Talk:Calcutta/Vote discussion

Move discussion

Wikipedia policy is to use the name that a subject is most commonly known as. Rick K 07:13, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose strictly on that this is the english WP article, not the Bengali WP article (where it's known as "Kolkata". English site -> english usage. Cburnett 07:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please examine what Indias most respected and leading english news papers use - (The Times of India), (The Hindu). These are widely read English dailies with standing. Could you please reconsider your view given these facts. Please reflect. Arunram 17:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett, I would like to inform you that Kolkata is very much an English spelling. You may also check out Windows XP (time zone) and CNN weather news and you would notice that they have changed to Kolkata. So how is it not to be featured in the Eng WP? Nichalp 18:55, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The Telegraph, Calcutta, India [1] and the BBC [2] call it Calcutta. Face it, the bulk of english speakers call it Calcutta. Having lived in California, Texas, Illinois, and Iowa, I have never heard or seen it as Kolkata. Citing various Indian newspapers won't change that most English speakers know it as Calcutta. When the bulk of them call it Kolkata, then by all means bring back the vote. Until then, you aren't changing my vote. Cburnett 19:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How international "enough" should the name be? I've given you CNN and Windows XP; two well known brands. (Personally I don't like the name changes to all three cities, but this is an encyclopedia and should reflect what the current name is. I support the move for the change primarily to main consistency for Mumbai/Bombay; Calcutta/Kolkatta; Madras/Chennai.) It would be sheer ignorance on the part of most media publications not to switch over to the new names. When the name was changed to Kolkata, the govt of West Bengal stressed that the not only the name was changed, its English name was also changed and so would the corresponding spelling. Nichalp 19:24, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't checked the others but BBC usage is inconsistent - see for example [3]. --ALargeElk | Talk 16:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The number of Bengalis in the World is around 210 million and they all call the city Kolkata and not Calcutta. I doubt that the number of non-Bengali people who know Kolkata is larger than that. So, it is commonly known as Kolkata. Just to convince one further, due to Indian Central Government's official adoption of the spelling Kolkata, we can safely say that literate people in India and a fairly sizeable number of illiterate population now call the city Kolkata. Indian population is over a billion, if I am not mistaken. So much for the "commonly known" case. As for the second argument above, names of things are not English or Bangla (no, it is not Bengali). A name is a name and the person whose name it is has total right to spell it the way he/she likes. So, if the people of Kolkata prefer to call the city Kolkata, so be it! Those are my two cents. Urnonav 08:24, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the name changes would Calcutta be kept in the first sentence. What would be the first sentence of the article? Philip Baird Shearer 08:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Mumbai Nichalp 18:55, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

See also Chennai. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 16:53, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Right, and we should move Spanish language to Español language or Bengali language to Bānglā language (along with every other language); Eiffel Tower to Tour Eiffel; Christ the Redeemer to Cristo Redentor; etc.; etc.; etc. No, it's absurd. "Calcutta" is the way the name is in English. To propose we change it to what the natives say it is is just downright absurd because there are uncountable number of places, names, things, etc. that are named differently in the native tounge.

Maybe we should hop on over to es:Estados Unidos and move it to es:United States because my native tounge says it's "United States" not "Estados Unidos". Better yet, how dare the Japanes spell United States as ja:アメリカ合衆国

Sorry, your logic is 100% faulty. With regards for your scolding of using "Bengali", the Bengali language article says "Bengali" is the english word so appears you're logic in this regard is faulting again. I think you are acting and arguing with tunnel vision because, I presume from your user page and that your name is Bengali, you're from Bangladesh or something. Cburnett 08:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now Calcutta has been changed to Kolkata in all international flight booking systems. --Soman 10:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, since when is the English wikipedia an international flight booking system? That's right, it's not. Cburnett 18:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First note, I am not trying to be hostile; apologies if it seems that way. OK, so let's analyse the sitatuations you gave above. Tour is tower in English and Eiffel is spelled just as it is in French. So, apparently the French name is being used here. 'United' and 'states' are both dictionary words that can be translated. Spanish is an English word referring to Español; I accept that point and that is why instead of randomly changing 'Bengali' to 'Bangla', I am requesting a convention. (Also note, if you check Cambridge Advanced Learners' Dictionary, you will find the word Spanish, but as of now, like in most major dictionaries, there are no entries of the words 'Bengali' or 'Bangla'.) Kolkata is not a word like 'united', 'states' or 'tower' that can be translated. There is no word in English that uniquely means 'Kolkata'. Calcutta is an attempted transliteration and hence, a change is justified.

With respect to invoking numbers. I was trying to argue with the notion of 'commonly known'. Commonly known by who? People who know Kolkata? I think they also know the actual name of the city. By putting Calcutta as the main article, a wrong transliteration will continue to be 'commonly known' because we did not make an effort to improve the situation. It will become a vicious circle. "Why is 'Calcutta' used?" "Because it is 'commonly known'." "Why is it 'commonly known'?" "Because we insist on using it." Urnonav 18:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Commonly known by most of the world. It's not a "wrong transliteration". It was the official name of the city, used by Indians as well as non-Indians, for a long, long time. You can't argue that that was wrong, since it's a proper name. Proper names frequently don't actually mean anything - that doesn't make them wrong. -- Necrothesp 12:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is a different issue that as regards top many European cities old English namings persist and are widely accepted (such as Munich). In the case of Kolkata, it is a a change of name in a country in which English is used as a state working language and the change from Calcutta to Kolkata not only applies to Bengali but also English and all Indian languages. --Soman 10:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, a quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". That's definitely Calcutta. I don't see how you could argue otherwise. Note that this is not Bengali Wikipedia, in which Kolkata would be perfectly valid, just as München would be the logical heading for Munich in German Wikipedia. This, however, is English Wikipedia. The majority of Indians cannot be classified as English speakers, even if English is an official language of India. -- Necrothesp 12:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am compelled to share, my view here Necrothesp. Why should one always go by current naming conventions? Maybe there is an opportunity to even better these defined conventions. We must always keep that in mind. What is sacrosanct about the current intrepretations and conventions if they may not be applicable/appropriate in their current form. Everything is subject to change if there is merit and good reason. Please picture this, if for some reason the city of London was decided to be renamed to "Lunden" (obviously hypothetical), thats the name we should all call it. It does not matter, say, if people speaking hindi used to call it "London" and still do so. Whether it is an entry in the Hindi or English wikipedia. Besides we can always have an alias Calcutta pointing to Kolkata. Wikipedia gives us all that flexibility. This is a trivial issue and request us all to reconsider whether we need to really debate and vote on this. Necrothesp, please do think about what I am saying and reflect. I dont believe the naming convention you are referring to applies for city names. Lets reach a consensus here please. Arunram 16:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia. And most English speakers know the city as Calcutta. I fail to see why Indian cities should be a special case anyway. We have Munich, Cologne, Moscow, Rome, Venice, Belgrade, etc, etc, here, all known by their Anglicised names. Why are we even considering making an exception? What's so special about Calcutta? People seem to be insisting that there's somehow a difference because English is an official language of India. So what? It doesn't change the fact that the city is commonly known as Calcutta to English speakers around the world. And incidentally, I couldn't care less whether or not London is referred to as Londres on the French Wikipedia, for example, since that's what the French call it, despite it not being its official name, so why all the fuss about Calcutta? -- Necrothesp 18:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is unique about Calcutta is that the English spelling was also formally changed and respective governments also have noted the name change. Nichalp 19:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The English spelling? How can a foreign city have an English spelling? The Anglicised spelling is Calcutta. -- Necrothesp 11:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Foreign with respect to whom? Can the cities of Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand not select their English names but they are foreign to England? Demi 08:25, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

What do you mean by foreign? It may be foreign to you. This is wikipedia, not a collection of exotica. Nichalp 18:52, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

You don't believe there's such a thing as Indian English? You don't think we should use it? Or you don't think the Indian English spelling is as claimed? Alai 04:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Bengali name for Calcutta is not "Kolkata" but "কলকাতা". Trying to invoke millions of Bengali speakers, apart from not being a legitimate objection to the name "Calcutta" on the English Wikipedia, is actually meaningless here. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 18:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the name Calcutta is more popular, but we should maintain consistency for Mumbai/Bombay; Chennai/Madras; Calcutta/Kolkata. When World Book, CNN and Windows XP have switched over I don't see why we should not reflect the current spelling of the city name. World governments have taken cognizance of the name change [CIA] and we should strive for an updated page. Nichalp 19:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The argument that the "most common name" should be used is understood but it must not force incorrectness on the encyclopedia. It may be "most common" to misspell Johns Hopkins "John Hopkins" or some other variant but that doesn't mean we should so refer to it. Demi 08:25, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

(added after edit conflict) Thanks everyone for participating. I would like to clarify a few points I think people may be overlooking (disclaimer: I am of Bengali descent, although I was born in the United States and English is my native language). I do agree for the most part with using English names for places; es:Estados Unidos and Moscow seem perfectly appropriate to me. However, I feel there are a few differences in this case. I think the point of English having such a prominent role in India is that it is that the "Bengali" and "English" names are not as clear-cut as some imply. As mentioned above, India's English-language newspapers and so on use the name "Kolkata". I think the point of mentioning the large number of Indians is that India has a significant number of English speakers who might expect to see "Kolkata" on the English Wikipedia. While I respect Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (use English), I would also like to point out that it states "As a reminder, all national standards of English spelling are acceptable on the English-language Wikipedia, both for titles and content." One could argue that Kolkata is the name in Indian English; certainly it seems to be used in Indian English publications. As an Indian topic, it would seem appropriate to use Indian English spellings. Further, I am not certain if Naming conventions addresses what to do when the official name of something changes, as Calcutta's name did a few years ago. While I support using the most common name in general, I do not that we should wait until more than 50% of people are more familiar with the new name, and then switch. As I mentioned in my nomination, other reference works (the UN's Cartographic Department, Encarta, Encyclopedia Britannica) all already have updated their articles. It seems strange for Wikipedia to be the one lagging behind. They also consider this a name change, not a different-language issue. For instance, Encarta's article on Moscow is under "Moscow", with "(Russian Moskva)" in the first sentence; same with the Encyclopaedia Britannica which begins its "Moscow" article with "Russian Moskva". In contrast, the corresponding is under "Kolkata" and begins with "formerly Calcutta". If we are not going to move this page, I would like someone to address the number of news media and reference works which use the new name and why we do not do the same. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 19:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have an ambivalent position here. On average, I think my preference is to use Calcutta/Madras/Bombay over Kolkata/Chennai/Mumbai. I'd add that there are considerably more google hits for "Calcutta" than for "Kolkata", while there are somewhat more hits for Chennai and Mumbai than for Madras and Bombay, so current policy at least has google behind it, if nothing else. At any rate, I'd like to offer a tepid dissent from the language of some of the people I agree with on the basic question, in that the situation of these Indian cities is clearly different from those of Moscow or Cologne, because India is an English-speaking country. That said, just about every Indian person I know still refers to these cities as "Calcutta," "Madras," and "Bombay." Including people from the regions involved. While the de jure English names may in fact be these new names, the old names remain de facto in use. I'm not sure how important this is, though. The fact that these new names are so recent, and are artifacts of a particular political movement which has recently lost power, also suggests at least the possibility of temporariness to the new names. I fear that my preference for the more familiar names doesn't have much in the way of principle behind it, save that all of these things are a judgment call. I guess my basic feeling is kind of a wait and see - in a few years, the new names may well be familiar enough to become the article titles, in the same way that it took a long time for the English language to accept the Polonization of the names of various central European cities. I will state categorically that any discussion of these cities in the past ought to use the older names. john k 21:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We've been through this before, several times, and in the end the "use English" and "use common names" policies are the only ones for which consensus can be shown. See for example Talk:Kiev. There was a poll last year at Wikipedia:Naming policy poll and a clear majority of opinion supported the Wikipedia policy of "Geographic articles should be named after what most English speakers would call them, even if that is different than the official English spelling." See Wikipedia:Naming policy poll/FAQ for explanation of the rationale behind this policy. In particular, the poll specified this article specifically as one which the poll affected. Until it can be demonstrated that "Kolkata" constitutes the majority of contemporary English-language usage, this article should stay at "Calcutta". Nohat 03:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think clearly, we should use English names. But this is an Indian article, and the manual of style clearly mandates we use the local variety of English. So which is the more common reference in Indian English? If that usage is significantly split, international usage is a valid 'decider', however. (Thanks for the pointers to the three Indian newspapers, and their varying usage; any more references in that vein?) For 'Raj' historical references, clearly Calcutta should remain; and both names should appear in the first sentence of the article. Alai 05:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whats the standard here, if we have a totally new name for Kolkata tomorrow, nothing that sounds like Calcutta / Kolkata, will there be the new name on the title and you would have the first sentence as formerly known as Calcutta or Kolkata? Or is Wikipedia going to still have it called Calcutta? What was done when Burma became Myanmaar? Was there a debate? If it were continued being called as Burma, then I guess Wikipedia community would not be keeping with times. So why this discussion about Calcutta? Does this argument exist here because all of you still feel phoenetically they are 'similar', so why change the spelling? We must note here that the spelling has been changed with a purpose. The purpose to have the spelling corrected is to have the name with a sound that is more appropriate and conveys a meaning to it. Bombay means nothing at all in any Indian language. Bombay was once known as Mumbai and you can refer other wikipedia articles as to why. So it is only fair to call it mumbai. Personally I feel Bombay sounds better, but this time I'll put my feeling below the sanctity of the name, and my motivation comes from the discussions above. Everyone has a right to pronounce the way thats convenient to them, but not the right to change (and sometimes mutilate) the spelling. And if there is an official statement released by the govt. for the name change, we must respect a country's decision on that and not hang on with "In English, it is called so". And yes Kolkata will someday be the most known name and not Calcutta, and Wikipedia has already been late in adopting it! Maybe it is a harsh reality, but the English need to update their diction on this name if it comes to it! - madhavi --Madhavim 10:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you provide no good reason as to why Indian cities should be a special case. "Bombay means nothing at all in any Indian language," you say. "Venice" means nothing in Italian either, but few people would support its move to "Venezia" on this website - most English speakers (including, I suspect, most Indians) call it Venice. -- Necrothesp 11:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Necrothesp, here's why. In venice they dont speak english as an official language. In India and they do and the offical use of "Kolkata" in communication is English and in national newspapers has already been pointed to by me. Are these not facts. Why dont you respond to this fact and goive your position. We all cannot counter facts, but only perception. And you should also answer this, why is Beijing/Myanmar an exception? After all they were offical name changes and wikipedia has accepted them? Can you answer this fact. After all in China they dont speak English as an offical language and this is the English wikipedia. Please answer this and state your position. I am sure you will then see the point. Hope this answers your query. Please reflect you might change your viewpoint after considering these facts. The issue here is the change management in other English speaking lands and slow pace of it than appropriateness of the name change. Arunram 12:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I already have given my position and have no intention of changing it. It's irrelevant that in India English is an official language - India is de facto no more an English speaking country than Germany is (I would suspect that a higher percentage of Europeans speak fluent English than Indians). The common name of the city is still Calcutta and that's the issue, not what language it's in. And if it were me, I'd also use Burma and Peking. Very few people in the wider world call Burma Myanmar, and most people probably wouldn't even know what the latter was; Beijing has been adopted by the media, true enough, but its name was Peking for much longer than Beijing and that's still the familiar name for most people. -- Necrothesp 12:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This sounds slightly silly to me. You surely are entitled to your view! The pity is that an intellectual discussion stops when one of the members have decided "Thats it! No matter what, I have made up my mind".

The other thing is, one cannot disrespect any country's position on the official naming! Just like one cannot be called by their nick names / alternate names unless permitted by the name bearer, one cannot give a name that one thinks is correct to some country / state / place!

And what do you mean by wider world? I'm sorry, I suspect the people of this wider world are mysteriously trapped in olden times! I recall our school text books changed to update Burma to Myanmaar! and no! I don't belong to Burma!! I am grateful to our education system that keeps us up with changes!

As far as Peking goes, it appears I belong to the next generation and for me it is Beijing! Peking is history!

--Madhavim 12:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's somewhat rich, since you too have obviously made up your mind!

I don't know if you've noticed, but on Wikipedia we do use nicknames if that's the common name used for an individual. Nobody has to get their permission. And this site isn't run by the Indian Government!

I think you'll find most people still know the country as Burma. Particularly true for Britain, since many of our relatives spent years fighting there in the 1940s (my father being one of them). You don't just change what you call a country because some government, especially not a totalitarian one, decides on an official name change. Britain and the United States, for instance, do not recognise the change; neither do many Burmese opponents of the regime. -- Necrothesp 14:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guess you did not get the point. Bombay does not mean anything in any Indian language, while Mumbai has a meaning! And coming to why Indian cities should be any special ? Well, I look at it from a different view point altogether! I wonder what the other cities all over the world whose current spellings probably are far from the original official spellings/pronunciations are doing. And Indian cities are no special case! A case is special if you try to give it something it is not!

"Mumbai - Mumbai is an eponym derived from the local Hindu goddess, Mumbadevi, Etymologically, Mumba is the name of the godess and Aai stands for mother in Marathi." As you can see, there is a significant etymology to it!

You must understand that for a significant while lot of things have changed from their originals in India during British occupation! I think it is just that India is making some changes here!

Accepting change is not an issue in just Wikipedia. Even the Indians have to accept the change and sometimes it is tough, sometimes it sounds silly! But then, I think, there is a certain time when every country would want to move out of the garb/robes in which it has been dressed in by its occupants/conquerors!

So when these things are happening conciously in a country, it makes no sense to say, "Hey you can change your name, but we will not!". At best one can chronicle the old name, for history, for archives!

If I belonged to Venezia, and I strongly believe my country should be called so worldwide and not Venice, I would have the same argument to make.

We need to embrace change! Gracefully!--Madhavim 12:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The meaning is irrelevant. The names of most cities don't actually mean anything, although they may have done once. "London" doesn't mean anything in English either. I really don't understand why you feel so strongly when I couldn't care less what the French call London? I'm perfectly happy that they refer to it as "Londres", even if it's wrong. They've done so for hundreds of years. They can call England "Angleterre" if they like too. That's the familiar French name. That's what French people would recognise. Fair enough. It doesn't mean I have to. Why get so obsessed over what other people call your city/country, particularly when, unlike the terms I've just mentioned, it actually was the official name of said city for a long time? -- Necrothesp 12:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point here is not about being obsessed. But if something has an official name, we should respect it!

Coming to meaning of cities, I think you cannot generalize that they have no meaning. Lot of Indian cities have a meaning or a reason to be named so. Take for instance a city called "Bangalore", well, this is also not the correct name. The real name was "Bendha-Kaal-ooru" literally in a language called Kannada (spoken in Karnataka State of India) means "Town of Boiled Beans" because, apparently "King Veera Ballala, who was hungry and famished, received a meal of boiled beans from a kindly woman." and decided to call it so.

I have a gut feel that if the renaming trend catches up to this city, very soon Bangalore could end up being called "Bendakalooru" ... just kidding!

--Madhavim 13:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That completely illustrates my point. Bangalore's name used to mean something, but it has now been corrupted over time so that it no longer does. That's the case with most cities. The names of most towns in Britain used to mean something, but their meaning is usually either in a language that's no longer spoken or has become so corrupted over time that it no longer does mean anything in modern English. It doesn't mean it's an incorrect name - it's just the way language happens to work. So, again, this is no reason to make an exception for Calcutta or any other Indian city. -- Necrothesp 14:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's irrelevant that in India English is an official language - India is de facto no more an English speaking country than Germany is , says necrothesp

This is completely absurd. English is the language of government in India. Every educated person speaks English, and has to speak English to communicate with other Indian people. Whether or not this means that we should use Kolkata, I don't know (I'm inclined towards "no," as I've said). But it is a different situation from German cities, and pretending it's not is just ignorant. Germans, obviously, can all talk to each other in German. On the other hand, I notice that those supporting the move have not addressed my point that actual Indian people often still refer to these cities by the old names. john k 14:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

John, I agree that many people use both the old name and the new name, as you have rightly mentioned in your note. But the fact remains that the new name has taken over from the old and as with all things change management takes a while to kick in. Change is difficult. For example it took me a while to use Chennai in lieu of Madras though the name Chennai has been in use for long before it became official. But whether the old name is still used by Indian people is besides the point. The fact remains that Kolkata is the offical name used, and is gaining in popular usage slowly replacing Calcutta. It is not for us to choose what to call the city. The city has chosen its formal name. The core issue here is who has a right to vote on a name that city has chosen to use as its offical name in English. Are institutions like the the CIA (fact book), Microsoft (XP), UN, Flight booking systems all wrong if they choose to use official name when they use English to communicate. The position some of us are taking to choose an older name, no longer official, is merely an attempt to not embrace inevitable change. I look up to Wikipedia as a Change Agent and not one trailing in adopting change. As an aside, Why did the English language adopt for example the word guru (a hindi word), when there were more popular words like "teacher". Simply the openness of the language to adopt new works from others. But do all people use "guru" and are familiar with it. No. It doesnt have to be so. In the case of use of Kolkata it is not even a choice, it is simple the offical name of the city in English. You may out vote the few of us who are voting for the proposition but the fact remains that some who are voting are not willing to respect the fact that the people of Kolkata choose to call their city so in English as well as their native tongue. By ignoring it one is merely not sensitive to that fact or are simple resistant to enevitable change. Even the BBC is using Kolkata (see article with use) and Calcutta interchangeably since they are also coping with change. If Kolkata is only the name used by the Bengalis in their native tongue, pray tell me why is the BBC using it in their articles. Why not stick to the use fo "Calcutta" in their articles? Read about the BBC's article on the Kolkata carnival (read article). They dont call it a Calcutta carnival. I appeal to all your sensibilities to consider the views of some of us who believe it is fair and right to vote for the motion. I would be disappointed if I do not succeed in driving a consensus and get some of you to consider the viewpoint in support of the motion. But the facts remain. I rest my case. Arunram 15:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My point was merely that invoking x million Indians, many of whom do not speak English, does not make a valid reason for changing the name. -- Necrothesp 14:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wish that those wanting the move would cease to pretend that this has very much to do with the popular will. I would imagine that the vast majority of residents of the city, to say nothing of the millions of other inhabitants of India, couldn't care less whether or not the city is called "Calcutta" or "Kolkata". A vocal minority pushed through these name changes, and another (perhaps smaller?) minority opposes them. But this has very little to do with popular sovereignty. I'll add that, of course, "Kolkata" isn't simply the Bengali name. It is the "official name," whatever that may mean. These Indian cities are in a rather unique position, though. I'm not sure there's any good comparisons to be made. I do think that, eventually, we'll have to switch the page, assuming the name change sticks. I'm just not sure that we're to that point yet. I dunno, I think at least half of my vote is just my dislike of all this random name-changing, when there are these perfectly decent familiar names for places. Ah well. john k 15:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not seeing the whole point of this discussion. OK, so yes we want people to find this article when they look for Calcutta. I do not disagree that there are people - and possibly a very large number of them - who would search for Calcutta rather than Kolkata. Whatever they look for, they will find it anyway. OK, then why not just leave it at Calcutta? Because we want Wikipedia to stick to what's right and not what's liked by more people; as a humble contributor, I refuse to give people a spelling just because they have known it for very long. Just because you know something for very long doesn't mean it is right, e.g. Sun's rotation around Earth issue, Earth's being flat issue, etc.

The entire point of having an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia is violated if we just go by popularity contests; accurate information doesn't go by democracy, unfortunately. OK, so what great thing is achieved if we move the actual page to Kolkata? A person looks for Calcutta and finds the Kolkata page. He reads in the first line that it used to be formerly spelled by the Governments of India and West Bengal as Calcutta but it is not spelled that way any more; he learns something new. Now if the same information is provided in the Calcutta article, I would argue the effect would be confusion. "Well, then why's still under Calcutta in Wikipedia? Hmmm.. may be they didn't change it... or did they?" See what I mean? An average visitor couldn't care any less about our standards!

As for the standards on Wikipedia, standards are made and revised; they are not "word of the Bible". W3C changes standards all the time. After centuries of various measurement standards, SI units were created using units that were not necessarily popular. There are organisations to constantly update standards that start appearing out-of-place. I would pick accuracy over popularity any day, especially in a case where people will find the exact same document even with the popular search keywords. Urnonav

Sooner or later Kolkata will be the name w.r.t tourism within India. So it is always good to know the latest and have the past for info only, than go in India and look for Calcutta and not even be cognizant of the fact that it is now called Kolkata. Maybe a phoenetic match will help recognizing them as the same, else you'll be wasting time.

Second thing, If the title were to remain Calcutta, will the first sentence state something like "Kolkata used to be called Calcutta during the British rule and Kalikata before that .. blah ... blah ..."? If the title is moved to Kolkata, a statement like "Calcutta is now called Kolkata" makes sense?

And since this is an encyclopedia, it better be accurate and not based on feelings, issues with accepting change, familiarity, etc. Things will become familiar only when it gets into usage! And there should be a start somewhere within each forum! And if the policies within wikipedia currently do not have a provision for it, lets make an effort to make amends to it.--Madhavim 09:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reasoning behind my supporting vote: I do not support the notion that "the name should be changed to be internally consistent within Wikipedia"; I think that argument simply doesn't hold water. Nor do I support the quantitative "what is more popular, that it shall be" argument in the case of place names, particularly with the robust redirect system we have. My reason lies in my dissapointment in growing up in a culture (American culture) that invariably feels (as a group) "our way is best and ... what was your way, I forgot?" Consider it a blow from within Americana to help in some minor way roll back the Westernization of the planet in a broader sense. This might not be a "WikiProfessional" sentiment, but it is my sentiment nonetheless. Courtland 18:51, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

You seem to forget that Calcutta was the official name of the city until recently, that many Indians still call it Calcutta, and that many opposed the name change in the first place. This has nothing to do with westernisation. -- Necrothesp 19:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are many statements above that directly contradict your divorcing this from a Westernization issue. As a way of moving forward from prattle ... this was my reasoning and not yours, by the way ... tell me this. Is the information at http://www.calcuttaweb.com/history.shtml correct? Courtland 22:35, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

The westernization issue is intensely dubious as an argument, I think. These cities (Calcutta, Bombay, Madras) were not old Indian cities that the British renamed. They were tiny villages that the British turned into great metropolises. The idea that using the names the British used represents "westernization" is an odd one - these cities only exist because of the British presence. john k 07:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I joined this straw poll pretty late. I've read the discussion about Cologne/Köln, Munich/München and Venice/Venizia. FWIW, I voted to support the change, for only one reason. All the analogies given are names that are used in different languages simultaneously. Calcutta/Kolkata on the other hand is a name change. The official English transliteration changed from 'Calcutta' to 'Kolkata' in 2001, and this is completely independent of whether English is an official language of India or what language the local population speaks or what people know it by. In the absence of an official English name, we are probably justified in using 'Venice' or 'Munich' (correct me if I'm wrong - I don't know if those cities' English names are official or not). But when we do have an official English version of a city's name, I feel we're better off using that version. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 17:42, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Necrothesp, while you are right that many Indians still use the old name, the fact of the matter is that the names have been officially changed and we must move with the times. English is used as an official language by the government of India and city names have been changed. The name change is also recognised by world governments. In legal parlance there is a saying ignorantia juris non excusat which translates to ignorance of law does not excuse. Similarly ignorance of the official usage of the name should not be backed by sentiment, nostalgia and obtuse statements. Wikipedia strives for factual accuracy and with it comes the contemporary usage, which in this case is Kolkata. I also don't like the condescending tone you are using in this discussion. Nichalp 19:57, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Our naming conventions follow common usage, not official usage. Official usage is also POV and thus a violation of our NPOV policy when it contradicts common usage. --mav 21:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That the most ludicrous thing I've heard in this discussion. Why is the official name a POV when it is globally recognised by governments and the UN? Nichalp 20:12, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Why are official spellings full of POV? :-) -- Urnonav 07:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Google results

Calcutta/Kolkata
- "Calcutta" - 2,390,000
- "Kolkata" - 1,200,000
Bombay/Mumbai
- "Bombay" - 5,650,000
- "Mumbai" - 5,580,000
Madras/Chennai
- "Madras" - 1,740,000
- "Chennai" - 2,330,000

What is "common"?

After checking Wikipedia:Naming conventions, I realise that the source of our problem lies with the standard itself. The standard vaguely throws the term "common" everywhere without ever making an attempt to say what "common" should mean. From the discussion above it is fairly obvious we have an issue where a clear winner cannot be seen or in the cases where a marginal winner is visible the results seem to be biased - and the bias can be reasoned! The standard is not suitable because it is not at all helping us to resolve our issue; the whole point of a standard is that it will help in such cases! From what I see, we have a fairly good number of admins of Wikipedia here. Could you guys work on making the standard robust by defining a measure of "common"? What should we do in a marginal case? Are official spellings usable? -- Urnonav 07:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Urnonav, There is no easy way of determining when we have common usage of the word, for instance look at the different google searches that people have shown here. Also which sources should be considered when we try to determine common usage - official publications, encyclopedias, newspapers and news sources (if so which sources should be used), search engines etc. This is going to be absolutely essential when we come by controversial name issues like this where things are not very clear. Here one can back up either side of the claim based on what one looks at on the internet. We should start trying to formulte guidelines on what would be used to determine common usage, else this sort of debate will keep reappearing every few months. kaal 20:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It is fairly obvious from the poll above that, apart from the very rare person voting on the basis of "Wikipedia is never wrong and neither is its standard", most people define "common" as "common to me". It's a subjective measure and I do not hesistate to reject the validity of this method in dispute settlement. The poll too I find difficult to accept, on statistical grounds, because a sample of 40 people out of a few hundred million English speakers simply does not approximate the population closely enough - if it wasn't bad enough already, these 40 or so people are all from similar social situations! I have personally abused Google's search algorithms several times and I will not accept Google (or any other search engine) as a measure of common. If you haven't already seen this, just search for "miserable failure" in Google and you'll see what I mean; the top hit is an article with no mention of either of those words!!! We need an objective measure and urgently. -- Urnonav 00:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Google stats are hard to interpret, but it's seems as though it's already about 50-50 Kolkata/Calcutta. The statistics are skewed a bit, because:

"Calcutta" is still used as a gambling term, and there are other cases like "Calcutta Telegraph" has kept its old name, much like "Peking University" kept its old name... but these are not references to the city itself
Some articles will say "Kolkata (formerly Calcutta)" and then continue to use "Kolkata" in the rest of the article, but both of these will be counted equally in a Google count even though the actual usage in the article reflects "Kolkata".

The usage already seems to be a fairly close split — for those who claim they have never heard of "Kolkata" being used, I wonder which publications they are reading? — and the trend seems inevitable (just like Dacca → Dhaka and "The Ukraine" → Ukraine and other cases). And as far as I know, nobody is vowing to change the name back, unlike Burma → Myanmar where we nevertheless use "Myanmar". It seems the time is ripe to do this already... the current split is too close to call, but the trend is unmistakable. -- Curps 18:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)