right. I think in English, even Sao Paulo in Brazil should be known as St. Paul in English. The Brazilian Govt. should allow it. All countries should allow other international speakers from other countries to name it whatever they want. This will also increase freindship and mutual understanding between cultures. ====== Kensplanet (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as long as Saint Paul, Brazil gets to share its weather along with its name with Saint Paul, Minnesota. It's freezing up here.

ColdRedRain (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Indians have their own languages and English is one of them - it is an official language of the State of India. How come there were no reservations when Peking became Beijing? And Indians are definitely not gonna care about feelings of post-colonial guilt. The official names should of course be of India's choosing. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am from Bombay and shall continue referring to it as Bombay. Same for Bangalore or Madras. Foreigners are encouraged to do the same. (122.169.79.202 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks for that - do us a favour and write to the BBC tell them the same. I have to say, although the subject was tragic, it was faintly absurd to see a BBC interviewer talking to the Indian former head of anti-terrorist operations about the terrorist attack today, when the BBC presenter insisted on referring to his city as Mumbai, whilst the senior Indian police official consistently used Bombay in his response. Lordrosemount (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The sad thing is this renaming of everywhere, has just created confusion and damaged the economy. There is enough Bureaucracy in India already without adding on this needless burden / handicap. Dual naming would have solved all that. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Title concerns
I think this article should be renamed Renaming of cities in India. In its present form it is a factually inaccurate article, appears to have been more of an attempt at POV pushing than a legitimate article. The very first sentence is factually inaccurate The Indian renaming controversy is a result of a movement, it is not any "movement", and it is not "controversy". The opposition to the renaming is depicted as controversy. What exactly the definition of "controversy"? There is no need to have an article like this under the present name solely to push a political agenda. But by moving to the proposed tile, more information about renaming can be included, not only the opposition.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Move request
To move this back to Indian renaming controversy.

Oppose

 * 1) Per Otolemur crassicaudatus in title concerns. There's a serious concern of NPOV vios as it is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) It is apparently not one single controversy but rather a series of controversies with different reasons in different cases. The new title is more general and is able to cover more different aspects of this topic. -- 85.181.17.21 (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Two queries

 * 1) "Madras to Chennai" is given as an example of European to Indian renaming. According to our article, the names are both derived from small towns or villages which were part of the early city development.
 * 2) "Bombay to Mumbai" is given as an example of "successful" renaming - while the West seems to have adopted it, I have heard a reporter remark "Mumbai - or Bombay as the locals call it".  Any furthre RS about this?
 * Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

Calicut?
Given that our article on that reasonably well known city is puzzlingly located at Kozhikode, I'd think it should be listed here? john k (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Is changing the spelling the same as renaming ?
Two contrasting examples:  Calcutta to Kolkata. This is obviously the same word spelled differently. Is a Kampground really different to a Campground ? Madras to Chennai. This is obviously a completely different word.Eregli bob (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's talk
Kwami, you made a very substantial delete of sourced content. No doubt there are improvements that can be made, but let's discuss and work together. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary kagami (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,255 bytes) (-4,637)‎ . . (how is it only Indian English? (and would that mean Mumbai should be moved back to Bombay?); other statements incoherent ("local langs" = English, etc)) (undo)
 * (A) it isn't only Indian English. Some changes in Indian English have passed on later to international acceptance. The article should mention that. I'm looking for a source, do you have one?
 * (B) other statements incoherent ("local langs" = English, etc)), the text says "local language and in English" not "local langs = English" please be specific. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, to which the response is to delete again with the summary "(rv. unsourced nonsense)" In ictu oculi (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the changes are made specifically to "Indian English"? Do you have a source for that?
 * You speak of changes in local languages, but the examples are all in English. I don't think English is normally considered a local language.
 * Other changes are good, such as pointing out that the "renaming" is often nothing more than a change in transcription. In fact, I think it might be worthwhile to separate the list accordingly. But because your changes overlap, I can't easily revert only the ones that need reverting, and it's too late to tease them apart manually. — kwami (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Kwamikagami
 * Thank you for Talking. We have not interacted before, but I have seen your behaviour to other users, and this is notice that when discussing with me you need to behave properly, understood?
 * This includes copying actual phrases for discussing, not rephrasing them, please. Re your 3 points:
 * (1) Are you saying the changes are made specifically to "Indian English"? Do you have a source for that?
 * (A1) No, certainly not. The changes were initially made to GOI usage. As the edits you deleted clearly stated.
 * (2) You speak of changes in local languages, but the examples are all in English. I don't think English is normally considered a local language.
 * (A2) The examples are not all in English, उत्तराखण्ड (पूर्व नाम उत्तराञ्चल) is among the examples in local languages. No English is not normally considered a local language which is why the content you deleted refered to "indigenous languages" as "local languages"
 * (3) Other changes are good,
 * (A3) If Other changes are good, that means that a blanket delete with the summary "(rv. unsourced nonsense)" is inappropriate
 * (4) "I can't easily revert only the ones that need reverting, and it's too late to tease them apart manually."
 * (A4) No one is asking you to. Your own previous edit history on this article is limited to minor but good stylistic edits 4 October. (1) (2) (3) above, I'm sorry, to me indicate that you didn't read carefully before 2 block deletes. I would prefer that you restore the text and work collegially using cn tags, or present a (4)(5)(6) of some other edits you wish to query. But maybe other editors will In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, can we have some reply here, or restore the delete. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed my concerns, only denied that they should be concerns.
 * (A1) If you don't believe the changes are specific to Indian English, why do you keep claiming they are?
 * (A2) Examples on the talk page do not count. What counts is what you actually put in the article.
 * (A3) is contradicted by (A4). — kwami (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Kwamikagami,
 * You were requested:, please.
 * Re your 3 points:
 * (A1) I don't believe the "changes are specific to Indian English", I don't keep claiming they are. Please read more carefully and then copy paste such a phrase.
 * (A2) उत्तराखण्ड (पूर्व नाम उत्तराञ्चल) isn't an example here on the Talk page, it is in the article, in English romanization obviously. Can you read devanagari script? Besides there are other examples you deleted, Allahabad, State names. Please read more carefully and then copy paste what you are objecting to.
 * (A3) We differ then. I can't see a scenario where I would block delete with the summary "nonsense" and then say "Other changes are good"
 * Will you please undo your delete so I can add sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Add more sources (online sources if possible). "Are you saying the changes are made specifically to "Indian English"?" IMO those changes can be added which are officially approved by Government, does not matter which sources use it and which don't. So, can you collect few sources which clearly mention it. Search in Google News, Google Books etc. I have access to HighBeam, JSTOR etc, let me know if you need anything from there! --Tito Dutta (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks TitoD, that's exactly what I was doing before the above block-delete and what I am hoping to do. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (A1): You title a section "Renaming in Indian English", but here you claim that it's not Indian English. This is incoherent.
 * (A2): You title a section "Renaming in local languages", but only discuss English. The section therefore has no content on its topic.
 * — kwami (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, You were requested:, please. That also includes here not rephrasing what I have said above in Talk.

(A1) "here you claim that it's not Indian English" Where here did I claim that? You asked ''Are you saying the changes are made specifically to "Indian English"? Do you have a source for that?'' and I replied (A1) No, certainly not. The changes were made to GOI usage. As the edits you deleted clearly stated. You then said "If you don't believe the changes are specific to Indian English, why do you keep claiming they are?" and I replied "I don't believe the "changes are to Indian English", I don't keep claiming they are. Please read more carefully and then copy paste such a phrase." Please read more carefully.

(A2) Is your objection that you want to see expansion to cover changes from मद्रास to चेन्नई while சென்னை remains unchanged? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not going to clip and paste. I expect you to be able to understand simple statements.
 * You say it's Indian English, but it's not Indian English, but you never said it's not Indian English, because you never said it is Indian English... Can you state, simply, whether it is or is not? And if it is, do you have a source for that?
 * I did read it carefully. The entire paragraph is about English, while you claim it's about local languages. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Kwamikagami,
 * First, can you read devanagari script?
 * (A1)
 * Whichever side it's on, we seem to have a communication problem here which is why for the fourth time I kindly request you to, please. I have already repasted what I said above. When we use words like and  in sentences they qualify the statements. In terms of the original article the term "GOI official English usage" or "State official English usage" would be more specific, when specificity is needed. But since the paragraph covers also take-up of GOI/State level changes in Indian English such as Times of India, then creating two separate paragraphs for "GOI official English usage" or "State official English usage" and "Indian English media adoption" seems at this point unneccessary. However if you will stop this roadblocking and full-delete behaviour the article can actually be improved.
 * (A2)
 * Please explain, how is this "about English"?
 * Please explain, how is this "about English"?


 * The section clearly mentions examples of renaming in local languages. Uttaranchal (उत्तराञ्चल) to Uttarakhand (उत्तराखण्ड), that is in Hindi primarily and only secondarily in English, so in what way is it "about English"? Repeat, is your objection that you want to see expansion to cover changes from Madras in Hindi (मद्रास) to Chennai in Hindi (चेन्नई) while Chennai in Tamil (சென்னை) remains unchanged? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't give any example of how local languages were affected, only of English. I agree that an actual change of name such as Uttarakhand, vs. a mere change of transcription in English such as Odisha, is a relevant distinction to draw, as is a change that affects languages other than English (I don't know if these are always the same thing). However, that was not actually explained in your edit. Maybe just a comment that the change affects all Indian languages? — kwami (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm quite amenable to adding that. Will you restore the article now so that work can continue? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There were a few other problems I don't remember off-hand, but they were probably minor. As long as we can justify claiming the language is or is not Indian English (I frankly don't know if that's even a meaningful statement, though I may be wrong), and discuss local languages when we say we're discussing local languages, then I think that takes care of my main concerns. Anything else I notice (assuming there is anything) I can probably just tag. — kwami (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I'm quite amenable to making changes, to "GOI official sources" etc., and frankly would have done that anyway if the article hadn't been reverted mid a series of ongoing edits, as far as Indian English that's a subject for Talk:Indian English. Now, will you please restore the article.
 * And out of interest, I'd still be interested to know if you can read devanagari script? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not used to people waiting for me to revert myself!
 * "Read" it, yes. But that doesn't mean I can understand what's written in it. — kwami (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahah, well I should have spelled out उत्तराञ्चल to Uttarakhand (उत्तराखण्ड) in Talk above when I first used it. But it was clear in the article. Thanks for restoring the page. I prefer to do it that way. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of a larger movement
Is there an article here on wikipedia that goes in depth about the renaming of colonially named places by their indigenous inhabitants? Does anyone know the name of the larger movement this is a part of? Is there some kind of overarching source of information about this? Username policy1211 (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merging with other articles and Spreadsheet capability required
This article is fine as it is, but other than a few examples of name changes it should not include an extensive list. That should be reserved for List of renamed places in India. There is also a list at List of city name changes. This is crazy. One list would cut down a lot on administration and make the whole process of cataloguing more efficient. In addition we should think of formatting the list in a way that would lend itself to downloading onto a spreadsheet. BeckenhamBear (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

City list
Why are there two lists? Are they all "Notable city names that were officially changed by legislation after independence" as the text explains? Or only the first group? Rmhermen (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * @Rmhermen I agree, it's wierd having two lists describing the same thing. I propose to merge them. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

what reason for changing the names of cities and stations in india.
what reason that the Indian goverment change the name of the cities, railway stations and public places of the India 122.176.44.167 (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)